{"cached_at":"2026-10-28T09:54:21.545430+00:00","cl_docket_id":"31444248","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","id":31444248,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9881115/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11016804/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11020983/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11034866/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2623/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2021-01-20T18:03:47.144506-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T05:32:23.941248-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Loretta A. Preska","referred_to_str":"Robyn F. Tarnofsky","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-06-10T22:54:32.082037-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2021-01-20","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-14","case_name_short":"Hasthantra","case_name":"Hasthantra v. CleanSpark, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc","docket_number":"1:21-cv-00511","docket_number_core":"2100511","docket_number_raw":"1:21-cv-00511","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"LAP","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"552577","cause":"15:78j(b)ss Stockholder Suit","nature_of_suit":"Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2021-01-20T18:03:47.140679-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11615196/","id":11615196,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611834/","attorney_id":9611834,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611835/","attorney_id":9611835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650127/","attorney_id":7650127,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-06-01T06:24:26.145167-07:00","date_modified":"2022-06-01T06:24:26.145187-07:00","name":"S. Matthew Schultz","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10954767/","id":10954767,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7171486/","attorney_id":7171486,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7171486/","attorney_id":7171486,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-08-04T08:57:51.054599-07:00","date_modified":"2021-08-04T08:57:51.054616-07:00","name":"Amir Kasbidi","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10954766/","id":10954766,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166000/","attorney_id":8166000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166000/","attorney_id":8166000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6762711/","attorney_id":6762711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6762711/","attorney_id":6762711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166001/","attorney_id":8166001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166001/","attorney_id":8166001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650125/","attorney_id":7650125,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650125/","attorney_id":7650125,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13591359/","attorney_id":13591359,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650124/","attorney_id":7650124,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Lead Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-08-04T08:57:51.030004-07:00","date_modified":"2021-08-04T08:57:51.030021-07:00","name":"Darshan Hasthantra","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10954765/","id":10954765,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7171485/","attorney_id":7171485,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7171485/","attorney_id":7171485,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-08-04T08:57:50.990384-07:00","date_modified":"2021-08-04T08:57:50.990401-07:00","name":"JunMin Liu","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10954764/","id":10954764,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7171484/","attorney_id":7171484,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-08-04T08:57:50.963253-07:00","date_modified":"2021-08-04T08:57:50.963284-07:00","name":"Kenneth Upton","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10329428/","id":10329428,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-02-28","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 02/28/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.477408-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.477446-08:00","name":"Lori Love","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10329427/","id":10329427,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611834/","attorney_id":9611834,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611835/","attorney_id":9611835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650127/","attorney_id":7650127,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.470323-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.470383-08:00","name":"Zachary Bradford","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10329426/","id":10329426,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650126/","attorney_id":7650126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611834/","attorney_id":9611834,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9611835/","attorney_id":9611835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7650127/","attorney_id":7650127,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.463223-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.463261-08:00","name":"CleanSpark, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10329425/","id":10329425,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166000/","attorney_id":8166000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166000/","attorney_id":8166000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166001/","attorney_id":8166001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8166001/","attorney_id":8166001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6762711/","attorney_id":6762711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","docket_id":31444248,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2024-02-01","extra_info":"Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated\nTERMINATED: 02/01/2024","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.427305-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-21T06:18:14.427355-08:00","name":"Scott Bishins","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481565403/","id":481565403,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497311870/","id":497311870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/127/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-14T16:08:48.446516-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T05:32:24.324144-07:00","sha1":"c5b8f9f3d4bb501e7bbc49fa8106d5388a56083f","page_count":4,"file_size":139684,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.127.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.127.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 127 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n DARSHAN HASTHANTRA,\n Individually and on Behalf of\n Others Similarly Situated,\n No. 21-CV-511 (LAP)\n Plaintiff,\n OPINION & ORDER\n -against-\n\n CLEANSPARK, INC., et. al,\n\n Defendants.\n\nLORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:\n\n Plaintiff seeks to file a \u201cmotion for leave to serve an\n\namended Merits Report for Dr. Zahn Bozanic, to address the issues\n\nraised at the Court\u2019s June 30, 2026, [] conference.\u201d (Dkt. no.\n\n122 at 1, see also dkt. no. 126.) Defendants oppose. (See dkt.\n\nno. 125.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff\u2019s request is\n\nDENIED. 1 0F\n\n\n\n\n After briefing and oral argument on the matter, the Court\n\npreviously granted Defendants\u2019 motion to preclude the reports and\n\ntestimony of Plaintiff\u2019s proposed expert, Dr. Zahn Bozanic,\n\npursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. (See dkt. nos. 107, 123\n\nat 28.) Specifically, the Court concluded that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s\n\n\n\n\n1 The Court has determined that it can resolve the underlying issue\nin the parties\u2019 pre-motion conference letters without further\nbriefing or argument on the matter. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579\nU.S. 40, 47 (2016) (\u201cdistrict courts have the inherent authority\nto manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the\nefficient and expedient resolution of cases\u201d).\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 127 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\nMerits Report is not the product of reliable principles and methods\n\nbecause his opinions depend fundamentally on his use of a 50\n\npercent confidence level 2\n 1F as the threshold for statistical\n\nsignificance and he did not apply that threshold consistently\n\nthroughout his work product. (Dkt. nos. 123 at 26-27.) Notably,\n\nthe Court found that:\n\n Dr. Bozanic himself admitted in deposition that \u201ca 50 percent\n level is not the convention in academic literature,\u201d and he\n acknowledged that a P-value of 0.05 (a 95 percent confidence\n level) is \u201ca reasonable and conventionally used statistical\n cutoff.\u201d Moreover, his own reply Merits Report\n acknowledge[d] that conventional cutoffs include \u201cthe 90\n percent, 95 percent, or 99 percent level.\u201d\n\n(Id. at 26) (citations omitted.)\n\n\n Plaintiff now seeks a second bite at the apple to \u201caddress\n\nthe issues the Court identified.\u201d (Dkt. no. 122 at 2.) Plaintiff,\n\nhowever, does not \u201cget a do-over.\u201d Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth. v.\n\nDow Chem. Co., 837 F.Supp. 3d 491, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2026) (quotation\n\n\n2Astonishingly, Plaintiff continues to assert that it is incorrect\nto \u201ccontend that Dr. Bozanic \u2018advocated\u2019 a \u201850% statistical\nsignificant threshold\u2019\u201d in his Merits Report. (See ECF 126 at 1.)\nThis assertion is belied by the plain text of the Merits Report.\nFor example, paragraph 69 of the report says, \u201cOverall, the\nCorrective Disclosure Events caused stock price movements that\nwere statistically significant at better than the 50% level\n. . . .\u201d (ECF No. 108-4 \u00b6 69). Similarly, paragraph 78 says,\n\u201cExhibit 3 summarizes the results of the event study I conducted\non the Corrective Disclosure Events, demonstrating that each\nalleged corrective disclosure listed in the table exhibits a\nnegative price reaction, and is statistically significant at the\n50% level or better.\u201d (ECF No. 108-4 \u00b6 78). Paragraph 117 says\nthat a \u201csingle day price decline is statistically significant at\nthe 57.2% confidence level.\u201d (ECF No. 108-4 \u00b6 78).\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 127 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\nmarks and citation omitted).\n\n Under Rule 16, a discovery schedule \u201cmay be modified only\n\nfor good cause and with the judge\u2019s consent.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P.\n\n16(b)(4). In determining whether to permit such a modification,\n\n\u201cthe primary consideration is whether the moving party can\n\ndemonstrate diligence.\u201d Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc.,\n\n496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007). Another relevant factor includes\n\nprejudice to the non-moving party. Id.\n\n Here, the Court finds that there is not good cause to modify\n\nthe discovery schedule. This case has been pending since 2021,\n\n(see ECF 1), Dr. Bozanic testified that his own statistical\n\nthreshold was not the convention in academic literature in October\n\n2025, (see ECF 108-7 at 427:22\u201324), and Defendants moved to exclude\n\nDr. Bozanic\u2019s report in December 2025, (see ECF 107). Yet\n\nPlaintiff did nothing to remedy the exceedingly obvious defects in\n\nDr. Bozanic\u2019s Merits Report until after the Court excluded it.\n\nPlaintiff cannot show diligence based on these facts.\n\n In addition, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to\n\nattempt to remedy the Merits Report would prejudice Defendants by\n\nprolonging the litigation and increasing defense costs. See\n\nSuffolk Cnty. Water Auth., 837 F. Supp. 3d at 498\u201399 (\u201c[T]he\n\nprejudice that would result to [the opposing party] from another\n\nround of Daubert motions and depositions, and the ensuing delay to\n\nthe case schedule, is too great to justify affording [the moving\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 127 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\nparty] an opportunity to fix a problem of their own making.\u201d).\n\n Accordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s request for leave to serve an\n\namended report is DENIED, and the Court finds that there is no\n\nneed for a conference on the matter. The Parties shall confer and\n\ninform the Court how they wish to proceed within two weeks of the\n\ndate of this order.\n\n SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: October 14, 2026\n New York, New York\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n LORETTA A. PRESKA\n Senior United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-14T17:32:15.705240-07:00","document_number":"127","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040543268","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum & Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-14T16:08:48.408400-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T05:32:24.285732-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-14","time_filed":"17:52:28","entry_number":127,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":439,"description":" OPINION & ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for leave to serve an amended report is DENIED, and the Court finds that there is no need for a conference on the matter. The Parties shall confer and inform the Court how they wish to proceed within two weeks of the date of this order. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/14/2026) (rro)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471648429/","id":471648429,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487058257/","id":487058257,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/126/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-21T14:11:11.424555-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-21T14:11:11.433582-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"126","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040014554","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-21T14:11:11.394579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-21T14:11:11.401728-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-21","time_filed":"16:51:51","entry_number":126,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":437,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471532258/","id":471532258,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486939283/","id":486939283,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/125/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-20T18:07:22.573416-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-21T04:41:29.155869-07:00","sha1":"fa5e131ef543d9a3a0dd25edef081a02f8c62542","page_count":4,"file_size":226783,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.125.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.125.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 125 Filed 07/20/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\nDavid J. Partida\nAssociate\n212.981.2313\ndpartida@wilkauslander.com\n\nJuly 20, 2026\n\nVIA ECF\n\nHonorable Loretta A. Preska\nUnited States District Judge\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n Re: Hasthantra v. CleanSpark, Inc., No. 21-cv-511 (LAP)\n\nDear Judge Preska:\n\n On behalf of Defendants, we write in response to Plaintiff\u2019s July 15, 2026\nletter requesting a pre-motion conference regarding a proposed \u201cmotion for leave to\nserve an amended Merits Report\u201d of Dr. Bozanic (\u201cBozanic\u201d),1 whose reports and\ntestimony this Court excluded on June 30, 2026. (ECF 122-1). No conference is\nneeded because Plaintiff has not identified any legitimate basis for such a motion.\nSee Judge Preska\u2019s Individual Practices 2(A).\n\n The Court correctly excluded Bozanic\u2019s reports and testimony after carefully\nconsidering the parties\u2019 extensive Daubert motion submissions and oral argument.\nNow Plaintiff wants a do-over. But courts overwhelmingly deny similar requests.\nSee, e.g., Exist, Inc. v. Tokio Mar. Am. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 7117369, at *1, *4\n(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2023) (denying application to serve amended expert report that\nwould replace one \u201cthat failed the test of\u201d FRCP 702 and Daubert, and collecting\n\n1\n Actually, Plaintiff seeks to enter two new reports (ECF 122-2, 122-3).\n\n\n825 Eighth Avenue | Suite 2900 | New York, NY 10019\n212.981.2300 | Fax 212.752.6380\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 125 Filed 07/20/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\nHon. Loretta A. Preska\nJuly 20, 2026\nPage 2\n\ncases); Lippe v. Bairnco Corp., 249 F. Supp. 2d 357, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)\n(\u201cPlaintiffs do not get a \u2018do-over.\u2019\u201d), aff\u2019d, 99 F. App\u2019x 274 (2d Cir. 2004).\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s appeal to the Court\u2019s discretion is a transparent attempt to\ncircumvent the strict requirements of a motion for reconsideration. See, Lee v. Delta\nAir Lines, Inc., 2025 WL 2463593, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2025) (motion due\nwithin 14 days of order\u2019s entry; \u201creconsideration will generally be denied unless the\nmoving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked\u201d).\n\n Moreover, Plaintiff does not satisfy the \u201cgood cause\u201d requirement of Federal\nRule of Civil Procedure (\u201cFRCP\u201d) 16(b)(4) \u2013 or even mention it \u2013 although expert\nreport deadlines passed long ago (ECF 100). See Exist, 2023 WL 7117369, at *3\n(\u201cquestion is whether plaintiff has shown good cause, as required by Rule 16(b)(4),\nto reopen the discovery schedule so that it can serve a new expert report in hopes of\nmeeting the admissibility standards of Rule 702 and Daubert on its second try\u201d);\nSuffolk Co. Water Auth. v. Dow Chem. Co. and Vibrantz Corp., 2026 WL 1980920,\nat *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2026) (treating application as \u201cRule 16(b)(4) motion\u201d).\nGood cause depends largely on the moving party\u2019s diligence. See, Exist, 2023 WL\n7117369, at *3.\n Plaintiff cannot demonstrate diligence. Like all parties since Daubert v.\nMerrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Plaintiff \u201chad notice of the exacting\nstandards of reliability [expert] evidence must meet.\u201d Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528\nU.S. 440, 455-56 (2000). In addition, Plaintiff has been on notice since February 27,\n2025 when Defendants challenged Bozanic\u2019s methodology and analysis during his\nfirst deposition. (ECF 108-2 at 31, 79, 143). Defendants continued to challenge\nBozanic\u2019s methodology and analysis, including the 50% statistical significance\nthreshold Bozanic advocated in his now-excluded reports, in the rebuttal report\nprovided by Garmaise dated September 12, 2025. (ECF 108-5). Yet, Plaintiff did not\nseek to revise the reports then, or in response to Defendants\u2019 subsequent Daubert\nmotion; it was only after the Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that Plaintiff sought to\n\u201camend\u201d them. Such tactical decisions are not diligence. See Exist, 2023 WL\n7117369, at *3 (plaintiff \u201cfail[ed] to explain why\u201d new information was not in\noriginal report); Suffolk, 2026 WL 1980920, at *3-4 (\u201cthey served supplemental\nreports to remedy these deficiencies only in response to this court\u2019s Daubert\nrulings\u201d).\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 125 Filed 07/20/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\nHon. Loretta A. Preska\nJuly 20, 2026\nPage 3\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s contention that prejudice to Defendants would be \u201cslight\u201d\n\u2013 like his claim that Bozanic\u2019s new expert reports would somehow \u201cstreamline[]\u201d\nthis case \u2013 is outlandish at best. Having already expended significant time, fees, and\neffort on comprehensively addressing Bozanic\u2019s previous reports \u2013 including by\ndeposing Bozanic, engaging their own expert, and preparing a comprehensive\nDaubert motion \u2013 Defendants would be thrust back to square one. Moreover,\nDefendants would need to depose Bozanic a third time, provide a new rebuttal report,\nand engage in another round of Daubert briefing. The proposed \u201camended\u201d reports:\n(i) revoke massive portions of Bozanic\u2019s opinions, e.g., changing a four-corrective\ndisclosure theory claiming total artificial inflation of $11.69/share to a one-\ndisclosure theory claiming artificial inflation of $1.49/share; (ii) introduce additional\nreliability concerns, e.g., by stating, despite massive changes, that nothing has\ncaused Bozanic to \u201cchange any of the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports and I\ncontinue to hold those opinions\u201d (ECF 122-3 \u00b6 3); and (iii) fail to address those\nDaubert motion arguments that the Court did not reach given its exclusion of\nBozanic\u2019s opinions on the grounds it identified on June 30. Thus, Plaintiff\u2019s\nproposed \u201camendment\u201d would seriously prejudice Defendants. See, Suffolk, 2026\nWL 1980920, at *5 (prejudice from more Daubert motions, depositions, and case\ndelay \u201cis too great to justify affording [Plaintiff] an opportunity to fix a problem of\n[his] own making\u201d). Notably, the Harrington case on which Plaintiff relies imposes\nwholesale cost-shifting on the party seeking the new report, to minimize prejudice.2\n\n Finally, Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on the factors in Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci.\nCommc\u2019ns, Inc., 118 F. 3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) is misplaced: (i) those apply to the\nquestion of preclusion under FRCP 37(c) as a sanction for failing to properly\nsupplement as required by FRCP 26(e), see Suffolk, 2026 WL 1980920, at *4; and\n(ii) in any event, the Softel factors do not weigh in favor of Plaintiff. See, In re Bear\n\n\n\n2\n See Harrington Global Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v. BOFA Secs., Inc., 2026 WL\n836248, at *35, which, further, is distinguishable: (i) the excluded expert\u2019s analysis\nwas based on faulty legal assumptions; (ii) the plaintiff asked to submit a\n\u201csupplemental report\u201d before the Court granted exclusion; and (iii) the parties\napparently did not raise FRCP 16(b)(4). Id. at *25, 28, 31, 34. See Suffolk, 2026 WL\n1980920, at *5 n.3 (\u201cthe Harrington court's exercise of discretion on the facts before\nit does not persuade me on the facts presented here\u201d).\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 125 Filed 07/20/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\nHon. Loretta A. Preska\nJuly 20, 2026\nPage 4\n\nStearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative, and ERISA Litig., 263 F. Supp. 3d 446,\n449 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (striking revised loss causation and damages report).\n\n What Plaintiff is proposing is the ultimate \u201creverse-engineering\u201d \u2013 a dramatic\nrevocation of an expert\u2019s sworn opinions in an attempt to advance Plaintiff\u2019s\ninterests in this litigation, resulting in waste, delay, and prejudice to Defendants.\nDefendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff\u2019s request for a pre-\nmotion conference as well as his underlying request to file a motion for leave to\nserve new expert reports.\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n ______________\n David J. Partida\n\n\ncc: All counsel (via ECF)\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-20T19:03:05.600554-07:00","document_number":"125","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040007311","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-20T18:07:22.535941-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T18:07:22.543973-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-20","time_filed":"19:42:33","entry_number":125,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":435,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471020559/","id":471020559,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486413969/","id":486413969,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/123/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.849978-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.872748-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"123","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039981159","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.823238-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.832866-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-15","time_filed":"22:43:59","entry_number":123,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":431,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471020558/","id":471020558,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486413968/","id":486413968,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/124/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.727332-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.746019-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"124","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039981162","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.698717-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T21:09:29.706977-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-15","time_filed":"22:44:56","entry_number":124,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":433,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470921990/","id":470921990,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486313584/","id":486313584,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/122/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T09:11:18.836576-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T09:11:18.846297-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"122","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039975096","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486319870/","id":486319870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/122/1/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T09:35:14.878897-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T09:35:14.878906-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":34,"file_size":114539,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"122","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127039975097","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486319871/","id":486319871,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/122/2/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T09:35:14.947081-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T09:35:14.947094-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":111,"file_size":1335939,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"122","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127039975098","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486319872/","id":486319872,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/122/3/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-15T09:35:15.002127-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T09:35:15.002138-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":69,"file_size":891936,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"122","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127039975099","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-15T09:11:18.798934-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-15T09:11:18.808307-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-15","time_filed":"10:49:17","entry_number":122,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":429,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469302458/","id":469302458,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484633827/","id":484633827,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-06-30T13:11:27.540121-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T13:11:27.546900-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pretrial Conference - Interim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-30T13:11:27.525266-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T13:11:27.525281-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-30","time_filed":"14:07:10","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464399949/","id":464399949,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479572307/","id":479572307,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/121/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:07:46.476322-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.545189-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"121","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039631432","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-18T10:07:46.439678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.498661-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":"12:46:53","entry_number":121,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":422,"description":"NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Daniella Quitt on behalf of Darshan Hasthantra..(Quitt, Daniella) (Entered: 05/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461152807/","id":461152807,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476237265/","id":476237265,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/120/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-17T12:10:43.973881-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-08T18:09:57.957848-07:00","sha1":"7df7ebee2d5be04d66b9904b0315a012c092f48b","page_count":1,"file_size":149133,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.120.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.120.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 120 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA,\nIndividually and on Behalf of\nOthers Similarly Situated,\n No. 21-CV-511 (LAP)\n Plaintiff,\n ORDER\n-against-\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et. al,\n\n Defendants.\n\nLORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:\n\n The conference scheduled for April 20, 2026, is adjourned. The\n\nparties shall appear for a conference on June 30, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.,\n\nat 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, in Courtroom 12A.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 17, 2026\n New York, New York\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n LORETTA A. PRESKA\n Senior United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-04-17T13:38:50.445447-07:00","document_number":"120","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039445286","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-17T12:10:43.942597-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-08T18:09:57.934943-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-17","time_filed":"13:25:57","entry_number":120,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":419,"description":" ORDER, The conference scheduled for April 20, 2026, is adjourned. The parties shall appear for a conference on June 30, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, in Courtroom 12A. SO ORDERED. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/30/2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 12A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Loretta A. Preska.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 4/17/26) (yv)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456623662/","id":456623662,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471591598/","id":471591598,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-10T16:33:36.903006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.162143-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-10T16:33:36.887236-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.130156-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-06.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 12/12/2025. Responses due by 1/26/2026 Replies due by 3/3/2026. (tg)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456623657/","id":456623657,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471591593/","id":471591593,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-10T16:33:36.646290-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:39.807576-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-10T16:33:36.624541-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:39.768264-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Loretta A. Preska: Pre-Motion Conference held on 11/4/2025. (mph)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/455736907/","id":455736907,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/470687433/","id":470687433,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/118/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-03T19:11:13.852700-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:21:18.139765-07:00","sha1":"7144b613df24323ee0c0cbc051ed633a782c5b12","page_count":17,"file_size":206775,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.118.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.118.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nSCOTT BISHINS and DARSHAN\nHASTHANTRA, Individually and On Behalf Civil Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\nof All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE REPORTS AND\n TESTIMONY OF DR. ZAHN BOZANIC\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nI. PLAINTIFF DISTORTS APPLICABLE STANDARDS ................................................1\n A. Plaintiff Improperly Attempts to Shift Burden to Defendants..............................1\n B. Plaintiff Relies On Outdated Case Law................................................................2\nII. BOZANIC\u2019S MERITS OPINIONS ARE UNRELIABLE...............................................2\n A. Bozanic Fundamentally Misapplies and Misconstrues Statistical\n Significance ..........................................................................................................3\n B. Bozanic\u2019s Approach Contradicts His Own Opinion On Market\n Efficiency..............................................................................................................5\n 1. Bozanic and Plaintiff Seek To Circumvent Fundamental\n Principles ..................................................................................................5\n 2. Informational Efficiency ...........................................................................5\n 3. Disclosure Processing Costs .....................................................................6\n 4. Combination of Returns More Than Six Months Apart ...........................7\n 5. Cherry-Picked Dates .................................................................................9\n C. Bozanic\u2019s Disaggregation Methodology Is Unreliable .........................................9\n 1. Use of \u201cDisclosure Salience\u201d ....................................................................9\n 2. Bozanic Ignores Other Factors That Should Be\n Disaggregated .........................................................................................10\nIII. MERITS OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL\n REASONS ......................................................................................................................11\nIV. EFFICIENCY REPORTS ARE IRRELEVANT ............................................................12\nCONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................13\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Page(s)\nAbreu Bautista v. Pagan-Rodriguez,\n No. 24-CV-631 (JMF), 2025 WL 1730213 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2025) .................................. 8, 9\nArkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,\n 77 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2023) .......................................................................................................... 8\nAtlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC,\n No. 20-2805-CV, 2022 WL 151302 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) .................................................... 11\nBasic Inc. v. Levinson,\n 485 U.S. 224, 108 S.Ct. 978 (1988) ............................................................................................ 1\nBricklayers and Trowel Trades Int\u2019l. Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC,\n 752 F.3d 82 (1st Cir 2014) ...................................................................................................... 5, 6\nDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,\n 509 US 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993) ............................................................ 12\nErica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co.,\n 563 U.S. 804, 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011) ......................................................................................... 2\nIn re Acetaminophen \u2013 ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig.,\n No. 22MC3043 (DLC), 2024 WL 3357608 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2024) ...................................... 4\nIn re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig.,\n 17 CIV. 1580 (LGS), 2020 WL 1329354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) ......................................... 6\nIn re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.,\n No. 14-MD-2542 (VSB), 2025 WL 354671 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2025) .................................. 2, 4\nIn re Omnicom Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 597 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2010)........................................................................................................ 6\nIn re Pfizer Inc. Secs. Litig,\n 819 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 16\nIn re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig.,\n 838 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 11\nIn re Xcelera.com Sec. Litig.,\n 430 F3d 503 (1st Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................................ 8\nKeller v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.,\n No. 23-CV-1528-LTS, 2025 WL 771297 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025)......................................... 1\nLeone v. ASP Isotopes Inc.,\n No. 24-CV-9253 (CM), 2025 WL 3484821 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024) ............................... 10, 11\nMonroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co.,\n 332 F.R.D. 370 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ................................................................................................. 1\nPirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Autos, N.V.,\n 327 F.R.D. 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) .................................................................................................. 1\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\nSundaram v. Freshworks Inc.,\n No. 22-CV-06750 (CRB), 2025 WL 1083168 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025) ................................. 7\nWM High Yield Fund v. O\u2019Hanlon,\n No. 04\u20133423, 2013 WL 3230667 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013) ..................................................... 11\nRules\nFederal Rules of Evidence 702 ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 4, 12\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\nI. PLAINTIFF DISTORTS APPLICABLE STANDARDS\n\n A. Plaintiff Improperly Attempts to Shift Burden to Defendants\n\n Plaintiff 1 bears the burden here. See, e.g., Keller v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., No. 23-CV-\n\n1528-LTS, 2025 WL 771297, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025) (\u201cPlaintiff has not met his burden\n\nof demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that [expert\u2019s] testimony\u201d satisfies Federal\n\nRule of Evidence (\u201cFRE\u201d) 702); Mot. 4. And because Plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden, exclusion\n\nis mandatory. See id. (expert\u2019s \u201ctestimony must be excluded\u201d); FRE 702, advisory committee\n\ncomments (\u201cACC\u201d) to 2023 amendment (\u201cexpert testimony may not be admitted unless the\n\nproponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony\n\nmeets the admissibility requirements\u201d) (emphasis added).\n\n Although these standards are undisputed, Plaintiff spends much of his opposition brief (the\n\n\u201cOpposition\u201d or \u201cOpp.\u201d) pretending they do not exist. For example, Plaintiff relies heavily on\n\ninapplicable class certification decisions, Opp. 7, 9, in which the defendants bore the burden of\n\nrebutting the Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 108 S.Ct. 978 (1988) (\u201cBasic\u201d) presumption of\n\nreliance. See, e.g., Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co., 332 F.R.D. 370,\n\n393 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (class certification; defendants sought to rebut Basic presumption); Pirnik v.\n\nFiat Chrysler Autos, N.V., 327 F.R.D. 38, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (same).\n\n Similarly, Plaintiff\u2019s refrain that Defendants\u2019 expert has not presented an \u201calternative\n\nmethodology\u201d for determining loss causation and damages, Opp. 4, 16, is irrelevant because\n\nDefendants have no such obligation. Rather, it is Plaintiff\u2019s obligation to \u201cdemonstrate[] to the\n\ncourt that it is more likely than not\u201d that Bozanic\u2019s testimony is admissible. FRE 702. Moreover,\n\n\n\n\n1 Capitalized terms have the same meanings as in Defendants\u2019 initial memorandum of law filed\nDecember 12, 2025 (ECF 109) (the \u201cMotion\u201d or \u201cMot.\u201d), unless otherwise defined herein.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\nit is Plaintiff\u2019s ultimate obligation to prove loss causation and damages, which are crucial elements\n\nof his Section 10(b) claim. See, e.g., Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 809,\n\n131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011).\n\n B. Plaintiff Relies On Outdated Case Law\n\n Similarly myopic is Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on outdated decisions to suggest that any argument\n\ntouching on \u201cweaknesses in [Bozanic\u2019s] methodologies\u201d automatically goes to weight rather than\n\nadmissibility. Opp. 2-3; citing cases from 1999 and 2019. That is not the law. Rule 702 has been\n\namended \u201cto clarify and emphasize\u201d the mandatory showing experts\u2019 proponents must make for\n\nadmission of their testimony, with the Advisory Committee explicitly noting that \u201cmany courts\u201d\n\nhave incorrectly \u201cheld that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert\u2019s basis, and the\n\napplication of the expert\u2019s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.\u201d FRE 702,\n\nACC to 2023 amendment. See also In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust\n\nLitig., No. 14-MD-2542 (VSB), 2025 WL 354671, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2025) (rule\n\nclarification sought \u201cto provide guidance to district courts that were misapplying it\u201d).\n\nII. BOZANIC\u2019S MERITS OPINIONS ARE UNRELIABLE\n\n In the Motion, Defendants show that Bozanic\u2019s Merits Reports 2 are saturated with flagrant\n\ndepartures from industry and judicial standards; glaring inconsistencies with his deposition\n\ntestimony and his work in other expert engagements; internal conflicts among statements he makes\n\nwithin the Merits Reports themselves; and blatant reverse-engineering. Plaintiff\u2019s effort to frame\n\nthis as a mere reasonable difference of opinion between experts, Opp. 2-3, is meritless for the\n\nreasons below.\n\n\n\n2 \u201cMerits Report\u201d or \u201cMR\u201d is Bozanic\u2019s report dated July 18, 2025 (ECF 108-4). \u201cRMR\u201d is his\nreply report dated October 9, 2025 (ECF 108-6). \u201cMerits Reports\u201d refers to both of these reports,\ntogether.\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\n And Plaintiff\u2019s contention that Defendants \u201cdo not contest\u201d the reliability of Bozanic\u2019s\n\nevent study and his related calculations and conclusions, Opp. 4, is nonsensical: most of\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion is devoted to illustrating the unreliability of Bozanic\u2019s opinions.\n\n A. Bozanic Fundamentally Misapplies and Misconstrues Statistical Significance\n\n In his Merits Report, Bozanic claims that any statistical result with a confidence level\n\ngreater than 50% is statistically significant (the \u201c50% Threshold\u201d), meaning it is likely that the\n\nevent being measured did not occur by chance. MR \u00b6\u00b6 69, 78. As Defendants demonstrate in the\n\nMotion at Section II, Bozanic\u2019s view constitutes an extraordinary departure from:\n\n conventional statistical standards and principles employed by Bozanic\u2019s industry,\n\n Mot. 9-10, and by judicial precedent, Mot. 10-11, which among other things\n\n acknowledge that a 95% confidence level is the generally accepted threshold for\n\n statistical significance and, even in certain procedurally distinguishable instances\n\n where a slightly lower threshold is used, do not dive anywhere near the 50%\n\n Threshold that Bozanic employs in this litigation, Mot. 10;\n\n other portions of the Merits Report, which treat a result with a confidence level of\n\n 67.23% as not statistically significant, in direct conflict with the 50% Threshold\n\n Bozanic otherwise urges in this action, Mot. 11;\n\n his sworn deposition statements, which acknowledge that his field does not accept\n\n a 50% Threshold, Mot. 9-10; and\n\n Bozanic\u2019s work on other expert engagements, in which he employs confidence level\n\n thresholds of 99%, 95%, and 90%, Mot. 10.\n\n The Opposition ignores much of this and glosses over the rest. For example, Plaintiff is\n\nsilent concerning Bozanic\u2019s deposition admissions, as well as his inconsistent, only-when-it-helps-\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiff application of the 50% Threshold within the Merits Reports. Likewise, Plaintiff ignores\n\nDefendants\u2019 argument that confidence levels near 50% are inherently prone to error (Mot. 10).\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s unsupported protest, Opp. n.6, that Bozanic\u2019s use of more conventional\n\nstatistical significance thresholds in other expert engagements is irrelevant (Mot. 10) overlooks the\n\nreverse-engineering that this discrepancy highlights. See In re Acetaminophen \u2013 ASD-ADHD\n\nProds. Liab. Litig., No. 22MC3043 (DLC), 2024 WL 3357608, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2024)\n\n(\u201cthe same level of intellectual rigor\u201d as in field). It also suggests the 50% Threshold was\n\n\u201cdeveloped for the purposes of litigation,\u201d FRE 702 ACC to 2000 amendment. 3 See Mot. 6-7.\n\n In addition, Plaintiff does not dispute the utter lack of industry norms or judicial precedent\n\nemploying a 50% Threshold. Opp. 6-8. At most, Plaintiff insists that statistical significance is a\n\n\u201ccontinuum\u201d and argues that courts have not applied a strict 95% cutoff to the question of whether\n\ninformation had no price impact. Opp. 6-7. That is a quintessential straw man argument: Bozanic\n\ndoes not urge a confidence level threshold of 94.9%, or 94%, or even 90%. Rather, Bozanic claims\n\nthat any confidence level above 50% is necessarily statistically significant. MR \u00b6 69.\n\n Finally, Plaintiff\u2019s characterization of Defendants\u2019 arguments as mere disagreement with\n\nBozanic\u2019s conclusions, Opp. 8, 12, 14, is not only baseless but also legally insufficient. \u201cThe\n\nexistence of divergent opinions between parties\u2019 experts is not license for a court to abandon the\n\ngatekeeping function.\u201d Keurig, 2025 WL 354671, at *4 n.3.\n\n\n\n\n3 The 50% Threshold even diverges from pre-Merits Reports in this action: Bozanic applied\nstatistical significance thresholds of \u201c95% or better\u201d in his Efficiency Report. See, e.g., ER \u00b6 62.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\n B. Bozanic\u2019s Approach Contradicts His Own Opinion On Market Efficiency\n\n 1. Bozanic and Plaintiff Seek To Circumvent Fundamental Principles\n\n Earlier in this action, market efficiency was very useful to Plaintiff. He avoided dismissal\n\nin part based on allegations of market efficiency, ECF 101 at 22, and he obtained class certification\n\nin part based on the Efficiency Reports. Id.\n\n Now, however, market efficiency poses an obstacle to Plaintiff:\n\n If it is assumed that the market reacts to the fraud, it must also be assumed that it reacts to\n the truth. Accordingly, once a misstatement or corrective disclosure is publicly known in\n an efficient market, courts will assume that the stock price reacts immediately, and any\n claim that an event moved the stock price when the event was not actually a new\n disclosure will necessarily fail.\n\nBricklayers and Trowel Trades Int\u2019l. Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 752 F.3d 82,\n\n88-89 (1st Cir 2014).\n\n As Defendants detail in the Motion, the Alleged Corrective Disclosures Bozanic analyzes\n\ncontain information that was public before they were. Mot. 13-14, 17. Bozanic\u2019s analysis also\n\ncontravenes the market\u2019s prompt absorption of public information in other ways, such as by\n\ncombining returns from February 12, 2021 with returns from August 17, 2021 on the ground that\n\nthey purportedly \u201crespond[] to the same corrective events.\u201d Opp. 10.\n\n Plaintiff fails to grapple with this argument in the Opposition.\n\n 2. Informational Efficiency\n\n Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate the reliability of Bozanic\u2019s application of the concept of\n\n\u201cinformational efficiency\u201d as justification for his disregard of market efficiency principles. RMR\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 29-30.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\n In fact, Plaintiff barely mentions this issue. Opp. 8. Nor does Plaintiff identify any authority\n\nthat endorses Bozanic\u2019s view or address Bricklayers, 752 F.3d at 94, discussed in Mot. 12-14,\n\nwhich contradicts it. 4\n\n At most, Plaintiff quotes language regarding third-party analysis of corporate financials\n\nfrom inapposite decisions that arose during pleading and class certification stages. Opp. 8-9. But\n\nthese address neither informational efficiency nor motions to exclude expert opinions nor experts\n\nwho opine that market efficiency exists but later try to circumvent market efficiency principles.\n\nSee, e.g., In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig., 17 CIV. 1580 (LGS), 2020 WL\n\n1329354, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) (defendants sought to rebut Basic reliance presumption).\n\nHis citation to this Court\u2019s distinguishing of In re Omnicom Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501,\n\n511 (2d Cir. 2010) at the motion to dismiss stage, Opp. 9; ECF 113 at 9, is similarly misplaced.\n\n 3. Disclosure Processing Costs\n\n Further, there is no authority for applying a \u201cdisclosure processing costs\u201d theory when\n\nanalyzing the impact of alleged corrective disclosures to determine loss causation, materiality, or\n\ndamages, RMR \u00b6 33, let alone for doing so in contravention of efficient market principles. Mot.\n\n15-16.\n\n\n\n\n4 To clarify and correct a sentence regarding Bricklayers at the end of Mot. 14, the court there\nheld: \u201cWe have\u2026explained that the relevant inquiry is whether the market is informationally\nefficient, meaning that \u2018all publicly available information is impounded in [the] price\u2019 rapidly\nafter it is disseminated. The district court correctly applied this standard to Dr. Hakala\u2019s event\nstudy. Having established that AOL stocks traded in an efficient market in order to obtain class\ncertification, the shareholders could not abandon that factual premise when proving loss\ncausation. Yet several of the relevant events in Dr. Hakala\u2019s study are based on published\nreferences to information previously disclosed that, under an efficient market theory, would have\nalready been incorporated into AOL\u2019s share price.\u201d Bricklayers, 752 F.3d at 94.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s response on this point is circular and conclusory: he argues Bozanic \u201crel[ies] on\n\nacademic literature\u201d and \u201copined\u201d that Culper would not have incurred unidentified \u201ccosts if\n\ninvestors were already aware of the information,\u201d and that Bozanic\u2019s analysis will be \u201creliable and\n\nhelpful.\u201d Opp. 9-10. The referenced \u201cliterature,\u201d however, are merely the same inapposite\n\nacademic articles cited in the Merits Reports, which provide no support for Bozanic\u2019s approach.\n\nMot. 15-16. See, e.g., Fama, E., 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II\u201d Journal of Finance 46 (1991)\n\n(does not mention \u201cdisclosure processing costs\u201d and reviews \u201cmarket efficiency literature\u201d that the\n\nauthor \u201cfind[s] most interesting\u201d).\n\n And Plaintiff does not address Defendants\u2019 argument that Bozanic\u2019s \u201ctheory\u201d is rooted in\n\ninadmissible conjecture, nor that it involves improper inferences about Culper\u2019s \u201c\u2018intent or\n\nmotive.\u2019\u201d Mot. 15. To be clear, Bozanic never spoke to Culper. Zahn Bozanic Deposition, at\n\n538:10 \u2013 538:17 (October 30, 2025). ECF 108-7. His suggestions about Culper\u2019s motivations are\n\nspeculation based on the ipse dixit \u201cdisclosure processing costs\u201d theory he advances. RMR \u00b6\u00b6 32-\n\n33.\n\n Finally, contrary to Plaintiff\u2019s suggestion Opp. 10, Defendants\u2019 description of Sundaram\n\nv. Freshworks Inc., No. 22-CV-06750 (CRB), 2025 WL 1083168, at *5 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10,\n\n2025), Mot. 15-16, properly conveys that Bozanic\u2019s underlying expert report in Freshworks\n\ndiscusses \u201cdisclosure processing costs\u201d in connection with his speculative opinion on \u201cdrift\n\ntheory.\u201d Mot. 15-16; citing ECF 108-13 at \u00b6\u00b617-18, 21.\n\n 4. Combination of Returns More Than Six Months Apart\n\n Likewise unavailing is Plaintiff\u2019s response concerning Bozanic\u2019s unsupportable decision\n\nto combine abnormal returns from over six months apart. For example, Plaintiff\u2019s suggestion that\n\nDefendants cite no authority to the contrary, Opp. 11, ignores Defendants\u2019 well-supported\n\nargument that Bozanic\u2019s unprecedented approach defies an efficient market\u2019s quick incorporation\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\nof public information. Mot. 13, 16-17. Moreover, Plaintiff\u2019s own cases undercut him: the cited\n\nmulti-day cases, Opp. 12, involve short windows of consecutive dates. See, e.g., In re Xcelera.com\n\nSec. Litig., 430 F3d 503, 513 n.11 (1st Cir. 2005) (plaintiff used one-day window at class\n\ncertification and listed two, three, and five-day windows \u201cas a control\u201d).\n\n Also, Bozanic\u2019s approach conflicts with: (i) Plaintiff and Bozanic\u2019s own allegations that\n\nCleanSpark stock traded in an efficient market that quickly absorbed public information, see, e.g.,\n\nER 5 \u00b6 47 (market for CleanSpark stock \u201creacted rapidly to company-specific news\u201d); AC \u00b6 165\n\n(\u201cthe market\u2026promptly digested current information regarding CleanSpark from all publicly\n\navailable sources and reflected such information in CleanSpark\u2019s share price\u201d); MR \u00b6 90 (claiming\n\nother CleanSpark news was incorporated into the market within one day); and (ii) efficient market\n\ncase law. See, e.g., Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 77 F.4th 74,\n\n80 (2d Cir. 2023) (under Basic presumption, \u201c[c]ourts can\u2026presume that stock trading in an\n\nefficient market incorporates into its price all public, material information\u201d).\n\n In addition, Bozanic\u2019s ipse dixit \u201cexpla[nation]\u201d that it was \u201creasonable\u201d to combine the\n\nreturns because they both purportedly reflect market \u201cresponse to the corrective information\n\nentering the market regarding expansion delays\u2019\u201d, Opp. 11, cannot render his opinion admissible.\n\nSee Abreu Bautista v. Pagan-Rodriguez, No. 24-CV-631 (JMF), 2025 WL 1730213 (S.D.N.Y.\n\nJune 23, 2025). Nor does Plaintiff address the clash between Bozanic\u2019s \u201cexplanation\u201d and\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s own allegations as well as prevailing law.\n\n Finally, Plaintiff\u2019s reference to this Court\u2019s acceptance, at the motion to dismiss stage, of\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s \u201cmaterialization of risk\u201d allegations, Opp. 11; ECF 60 at 38, is irrelevant given that\n\n\n\n\n5 \u201cER\u201d is Bozanic\u2019s report dated January 10, 2025 (ECF 91-1). \u201cEfficiency Reports\u201d are the ER\nand Bozanic\u2019s reply report dated May 2, 2025 (ECF 96), together.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\nBozanic instead engages in a corrective disclosure analysis and purports to combine the more-\n\nthan-six-months-apart returns in aid of that analysis (MR \u00b6\u00b6 118, 146; see also FR 49 n.183 (noting\n\nMR does not analyze materialization of concealed risk)).\n\n 5. Cherry-Picked Dates\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s response regarding Bozanic\u2019s cherry-picking of dates, Mot. 17, illustrates the\n\nunreliability of that approach: for example, Plaintiff justifies not treating an expansion estimate as\n\na corrective disclosure because a same-day press release does not mention \u201cexpansion delays\u201d and\n\nanalysts did not report on it. Opp. 13. Yet the same criteria would disqualify other Alleged\n\nCorrective Disclosures: Bozanic identifies no analyst or press coverage discussing those expansion\n\nestimates. ECF 108-5 at \u00b6\u00b6 12, 93, 97.\n\n C. Bozanic\u2019s Disaggregation Methodology Is Unreliable\n\n 1. Use of \u201cDisclosure Salience\u201d\n\n Also unavailing are Plaintiff\u2019s attempts to justify Bozanic\u2019s reliance on \u201cdisclosure\n\nsalience\u201d to avoid disaggregating certain Culper allegations that are unrelated to Plaintiff\u2019s fraud\n\nallegations. Mot. 19.\n\n For example, in response to Defendants\u2019 argument that Bozanic\u2019s theory is ipse dixit (Mot.\n\n20), Plaintiff points to the Merits Report to claim academic literature supports Bozanic. Opp. 17.\n\nBut Defendants have already shown that literature is utterly inapplicable, Mot. 15-16, and\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s bald assertion that \u201cthere is no reason to assert that [corporate headlines] would impact\n\nthe stock price in a way that the former would not\u201d is insufficient speculation and conjecture. See\n\nAbreu Bautista, 2025 WL 1730213, at *2.\n\n Nor does Plaintiff dispute or even mention Bozanic\u2019s apparent development of this\n\napproach solely for this litigation. Mot. 20. Plaintiff likewise fails to counter Defendants\u2019\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\narguments that Bozanic\u2019s approach contravenes the principle that an efficient market quickly\n\nincorporates public information. Mot. 21.\n\n And Plaintiff\u2019s attempt to minimize Bozanic\u2019s reliance on \u201cdisclosure salience\u201d by arguing\n\nthat he explained why certain points \u201clacked value relevance\u201d, Opp. 18, is ineffective because: (i)\n\nBozanic expressly states he relied on \u201cthe disclosure salience literature due to it establishing a\n\nstrong and robust relation between the prominence of information in a given disclosure, and its\n\nrelation to stock price movements\u201d RMR \u00b6 34, and (ii) Bozanic\u2019s purported explanation is itself\n\ninadmissible ipse dixit, see above at 7-9 ; Plaintiff cites no authority for Bozanic\u2019s musings about\n\nwhat subjects investors would find unimportant. Opp. 18.\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s assertion that Garmaise \u201cdid not disavow the legitimacy of disclosure\n\nsalience\u201d nor \u201copine on how he would evaluate a disclosure\u2019s salience\u201d, Opp. 17, is wrong in one\n\naspect and pointless in the other. First, Garmaise disavowed disclosure salience as a disaggregation\n\ntool. ECF 108-5 \u00b6\u00b6 42, 46, 48. Second, Plaintiff fails to explain why \u2013 or how \u2013 Garmaise would\n\n\u201cevaluate a disclosure\u2019s salience\u201d in the context of a Section 10(b) loss causation analysis. That\u2019s\n\nthe point: Bozanic\u2019s out-of-left-field approach makes no sense. Moreover, the reliability burden is\n\non Plaintiff. See above at 1.\n\n 2. Bozanic Ignores Other Factors That Should Be Disaggregated\n\n Although Plaintiff contests, Opp. 19, Defendants\u2019 argument concerning Bozanic\u2019s failure\n\nto disaggregate certain specific, major factors affecting stock price, Mot. 21, he ineffectively relies\n\non mere conclusory, boilerplate Merits Reports statements. See MR \u00b6 68 (referring to event study\n\nin Efficiency Report); see also MR \u00b6 86 (\u201cafter controlling for market and industry effects\u201d).\n\n Plaintiff also argues Garmaise did not provide his \u201cown empirical quantification of what\n\nportions of the price drops were due to non-fraud related factors\u201d and cites Leone v. ASP Isotopes\n\nInc., No. 24-CV-9253 (CM), 2025 WL 3484821, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024). Garmaise had\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\nno such obligation, however. See above at 9-10. Further, Leone is another class certification\n\ndecision, and the \u201crebuttal\u201d it references is a defendant\u2019s effort to rebut the Basic presumption of\n\nreliance. Leone, 2025 WL 3484821, at *33. WM High Yield Fund v. O\u2019Hanlon, No. 04\u20133423, 2013\n\nWL 3230667, at *11 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013), Opp. 20, is also unhelpful to Plaintiff: granting\n\nsummary judgment to the defendant, it holds that the plaintiff must submit an event study that\n\ndistinguishes between fraud and non-fraud influences.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s final argument contends that the jury should determine the amount of any\n\nartificial inflation. Opp. 20. If Plaintiff is suggesting that Bozanic need not disaggregate, Plaintiff\n\nis wrong. See, e.g., Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC, No.\n\n20-2805-CV, 2022 WL 151302, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) (\u201cproof of loss causation requires\n\nthat plaintiffs \u2018disaggregate\u2019 losses\u201d). Nor are Plaintiff\u2019s authorities to the contrary. See, e.g., In re\n\nVivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223, 256 (2d Cir. 2016) (unlike here, expert \u201cmeasure[ed] actual\n\ninflation, without reference to the timing or nature of a defendant\u2019s alleged misstatements\u201d).\n\nIII. MERITS OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL REASONS\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s responses to the additional arguments Defendants raise in Motion Section III\n\nare, again, unavailing.\n\n For example, Plaintiff implicitly admits that Bozanic improperly relied on the fact of\n\ncertain announcements as demonstrating their importance. MR \u00b6 41; Mot. 22. See Opp. 15\n\n(Bozanic \u201cnoted that CleanSpark regularly updated investors\u2026which demonstrated that the\n\nCompany understood the importance of this information\u201d) (emphasis added).\n\n Plaintiff also fails to meaningfully dispute that Bozanic\u2019s damages analysis is unhelpful\n\ngiven that he essentially leaves it to the jury to identify confounding factors and quantify price\n\neffects. Mot. 22; Opp. 20.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s criticism of Defendants for not providing an \u201calternative methodology\u201d\n\nfor measuring inflation, Opp. 16, is meritless because Defendants have no such obligation. See\n\nabove at 1-2.\n\n Plaintiff also insists the \u201cconstant dollar inflationary ribbon\u201d is \u201cwidely recognized\u201d, Opp.\n\n16, but that cannot erase the need to reliably apply it nor to take into account sufficient facts and\n\ndata. See FRE 702(b); In re Pfizer Inc. Secs. Litig., 819 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2016) (analytical gap).\n\nFurther, the Moeller article Plaintiff cites, Opp. 17, addresses an inapplicable dot-com bubble\n\nbetween 1998 and 2001 and also reflects that large loss deals are uncommon and reflect loss\n\nnowhere near the magnitude implied by Bozanic\u2019s measure of inflation.\n\n Finally, Plaintiff\u2019s argument based on similar CleanSpark stock prices before and after the\n\nClass Period, Opp. 17, ignores the volatility that occurred throughout it, ECF 108-5 \u00b6 105, as well\n\nas Bozanic\u2019s deposition admission that CleanSpark\u2019s business model at the beginning of the Class\n\nPeriod was different from that at the end. ECF 108-7 at 86-91, 379:19 \u2013 384:2.\n\nIV. EFFICIENCY REPORTS ARE IRRELEVANT\n\n Plaintiff argues that the Efficiency Reports are relevant because Defendants or the Court\n\nmay one day seek decertification of the class, Opp. 21, but there is no dispute concerning whether\n\nCleanSpark stock traded in an efficient market during the Class Period, Mot. 2, 23, and thus\n\nBozanic\u2019s analysis concerning this question is inadmissible. See, e.g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow\n\nPharm., Inc., 509 US 579, 591, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2795, 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993) (\u201cExpert testimony\n\nwhich does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful.\u201d).\n\n Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff\u2019s position, Opp. 21, statements in the Efficiency Reports\n\nrelating to loss causation, damages, and materiality are inadmissible for the same reasons the\n\nMerits Reports are. Mot. 23.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 118 Filed 03/03/26 Page 17 of 17\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons above and in the Motion, Defendants respectfully request that the Court\n\ngrant their Motion in its entirety.\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\nDated: New York, New York\n March 3, 2026\n\n WILK AUSLANDER LLP\n\n /s/ David J. Partida\n Jay S. Auslander\n Aari Itzkowitz\n David J. Partida\n Worldwide Plaza\n 825 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2900\n New York, New York 10019\n Tel: 212-981-2313\n\n Attorneys for Defendants CleanSpark, Inc.,\n Zachary Bradford, and S. Matthew Schultz\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:11:20.665944-07:00","document_number":"118","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039169252","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-03T19:11:13.828612-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.195575-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-03","time_filed":"21:03:55","entry_number":118,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":413,"description":"REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 107 MOTION to Preclude Notice of Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Proposed Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic. . Document filed by Zachary Bradford, CleanSpark, Inc., S. Matthew Schultz..(Partida, David) (Entered: 03/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/455736905/","id":455736905,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/470687431/","id":470687431,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/119/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-03T19:11:13.551445-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:42:18.108687-07:00","sha1":"f1869cccf9f91171387284992c6c76d0b1263f6d","page_count":15,"file_size":182400,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.119.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.119.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, Individually and\nOn Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO\n EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF DAVID M. PONTE\u2019S REPORT\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nI. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE IMPROPER FACTUAL NARRATIVE....................... 1\n A. Plaintiff Misconstrues Expert\u2019s Role .......................................................................... 1\n\n B. Plaintiff\u2019s Arguments Regarding Cherry-Picked Report Sections Fail\n For Additional Reasons As Well ................................................................................ 3\n\nII. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE PONTE\u2019S OPINIONS ABOUT CLEANSPARK\u2019S\n ALLEGED KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT........................................................................ 4\n A. Ponte Improperly Opines on Defendants\u2019 Knowledge and Credibility ...................... 4\n\n B. Ponte Improperly Opines on Legal Issues .................................................................. 6\n\n C. Ponte Is a Hearsay Conduit ......................................................................................... 7\n\nIII. PLAINTIFF IMPROPERLY ATTEMPTS TO BURDEN-SHIFT ........................................ 10\n\nIV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 11\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Page(s)\n\nAbreu Bautista v.Pagan-Rodriguez,\n No. 24-CV-631 (JMF), 2025 WL 1730213 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2025) ....................................3, 7\nAccent Delight Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Sotheby\u2019s,\n 18-CV-9011 (JMF), 2023 WL 230719 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) ....................................1, 2, 3, 7\nB & R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa Inc.,\n 17-CV-2738 (MKB), 2024 WL 4252031 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 20, 2024) .......................................... 9\nCmty. Care Companions, Inc. v. Interim Healthcare, Inc.,\n 19-CV-4870 (PKC) (LGD), 2025 WL 929407 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) ................................. 7\nCmty. Care Companions, Inc. v. Interim Healthcare, Inc.,\n 19-CV-4870 (PKC) (LGD), 2025 WL 1616585 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2025) ................................. 7\nColangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.,\n 6:18-CV-1228 (LEK/ML), 2022 WL 991518 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022) .................................. 5\nDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,\n 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .................................................................................................................... 8\nDoe 3 v. Indyke,\n 24-cv-1204 (AS), 2025 WL 2642114 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2025) ............................................... 4\nIn re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.,\n 801 F.Supp.3d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ............................................................................... 2, 3, 7, 8\nIn re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig. v The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC,\n 25-2756, 2025 WL 4092207 (2d Cir Dec. 10, 2025) .................................................................. 8\nIn re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig.,\n 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 4\nIn re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Discount Antitrust Litig.,\n 638 F. Supp. 3d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) ......................................................................................... 9\nKasuba v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,\n 710 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D. Conn. 2024).......................................................................................... 6\nKeller v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.,\n No. 23-CV-1528-LTS, 2025 WL 771297 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025) ....................................... 10\nMakina Ve Kimya Endustrisi A.S. v. A.S.A.P. Logistics Ltd.,\n 22-CV-3933 (AS), 2024 WL 3638054 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2024)................................................ 8\nMarvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby,\n 726 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................................ 8\nParadowski v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.,\n 22-962-CV, 2023 WL 3829559 (2d Cir. June 6, 2023) ............................................................... 5\nPharmacyChecker.com v Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Bds. of Pharmacy,\n 19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2023 WL 2973038 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023).......................................... 6\nPharmacyChecker.com LLC v Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Bds. of Pharmacy,\n 19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2023 WL 4492148 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2023) ............................................ 7\nSec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n. v. Am. Growth Funding II, LLC,\n 16-CV-8, 28 (KMW), 2019 WL 1772509 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2019) ......................................... 4\nScentsational Techs., LLC v. Pepsi, Inc.,\n 13-CV-8645 (KBF), 2018 WL 1889763 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2018)........................................ 1, 2\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\nScentSational Techs. LLC v. PepsiCo., Inc.,\n 773 Fed. Appx. 607 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................... 1, 2\nScott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,\n 315 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ................................................................................................... 3\nUnited States v. Mejia,\n 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................................ 8\nUnited States v. Smith,\n 806 F. Supp. 3d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ......................................................................................... 8\nUnited States v. Locascio,\n 6 F.3d 924, 937 (2d Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 9\nValveTech, Inc. v Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.,\n 17-CV-6788-FPG, 2023 WL 7210349 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2023) .............................................. 8\nWells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York,\n 22 CIV. 8606 (JPC), 2025 WL 2220948 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025)............................................. 7\n\nRules\n\nFederal Rules of Evidence 702 ..................................................................................................... 10\nFederal Rules of Evidence 703 ................................................................................................... 8, 9\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n I. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE IMPROPER FACTUAL NARRATIVE\n\n In Section II of the Moving Brief, 1 Defendants show that most of Ponte\u2019s Report consists\n\nof unabashed, inadmissible factual narrative that purports to summarize the Complaint\u2019s\n\nallegations, deposition transcripts, and other documents he reviewed. This is contrary to well-\n\nestablished law holding that experts may not act as mouthpieces for counsel, nor as factfinders.\n\nSee, e.g., Accent Delight Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Sotheby\u2019s, 18-CV-9011 (JMF), 2023 WL 2307179, at *29\n\n(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) (expert may not \u201cinvade the province of the jury\u201d or do \u201ccounsel\u2019s job in\n\nsummation\u201d); Scentsational Techs., LLC v. Pepsi, Inc., 13-CV-8645 (KBF), 2018 WL 1889763, at\n\n*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2018), aff\u2019d sub nom. ScentSational Techs. LLC v. PepsiCo., Inc., 773 Fed.\n\nAppx. 607 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (it is \u201cinappropriate for experts to act as a vehicle to present a factual\n\nnarrative of interesting or useful documents for a case\u201d); Mov. Br. at 5.\n\n A. Plaintiff Misconstrues Expert\u2019s Role\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s response fundamentally misunderstands the role of an expert. Essentially,\n\nPlaintiff argues \u2013 in a passage devoid of legal authority -- that Ponte had to spend pages of his\n\nReport purporting to describe emails, testimony, contracts, and other documents because it would\n\nhave been impossible for him to reliably perform his \u201canalysis\u201d without doing so; the only\n\nalternative, Plaintiff claims, \u201cwould be an abstract lecture on CPM scheduling divorced from the\n\nactual project.\u201d Opp. at 8.\n\n But it is for counsel to sum up the relevant evidence and for the jury to decide what that\n\nevidence shows. See above. Moreover, Plaintiff\u2019s argument implicitly admits that the Report\n\n\u201ccrosses th[e] line[]\u201d into his counsel\u2019s and the jury\u2019s roles, given that Plaintiff implicitly concedes\n\n\n\n1\n \u201cMoving Brief\u201d or \u201cMov. Br.\u201d is Defendants\u2019 initial memorandum of law dated December 12,\n2025 (ECF 112). All capitalized terms have the same meanings as in the Moving Brief unless\notherwise defined herein.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\n\u2013 on page 8 and throughout the Opposition, see, e.g., Section II.A \u2013 that Ponte is not \u201coffering\n\ngeneral opinions about\u201d industry standards but rather is \u201coffering specific opinions about the facts\n\nin this case.\u201d Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28. See also In re LIBOR-Based Fin.\n\nInstruments Antitrust Litig., 801 F.Supp.3d 330, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (although \u201can expert can aid\n\nthe jury with his opinions on hypothetical facts, from which plaintiff can argue that the jury should\n\ndraw certain inferences\u2026an expert cannot inform the jury that based on the evidence defendants\n\nlikely engaged in\u201d particular conduct) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n Further, the Report contradicts Plaintiff\u2019s characterization of it: very little \u201cexpert\u201d opinion\n\nappears anywhere in the Report, the majority of which is instead devoted to \u201caccumulating and\n\nputting together\u2026[Plaintiff\u2019s] \u2018story.\u2019\u201d Scentsational Techs., LLC v. Pepsi, Inc., 13-CV-8645\n\n(KBF), 2018 WL 1889763, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2018), aff\u2019d, sub nom. ScentSational Techs.\n\nLLC v. PepsiCo, Inc., 773 Fed. Appx. 607 (Fed. Cit. 2019). By \u201cmerely rehash[ing] evidence in\n\nthe case without providing any expert analysis,\u201d Ponte again \u201ccrosses\u2026red lines.\u201d Accent Delight,\n\n2023 WL 2307179, at *28.\n\n Further, Plaintiff\u2019s ineffective efforts to distinguish Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179,\n\nand Scentsational, 2018 WL 1889763 (Opp. at 9-10, n.3) do little more than highlight that the\n\ninadmissible expert testimony in those cases is on point with the opinions at issue here. For\n\nexample, the expert in Accent Delight, \u201cdescribe[d] the contents of invoices and emails,\u201d \u201copine[d]\n\non the inferences to be drawn from such evidence,\u201d and opined about defendant\u2019s knowledge based\n\non emails, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28 \u2013 just as Ponte does. See Mov. Br. at 13. Similarly, contrary\n\nto Plaintiff\u2019s argument, the legal conclusions at issue in Scentsational as well as the experts\u2019\n\ninadmissible rambles into areas beyond their expertise in that case and in Accent Delight are not\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\npoints of distinction: Ponte likewise advances legal conclusions and opines on issues beyond his\n\narea of expertise, as Defendants show in the Moving Brief at 11-13.\n\n B. Plaintiff\u2019s Arguments Regarding Cherry-Picked Report Sections Fail for\n Additional Reasons as Well\n\n In addition, Plaintiff ignores most of the Report sections that Defendants demonstrate in\n\nthe Moving Brief are inadmissible factual narrative, i.e., Mov. Br. at Section II. As for the Report\n\npages that Plaintiff discusses, his self-serving rendition of those cannot obscure that they consist\n\nalmost entirely of factual summary of discovery materials.\n\n Moreover, even the particular \u201cconclu[sions]\u201d that Plaintiff cherry-picks for the Opposition\n\nillustrate Ponte\u2019s improper fact-finding. See Opp. at 10(1) (referring to purported status of \u201ctarget\n\ndelivery milestones\u201d and interpreting Power Sales Agreement); Opp. at 11(3) (\u201cPonte\u2019s discussion\n\nof ForeSite\u2019s engagement timing,\u201d including Ponte\u2019s \u201copinion that CleanSpark lacked a\n\nprofessionally managed baseline schedule and, consequently, a technically sound basis for the\n\naggressive completion timelines it communicated\u201d); Opp. at 12(4) (stating what invoices\n\npurportedly \u201creflect\u201d and claiming that Ponte \u201crelies on objective progress indicators to make a\n\ntechnical feasibility inference\u201d). 2 Certainly, these are a far cry from the kind of \u201copinions on\n\nhypothetical facts\u201d that courts permit. In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 801\n\nF.Supp.3d 330, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). Further, although an expert may testify regarding industry\n\nstandards, it is for the jury to apply those standards to the evidence at hand. See Abreu Bautista\n\nv.Pagan-Rodriguez, No. 24-CV-631 (JMF), 2025 WL 1730213, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2025)\n\n(cited in Mov. Br. at 4). 3 And the cases Plaintiff cites, Opp. at 9, are not to the contrary. See Scott\n\n\n2\n Also, Plaintiff\u2019s discussion includes numerous statements regarding purported construction\nmanagement practices, Opp. at 5, 12(4), and \u201cforensic project controls technique\u201d, Opp. at 12(4),\nbut Plaintiff cites nothing at all in support.\n3\n Notably, Plaintiff fails to identify how Ponte\u2019s purported application of \u201cstandard project\nmanagement principles,\u201d such as \u201cCPM-based analysis of baseline schedule validity,\u201d, Opp. at 10,\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\nv. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 33, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl\n\nEther Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 114 (2d Cir. 2013).\n\n The Opposition does isolate three sentences from Report Section IV(B) that appear to opine\n\non general construction management standards. Opp. at 11(2) (quoting \u201cIn a well-managed\n\nproject\u2026.project status to external stakeholders.\u201d). As Defendants convey in the Moving Brief,\n\nthey are not at this stage seeking to exclude Ponte\u2019s testimony concerning general construction\n\nmanagement standards, Mov. Br. at 1; accordingly, they do not seek exclusion of these three\n\nsentences from the Report.\n\n II. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE PONTE\u2019S OPINIONS ABOUT\n CLEANSPARK\u2019S ALLEGED KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT\n\n A. Ponte Improperly Opines on Defendants\u2019 Knowledge and Credibility\n\n In the Moving Brief, Defendants point to numerous specific instances in the Report in\n\nwhich Ponte opines on Defendants\u2019 knowledge, intent, or credibility. Mov. Br. at Section III (A).\n\nAnd Defendants demonstrate, citing well-established precedent, that such opinions are\n\ninadmissible. See, e.g., Doe 3 v. Indyke, 24-cv-1204 (AS), 2025 WL 2642114, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.\n\n15, 2025) (expert may not \u201coffer testimony on what defendants knew or should have known, which\n\nis for the jury to figure out\u201d); Sec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n. v. Am. Growth Funding II, LLC, 16-CV-8,\n\n28 (KMW), 2019 WL 1772509, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2019) (\u201c[o]pinions concerning state of\n\nmind are an inappropriate topic for expert opinion\u201d) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n In the Opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute these points of law in response or even engage\n\nwith the cited cases\u2019 treatment of them. Instead, Plaintiff vaguely claims that Defendants\u2019 argument\n\n\u201cmischaracterizes\u2026the substance and methodology of [Ponte\u2019s] testimony\u201d and insists that Ponte\n\n\nis relevant to this case. Plaintiff is asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange\nAct of 1934 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, AC \u00b615, and thus must, among other things,\nprove particularly willful or reckless, materially false statements or omissions.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\n\u201cdoes not offer opinions about credibility or state of mind.\u201d Opp. at 12. But review of the Moving\n\nBrief and of Ponte\u2019s Report easily disproves Plaintiff\u2019s assertions: Defendants directly quote from\n\nPonte\u2019s own language in the Report, e.g., Mov. Br. at 10, which expressly opines on Defendants\u2019\n\nknowledge, intent, and credibility. See, e.g., Report Section IV(F) (\u201c[t]his disconnect significantly\n\ndiminishes the reliability and credibility of [Bradford\u2019s] public statements\u201d); V (\u201cit is my\n\nprofessional opinion that CleanSpark and its project leadership\u2026exhibited a complete disregard\n\nfor known risks, constraints, and feasibility limitations\u201d); id. (\u201cInternal documents make clear that\n\nproject leadership was aware of these substantial and foreseeable obstacles well before the publicly\n\npromoted completion dates.\u201d).\n\n Moreover, Plaintiff\u2019s various tortuous efforts to evade its own expert\u2019s statements, see, e.g.,\n\nOpp. at 13 (claiming that particular Report statement \u201cis an observation about the project record,\n\nnot a credibility determination\u201d) serve only to emphasize that Ponte\u2019s Report \u201cdoes not utilize\n\n[Ponte\u2019s] expertise but rather is comprised of a summary of internal documents that a jury would\n\nbe equally qualified to review,\u201d Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., 6:18-CV-1228\n\n(LEK/ML), 2022 WL 991518, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022), aff\u2019d sub nom. Paradowski v.\n\nChampion Petfoods USA, Inc., 22-962-CV, 2023 WL 3829559 (2d Cir. June 6, 2023), as\n\nDefendants show in the Mov. Br. at 11. Not only does this improperly \u201cusurp the jury\u2019s function,\u201d\n\nsee, e.g., Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28, but it creates the danger of prejudicing the\n\njury \u2013 which Rule 403 prohibits, see Mov. Br. at 4-5 \u2013 given that Plaintiff is presenting Ponte as\n\nan expert. See above at Section I.\n\n Finally, Plaintiff fails to dispute Defendants\u2019 argument, Mov. Br. at 11, that Ponte\u2019s failure\n\nto \u201cground most of these opinions on any specific experiences derived from his background\u201d\n\nrenders them inadmissible \u201cipse dixit \u2026 as well.\u201d Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\n B. Ponte Improperly Opines on Legal Issues\n\n In the Moving Brief at Section III(C), Defendants demonstrate yet another ground for\n\ninadmissibility: Ponte\u2019s repeated legal conclusions. See, e.g., PharmacyChecker.com v Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n\n\nof Bds. of Pharmacy, 19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2023 WL 2973038, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023)\n\n(Second Circuit mandates \u201cexclusion of expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion\u201d)\n\n(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom. PharmacyChecker.com LLC v Nat\u2019l\n\nAss\u2019n of Bds. of Pharmacy, 19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2023 WL 4492148 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2023).\n\n For example, Ponte opines that CleanSpark\u2019s conduct was unreasonable or \u201cfall[s] well\n\nbelow the standard of care\u201d, e.g., Report at 5, 27, 29, that certain unspecified statements by\n\nDefendants were without \u201creasonable\u201d basis, e.g. Report at 8, 24, that certain circumstances were\n\n\u201cforeseeable\u201d, e.g. Report at 26, 27; that the terms of the Power Sales Agreement \u201cintroduce[]\n\nambiguity regarding the parties\u2019 respective expectations and obligations\u201d Report at 13; and that\n\nthere was a \u201cmaterial disconnect between the public representations advanced by company\n\nleadership and the internal realities\u2026.\u201d Report at 25; see also Report at 5 (emphasis added).\n\n In response, Plaintiff claims that these are not really legal conclusions because their context\n\npurportedly shows \u201cthat these terms are used in their ordinary project management sense.\u201d Opp.\n\nat 14. Plaintiff cites no authority for this position, however. 4 To the extent he means to argue that\n\nan expert must explicitly \u201cinvoke, apply, or opine on\u201d law for their opinions to constitute legal\n\nconclusions, Plaintiff is wrong. See PharmacyChecker.com, 2023 WL 2973038, at *15 (Second\n\nCircuit mandates \u201cexclusion of expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion\u201d) (internal\n\nquotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom. PharmacyChecker.com LLC v Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Bds.\n\n\n\n4\n Further, Kasuba v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 710 F. Supp. 3d 122, 127 (D. Conn. 2024), which\nPlaintiff cites for the proposition that expert testimony concerning \u201cthe standard of care\u201d is\nsometimes necessary, Opp. at 14, does not advance his position.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\nof Pharmacy, 19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2023 WL 4492148 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2023). Moreover, courts\n\nhave frequently found that conclusions similar to those here are inadmissible legal conclusions.\n\nSee LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 801 F.Supp.3d 330 at 381. See also Abreu,\n\n2025 WL 1730213, at *4 (opinion that individual exhibited road rage was irrelevant and thus\n\ninadmissible, given that it was based on video evidence; \u201c[t]he jury\u2026is capable of observing the\n\nvideo evidence and drawing conclusions therefrom for itself.\u201d).\n\n Moreover, Plaintiff ignores Defendants\u2019 argument, Mov. Br. at 4, 12, that Ponte\u2019s opinions\n\nimproperly usurp the jury\u2019s role by \u201cundertaking to tell the jury what result to reach [and]\n\nattempting to substitute the expert\u2019s judgment for the jury\u2019s.\u201d Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. U.S. Life\n\nIns. Co. in City of New York, 22 CIV. 8606 (JPC), 2025 WL 2220948, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,\n\n2025). Although Ponte \u201ccan aid the jury with his opinions on hypothetical facts,\u201d LIBOR-Based\n\nFin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 801 F.Supp.3d 330 at 381 (emphasis added), here he does the\n\nopposite: Ponte concludes that the evidence shows that certain circumstances or conduct in this\n\nvery case were \u201cforeseeable\u201d or \u201cmaterial\u201d or \u201creasonable\u201d or below a \u201cstandard of care,\u201d or that\n\na particular contract created \u201cambiguity.\u201d See above at 6. But it is for the jury, not Ponte, to review\n\nthe evidence and \u201cdraw conclusion[s] therefrom for itself.\u201d Abreu, 2025 WL 1730213, at *4. Once\n\nagain, Ponte \u201ccrosses [the] line.\u201d Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28.\n\n C. Ponte Is a Hearsay Conduit\n\n Courts do not permit \u201cinadmissible hearsay masquerading as expert opinion.\u201d Cmty. Care\n\nCompanions, Inc. v. Interim Healthcare, Inc., 19-CV-4870 (PKC) (LGD), 2025 WL 929407, at\n\n*12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025), reconsideration denied, 19-CV-4870 (PKC) (LGD), 2025 WL\n\n1616585 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2025). Defendants establish in the Moving Brief that much of Ponte\u2019s\n\nReport is also inadmissible because it renders him \u201ca conduit for introducing hearsay under the\n\nguise that the testifying expert used the hearsay as the basis for his testimony.\u201d Marvel Characters,\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\nInc. v. Kirby, 726 F.3d 119, 136 (2d Cir. 2013). In response, Plaintiff argues that Ponte\u2019s discussion\n\nof hearsay is permissible under FRE 703. Opp. at 15-16. That fails for three reasons.\n\n First, an expert may not act as a \u201cconduit\u201d for hearsay, FRE 703 notwithstanding. See\n\nLIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 801 F Supp 3d 330 at 367, appeal dismissed sub\n\nnom. In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig. v The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, 25-\n\n2756, 2025 WL 4092207 (2d Cir Dec. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Smith, 806 F. Supp. 3d\n\n382, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (acknowledging FRE 703 but holding that \u201can expert may not \u2018simply\n\ntransmit that hearsay to the jury\u2019\u201d) (quoting United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir.\n\n2008)). Where an expert merely repeats hearsay evidence without \u201cmeaningfully employ[ing] his\n\nindependent expertise,\u201d that is inadmissible. See ValveTech, Inc. v Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., 17-\n\nCV-6788-FPG, 2023 WL 7210349, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2023). See also Makina Ve Kimya\n\nEndustrisi A.S. v. A.S.A.P. Logistics Ltd., 22-CV-3933 (AS), 2024 WL 3638054, at *12 (S.D.N.Y.\n\nAug. 2, 2024) (plaintiff \u201cis just using [expert] to skirt the rules of evidence by having her relay\n\ndouble hearsay to the jury on an issue of historical fact as to which her expert opinion would not\n\nbe permitted\u201d).8 And that is exactly what Ponte does here. See, e.g., Report Section IV.B.2\n\n(repeating the content of emails and deposition testimony without expert analysis).\n\n Second, even putting that aside, Plaintiff fails to establish that FRE 703 applies at all given\n\nthat he makes no showing that its prerequisites are met. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,\n\n509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (\u201cRule 703 provides that expert opinions based on otherwise\n\ninadmissible hearsay are to be admitted only if the facts or data are \u2018of a type reasonably relied\n\nupon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the\n\nsubject.\u2019\u201d) (emphasis added). But the Opposition does not cite any source showing that experts in\n\nPonte\u2019s field \u201cwould reasonably rely on\u201d the kinds of materials he reviewed to \u201cform[] an opinion\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\non the subject.\u201d In fact, the only case Plaintiff cites on this issue is the inapposite United States v.\n\nLocascio, a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act case in which a highly credentialed\n\nformer FBI agent testified regarding organized crime families. 6 F.3d 924, 937 (2d Cir. 1993).\n\nThere, unlike here, there was \u201clittle question that law enforcement agents routinely and reasonably\n\nrely upon \u2026 hearsay in the course of their duties.\u201d Id. at 938.\n\n Moreover, even where that initial prerequisite is met, a higher standard applies to disclosure\n\nby the expert of the hearsay material: \u201cthe proponent of the opinion may disclose [the otherwise\n\ninadmissible] \u201cfacts or data\u201d \u201conly if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion\n\nsubstantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.\u201d FRE 703 (emphasis added). See also In re\n\nPayment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Discount Antitrust Litig., 638 F. Supp. 3d 227, 254\n\n(E.D.N.Y. 2022) (\u201cthe expert can disclose the hearsay only if its probative value in helping the jury\n\nevaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect\u201d) (quotation marks and\n\ncitations omitted). Here, the Opposition does not even explain what the \u201cprobative value\u201d of\n\nPonte\u2019s opinions is in this Section 10(b) case, see above at 9, let alone demonstrate that such \u201cvalue\n\n\u2026 substantially outweighs\u201d the prejudice inherent in introducing hearsay evidence, so as to justify\n\nthe expert\u2019s disclosure of it. See Payment Card, 638 F. Supp. 3d 227 at 254; B & R Supermarket,\n\nInc. v. Visa Inc., 17-CV-2738 (MKB), 2024 WL 4252031, at *26 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 20, 2024) (expert\n\n\u201cmay not convey\u2026[Visa executive\u2019s hearsay] views to the jury simply because she is an expert on\n\nEMV migration\u201d).\n\n As for Plaintiff\u2019s argument that certain materials (Ms. DeKalb\u2019s deposition testimony, the\n\nPower Agreement, and related meeting notes relating to third party City of College Park) are not\n\nhearsay at all because he does not rely on them for the truth of the matters they assert, Opp. at 16,\n\nthat is unavailing both because: (i) the Report shows that Ponte does rely on them for their truth\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\nsee Report at 12-20 and (ii) in any event, Plaintiff relies on them for their truth, Opp. at e.g., Section\n\nII.A.\n\n III. PLAINTIFF IMPROPERLY ATTEMPTS TO BURDEN-SHIFT\n\n The Opposition concludes with a section claiming that Defendants \u201cremaining objections\n\ngo to weight, not admissibility.\u201d Opp. at 17 (capitalization removed). Since Plaintiff does not\n\nbother to identify those \u201cremaining objections,\u201d it is unclear to which he is referring; in any event,\n\nDefendants have shown under prevailing law that Ponte\u2019s Report is inadmissible under FRE 702\n\n(other than the portions describing construction project management standards to which\n\nDefendants\u2019 motion is not directed, see Mov. Br. at 13). And review of the Moving Brief easily\n\ndisproves Plaintiff\u2019s lackluster suggestion that maybe some of Defendants\u2019 arguments are merely\n\ndisagreements with Ponte\u2019s conclusions. Opp. at 17.\n\n Moreover, Plaintiff\u2019s unsupported implication that motion denial is appropriate because\n\nDefendants have not deposed Ponte or offered a competing construction expert, Opp. at 17; see\n\nalso Opp. at 2, 5, fundamentally misconstrues the applicable burden here. It is Plaintiff who bears\n\nthe burden of demonstrating that Ponte\u2019s opinions are admissible. See, e.g., Keller v. ExxonMobil\n\nOil Corp., No. 23-CV-1528-LTS, 2025 WL 771297, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025) (\u201cPlaintiff has\n\nnot met his burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that [expert\u2019s] testimony\u201d\n\nsatisfies Federal Rule of Evidence (\u201cFRE\u201d) 702); Mov. Br. at 4. And because Plaintiff fails to\n\nsatisfy his burden, exclusion is mandatory. See id. (expert\u2019s \u201ctestimony must be excluded\u201d); FRE\n\n702, Advisory Committee Comments (2023 Amendment) (\u201cexpert testimony may not be admitted\n\nunless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered\n\ntestimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule\u201d) (emphasis added).\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 119 Filed 03/03/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n What is more, Plaintiff does not even begin to explain what value a deposition or competing\n\nexpert would have brought to Defendants\u2019 Motion: the inadmissibility of Ponte\u2019s opinions at issue\n\nin the Motion is plainly evident from a review of prevailing law and the Report itself.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court exclude the\n\nfollowing sections of the Report, as well as any related testimony: Sections II, III, IV(B), IV(C),\n\nIV(D), IV(F), IV(G), V.\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\nDated: New York, New York\n March 3, 2026\n\n WILK AUSLANDER LLP\n\n /s/ David J. Partida\n Jay S. Auslander\n Aari Itzkowitz\n David J. Partida\n Worldwide Plaza\n 825 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2900\n New York, New York 10019\n Tel: 212-981-2313\n\n Attorneys for Defendants CleanSpark, Inc.,\n Zachary Bradford, and S. Matthew Schultz\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:10:59.359497-07:00","document_number":"119","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039169258","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-03T19:11:13.523902-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.323680-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-03","time_filed":"21:07:14","entry_number":119,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":416,"description":"REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 110 MOTION to Preclude Notice of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Portions of David M. Ponte's Expert Report. . Document filed by Zachary Bradford, CleanSpark, Inc., S. Matthew Schultz..(Partida, David) (Entered: 03/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454768521/","id":454768521,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469694484/","id":469694484,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/116/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-23T13:09:56.176036-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.013959-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"116","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039114078","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Proposed Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-23T13:09:56.148087-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.972105-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-23","time_filed":"14:56:23","entry_number":116,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":408,"description":"PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by Darshan Hasthantra. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C).(Linkh, Gregory) (Entered: 02/23/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454768494/","id":454768494,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469694457/","id":469694457,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/117/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-23T13:09:53.644931-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.143882-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"117","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039114123","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-23T13:09:53.613111-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:41.110165-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-23","time_filed":"15:01:40","entry_number":117,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-23.002","pacer_sequence_number":410,"description":"BRIEF re: 116 Proposed Stipulation and Order MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO CERTIFIED CLASS. Document filed by Darshan Hasthantra..(Linkh, Gregory) (Entered: 02/23/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/452240366/","id":452240366,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467102497/","id":467102497,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/115/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-30T15:10:44.079698-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.893438-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"115","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038986022","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T15:10:44.040581-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.823403-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-30","time_filed":"16:20:03","entry_number":115,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":406,"description":"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Gregory Bradley Linkh on behalf of Darshan Hasthantra. New Address: Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358, New York, New York, USA 10169, 212-682-5340..(Linkh, Gregory) (Entered: 01/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/451640139/","id":451640139,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/466486860/","id":466486860,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/113/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-26T15:08:15.131237-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:45:51.643411-07:00","sha1":"6756f1bf880a2c2b4d054834bcd25ad7b78b8ad1","page_count":31,"file_size":404167,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.113.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.113.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 31\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, Individually Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\nand On Behalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW\nSCHULTZ,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019\n MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S EXPERT DR. ZAHN BOZANIC\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 31\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1\n\nII. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS DO NOT FAVOR DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION ... 2\n\nIII. DEFENDANTS DO NOT CHALLENGE DR. BOZANIC\u2019S QUALIFICATIONS.......... 3\n\nIV. DR. BOZANIC\u2019S EVENT STUDY AND CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGIES\n ARE WIDELY ACCEPTED, RELIABLE, AND WILL ASSIST THE JURY ................... 4\n\nV. DEFENDANTS\u2019 CHALLENGES TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF DR. BOZANIC\u2019S\n LOSS CAUSATION AND DAMAGES ANALYSIS ARE NOT A BASIS TO\n EXCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY .......................................................................................... 6\n\n A. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Analysis of Statistical Significance Is Consistent With\n Academic Theory .................................................................................................... 6\n\n B. The Corrective Disclosure Events Provided New Information To The Market...... 8\n\n C. The Combination of Dates Is Supported By Academic Theory And Is Regularly\n Accepted By Courts .............................................................................................. 10\n\n D. The Dates Chosen By Dr. Bozanic Revealed New Information\n To The Market And Were Not Cherry-Picked ...................................................... 12\n\nVI. DR. BOZANIC\u2019S OPINIONS ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT AND\n WILL BE HELPFUL TO A JURY .................................................................................... 15\n\n A. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Analysis Of Economically Materiality Is Highly Relevant............ 15\n\n B. The Constant Dollar Inflationary Ribbon is Regularly Accepted by Courts and\n Defendants May Test its Merits Before the Jury................................................... 16\n\n C. Disclosure Salience Is Supported By Academic Literature .................................. 17\n\n D. The Event Study Disaggregated Market-Based, Industry-Based and Bitcoin\n Pricing-Based Confounding Information.............................................................. 19\n\n E. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Market Efficiency Reports A\n Are Relevant And Will Be Useful To The Jury..................................................... 20\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 22\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 31\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page\n\nStatutes and Rules\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) .............................................................................. 21\n\nFederal Rules of Evidence 702 .............................................................................................. passim\n\nCases\n\nAmgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds,\n 568 U.S. 455, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) .......................................................... 12\n\nAmorgianos v. Nat\u2019l R.R. Passenger Corp.,\n 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 8\n\nAranaz Catalyst Pharm. Partners Inc.,\n 302 F.R.D. 657 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014) ................................................................................ 12\n\nBasic Inc. v. Levinson,\n 485 U.S. 224 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 10\n\nBishins v. CleanSpark, Inc.,\n 2023 WL 112558 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023) ............................................................................ 9, 11\n\nBoucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.,\n 73 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................ 3\n\nCarpenters Pension Tr. Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC,\n 310 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................................................... 5, 7\n\nCarpenters Pension Tr. Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC,\n 750 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 19\n\nDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc.,\n 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .......................................................................................................... 2, 3, 18\n\nDoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd.,\n 2024 WL 1115944 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2024) ............................................................................. 3\n\nFogarazzo v. Lehman Bros.,\n 263 F.R.D. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................................................. 12\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 31\n\n\n\n\nGlickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n 787 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 16\n\nGruber v. Gilbertson,\n 628 F. Supp. 3d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) ....................................................................................... 20\n\nGuild v. Gen. Motors Corp.,\n 53 F.Supp.2d 363 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) ............................................................................................ 3\n\nHalliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,\n 573 U.S. 258 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 10\n\nIn re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig.,\n 2020 WL 1329354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) ............................................................................. 9\n\nIn re Credit Suisse Securities Fraud Class Actions,\n 2025 WL 3172143 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) ............................................................................. 6\n\nIn re Diamond Foods, Inc.,\n 295 F.R.D. 240 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................................. 12\n\nIn re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 639 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 12\n\nIn re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.,\n 645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................................................................................... 3\n\nIn re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litig.,\n 169 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ......................................................................................... 2\n\nIn re Omnicom Group, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 541 F. Supp. 2d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................... 9\n\nIn re Take-Two Sec. Litig.,\n 551 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 16, 2008) ............................................................................ 9\n\nIn re Valeant Pharms. Int\u2019l, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-LHG, 2023 WL 9748644 (D.N.J. May 22, 2023) .......................... 18\n\nIn re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Sec. Litig.,\n 634 F. Supp. 2d 352, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ............................................................................... 12\n\nIn re Vivendi, S.A. Secs. Litig.,\n 838 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................... 20\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 31\n\n\n\n\nIn re Winstar Commc\u2019ns,\n 2006 WL 473885 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006) ............................................................................... 9\n\nIn re Xcelera.com Sec. Litig.,\n 430 F.3d 503 (1st Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 12\n\nKumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,\n 526 U.S. 137 (1999) ................................................................................................................ 2, 3\n\nLeone v. ASP Isotopes Inc.,\n 2025 WL 3484821 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025) ......................................................................... 4, 19\n\nMazzei v. The Money Store,\n 656 Fed. App\u2019x. 558 (2d Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 21\n\nMonroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co.,\n 332 F.R.D. 370\\ (N.D. Ga. 2019) ................................................................................................ 7\n\nMoonbug Entertainment Limited v. BabyBus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd.,\n 2024 WL 2193323 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) .......................................................................... 20\n\nPirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Autos., N.V.,\n 327 F.R.D. 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................................... 7\n\nRepublic of Turkey v. Christie\u2019s Inc.,\n 425 F. Supp. 3d 204 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019) ............................................................................ 3\n\nRooney v. EZCORP, Inc.,\n 330 F.R.D. 439 (W.D. Tex. 2019) ............................................................................................... 8\n\nSjunde AP-Fonden v. Gen. Elec. Co.,\n 2023 WL 6314939 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2023) ............................................................................ 8\n\nSjunde AP-Fonden v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,\n 798 F. Supp. 3d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ......................................................................................... 1\n\nSmilovits v. First Solar, Inc.,\n 2019 WL 7282026 (D. Ariz. Dec 27, 2019) .............................................................................. 16\n\nSundaram v. Freshworks Inc.,\n 2025 WL 1083168 (N.D Cal. Apr. 10, 2025) ............................................................................ 10\n\nTown & Country Linen Corp. v. Ingenious Designs LLC,\n 2022 WL 2757643 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2022) ............................................................................ 21\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 31\n\n\n\n\nUnited States v. Hatfield,\n 2014 WL 7271616 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2014) ........................................................................... 12\n\nVizirgianakis v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc.,\n 775 Fed.App\u2019x. 51 (3d Cir. May 30, 2019) ................................................................................ 7\n\nWaggoner v. Barclays PLC,\n 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................... 2\n\nWashington v. Kellwood Co.,\n 105 F. Supp. 3d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ......................................................................................... 2\n\nWilliams v. Gaye,\n 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 20\n\nWM High Yield Fund v. O\u2019Hanlon,\n 2013 WL 3230667 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013) ............................................................................ 20\n\nMisscelaneous\n\nAxelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are\n Reshaping Shareholder Class Actions,\u201d\n Berkeley Business Law Journal 22 ....................................................................................... 7, 11\n\nBlankespoor, E., E. DeHaan, and I. Marinovic, 2020, \u201cDisclosure Processing Costs, Investors\u2019\n Information Choice, and Equity Market Outcomes: A Review,\u201d\n Journal of Accounting and Economics 70 .................................................................................. 9\n\nBrav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power, Confounding\n Effects, and Bias,\u201d\n Washington University Law Review 93 ................................................................................. 6, 7\n\nFama, E., 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II\u201d\n Journal of Finance 46 ................................................................................................................. 9\n\nGoodman, S., 2008, \u201cA Dirty Dozen: Twelve P-Value Misconceptions,\u201d\n Seminars in Hematology 45 ........................................................................................................ 7\n\nKaye, D. and D. Freedman, 2011, \u201cReference Guide on Statistics,\u201d\n Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition ........................................................... 7\n\nMichael J. Kaufman & John M. Wunderlich, Regressing: The Troubling Dispositive Role of\n Event Studies in Securities Fraud Litigation,\n 15 Stan. J.L. Bus. & Fin. 183, 190 (2009) .................................................................................. 5\n\n\n\n\n v\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 31\n\n\n\n\nMoeller, S., F. Schlingemann, and R. Stulz, 2005, \u201cWealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A\n Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave,\u201d\n Journal of Finance 60 ................................................................................................................ 17\n\nRubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d\n Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011), p. 321\n ..................................................................................................................................................... 7\n\n\n\n\n vi\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 31\n\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative Darshan Hasthantra (\u201cClass Representative\u201d),\n\nindividually and on behalf of all members of the certified Class (defined below), respectfully\n\nsubmits this opposition to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nExpert Dr. Zahn Bozanic (ECF No. 109, the \u201cMotion\u201d or \u201cMot.\u201d).\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Dr. Bozanic\u2019s expert reports and opinions establish market efficiency, economic\n\nmateriality, and loss causation, and provide a model to calculate damages on a class-wide basis.\n\nDefendants\u2019 motion seeks to exclude Dr. Bozanic\u2019s reports and testimony, including his market\n\nefficiency report, which the Court already found relevant and that supported class certification.\n\nSee Mot. at 2, 23; Order (ECF No. 101) at 2, 22-23. Dr. Bozanic meets the requirements of Federal\n\nRules of Evidence (\u201cFRE\u201d) 702. He applies his technical expertise to the facts using widely\n\naccepted economic principles to reach his conclusions and does not offer legal opinions. His\n\nanalysis will assist the jury in determining the damages incurred by the Class.\n\n Dr. Bozanic presented a proposed damages methodology amenable to the calculation of\n\nper-share out-of-pocket damages on a class-wide basis. See ECF No. 108-1, (\u201cEx. A\u201d), \u00b6\u00b63, 85,\n\n92; ECF No. 108-4, (\u201cEx. D\u201d) \u00b6\u00b612, 30, 33, 166-68. Defendants\u2019 Daubert motion largely reiterates\n\nflawed arguments from Defendants\u2019 Opposition to Class Certification. ECF No. 92. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s\n\nmethodology used an event study which measured the amount of inflation dissipation following\n\neach corrective disclosure date(s) and worked chronologically backward to construct the inflation\n\nribbon for each day during the Class Period. Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b665-69, 155-68. This is a widely accepted\n\ntechnique for computing class-wide damages in securities class actions. Courts in this circuit have\n\nrepeatedly endorsed this method to establish loss causation and damages. See, e.g., Sjunde AP-\n\nFonden v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 3d 416, 478-79 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Waggoner\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 31\n\n\n\n\nv. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir. 2017). Dr. Bozanic\u2019s testimony is admissible and will\n\nassist the trier of fact.\n\nII. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS DO NOT FAVOR DEFENDANTS\u2019\n MOTION\n\n In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court explained\n\nthat FRE 702 requires district courts to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that expert testimony \u201cboth\n\nrests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.\u201d Id. at 597. As such, the Court\n\nmust make \u201ca preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the\n\ntestimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be\n\napplied to the facts in issue.\u201d Id. at 592\u201393. In short, the Court must \u201cmake certain that an expert,\n\nwhether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the\n\ncourtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the\n\nrelevant field.\u201d Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999).\n\n Courts in the Second Circuit liberally construe expert-qualification requirements.\n\nWashington v. Kellwood Co., 105 F. Supp. 3d 293, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). At best, Defendants\u2019\n\nspeculative attacks, even if accurate (which they are not), present a battle of the experts. \u201cUnder\n\nDaubert and its progeny, it is the role of the district court to analyze the qualifications of experts,\n\nthe reliability of the methods used by an expert, and whether expert testimony will assist the trier\n\nof fact, not to weigh conflicting evidence...\u201d In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litig., 169 F.\n\nSupp. 3d 396, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 (\u201cThe focus, of course, must\n\nbe solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.\u201d) \u201c[T]he mere\n\nfact that a difference of opinion exists does not make plaintiff\u2019s experts\u2019 conclusions inherently\n\nunreliable. Such differences of opinion and alleged weaknesses in the experts\u2019 methodologies will\n\ngo to the weight to be given the expert testimony, not its admissibility.\u201d Guild v. Gen. Motors\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 10 of 31\n\n\n\n\nCorp., 53 F.Supp.2d 363, 368-369 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). \u201c[U]nless the disputed evidence is wholly\n\nirrelevant or so speculative as to have no probative value, it is appropriate for the Court to \u201ctake in\n\nthe evidence freely and separate helpful conclusions from ones that are not grounded in reliable\n\nmethodology.\u201d Republic of Turkey v. Christie\u2019s Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 204, 220 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2,\n\n2019) (internal citations omitted).\n\n \u201c[I]t is not the role of the court to determine whether the expert\u2019s conclusions are right or\n\nwrong.\u201d DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd., 2024 WL 1115944, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.\n\nMar. 14, 2024). Exclusion of expert testimony is warranted only when the district court finds\n\n\u201cserious flaws in reasoning or methodology.\u201d In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d\n\n164, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). If an expert\u2019s testimony falls within \u201cthe range where experts might\n\nreasonably differ,\u201d the duty of determining the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on which\n\nthe expert relied lies with the jury, rather than the trial court. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 153. \u201c[E]xpert\n\ntestimony should be excluded if it is speculative or conjectural ... or if it is based on assumptions\n\nthat are so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith, or to be in essence an apples and\n\noranges comparison.\u201d Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal\n\nquotation marks omitted). \u201cVigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and\n\ncareful instruction on the burden of proof\u201d remain \u201cthe traditional and appropriate means\u201d of\n\nchallenging expert testimony. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s expert reports and testimony\n\nreadily meet the liberal admissibility requirements of FRE 702. Defendants\u2019 motion to exclude\n\nthem should be denied.\n\nIII. DEFENDANTS DO NOT CHALLENGE DR. BOZANIC\u2019S QUALIFICATIONS\n\n FRE 702(a) permits expert testimony when the expert\u2019s scientific, technical, or other\n\nspecialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 11 of 31\n\n\n\n\nin issue. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s qualifications are unassailable. He holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\nfrom the Pennsylvania State University and is a tenured, full professor of accounting at Florida\n\nState University, where he teaches courses and conducts research on corporate disclosure, debt\n\ncontracting, financial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement.\n\nEx. D, \u00b6\u00b64-5. Before joining Florida State University, Dr. Bozanic served as an Assistant Professor\n\nof Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a research fellow at The National Center for\n\nthe Middle Market. Id., \u00b67. Dr. Bozanic is also an Editorial Board member of several peer-reviewed\n\njournals, and is an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting. Id., \u00b66.\n\n This Court has already found that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s report submitted in connection with\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion for class certification supported market efficiency. Order at 22-23; see also\n\nLeone v. ASP Isotopes Inc., 2025 WL 3484821, at *36 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025) (finding Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s event study provided \u201cstrong evidence\u201d of the corrective disclosures\u2019 price impact).\n\nIV. DR. BOZANIC\u2019S EVENT STUDY AND CONSTANT DOLLAR\n METHODOLOGIES ARE WIDELY ACCEPTED, RELIABLE, AND WILL\n ASSIST THE JURY\n Defendants do not dispute that the out-of-pocket methodology is standard, reasonable, and\n\nrelied upon in virtually all securities class action matters alleging fraud claims under Section 10(b)\n\nof the Exchange Act, nor do they offer an alternative methodology. Defendants also do not contest\n\nthat Dr. Bozanic\u2019s use of the event study methodology is a reliable method for quantifying artificial\n\ninflation in this case, that Dr. Bozanic properly performed a reliable event study to determine the\n\nimpact that each of the Corrective Disclosure Events had on the price of CleanSpark common\n\nstock, and that Dr. Bozanic properly calculated the abnormal declines in the market price of\n\nCleanSpark common stock on each of the Corrective Disclosure Events, after controlling for\n\nmarket and industry effects. See Mot. at 8-9; see also Ex. A, Section V; Merits Reply (ECF No.\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 12 of 31\n\n\n\n\n108-6, \u201cEx. F\u201d), \u00b67. As noted above, event studies are routinely used and accepted by courts in\n\nsecurities-fraud cases.\n\n An event study is \u201ca statistical regression analysis that examines the effect of an event ...\n\non a dependent variable, such as a company\u2019s stock price.\u201d Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St.\n\nLouis v. Barclays PLC, 310 F.R.D. 69, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Michael J. Kaufman & John\n\nM. Wunderlich, Regressing: The Troubling Dispositive Role of Event Studies in Securities Fraud\n\nLitigation, 15 Stan. J.L. Bus. & Fin. 183, 190 (2009)). \u201cAn event study has four parts: defining the\n\nevent (e.g., an earnings announcement), establishing the announcement window (i.e., the period\n\nover which stock price changes are calculated), measuring the expected return of the stock, and\n\ncomputing the abnormal return (which is the actual return minus the expected return).\u201d Id.; see\n\nalso Ex. D, \u00b666. A regression analysis is also used to determine whether the abnormal return is\n\nstatistically significant. Id., \u00b666.\n\n Dr. Bozanic conducted a classic event study, reviewing day-to-day information releases\n\nfrom sources including press releases, conference calls, news reports, securities analysts\u2019 reports,\n\nand SEC filings. Ex. A, Section V.E; Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b668, 77. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s event study: (i) identified\n\nstatistically significant movements in CleanSpark\u2019s stock price; (ii) identified the Company-\n\nspecific news that caused CleanSpark\u2019s stock price to change; (iii) quantified the amount of\n\nmovement in CleanSpark\u2019s stock price caused by the Company-specific news by controlling for\n\ngeneral market and industry factors; and (iv) analyzed the news that caused the stock price\n\nmovements to determine whether, and if so, how it related to the alleged fraudulent misstatements\n\nand omissions. Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b664-69.\n\n Based on that analysis, Dr. Bozanic opined on estimated per share damages caused by the\n\ndisclosure of the relevant truth. The difference between CleanSpark\u2019s actual trading price and its\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 13 of 31\n\n\n\n\nvalue, i.e., the price at which CleanSpark shares would have traded absent the alleged fraud,\n\nrepresents the inflation per share, commonly referred to as \u201cper share\u201d or \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d damages.\n\nId., \u00b6\u00b6160-68; In re Credit Suisse Securities Fraud Class Actions, 2025 WL 3172143, at *17\n\n(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) (the out-of-pocket \u201cmodel can mechanically compute individual class\n\nmembers\u2019 damages across the Class based on the proposed common \u2018out-of-pocket\u2019 methodology,\n\nwhich courts have repeatedly held to be consistent with the securities laws and capable of being\n\napplied on a class-wide basis\u201d). Dr. Bozanic applied widely accepted reliable methodologies and\n\nthus his testimony is admissible and will assist the trier of fact. Defendants\u2019 challenges to Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s conclusions are not grounds for exclusion.\n\nV. DEFENDANTS\u2019 CHALLENGES TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF DR. BOZANIC\u2019S\n LOSS CAUSATION AND DAMAGES ANALYSIS ARE NOT A BASIS TO\n EXCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY\n A. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Analysis of Statistical Significance Is Consistent With\n Academic Theory\n Defendants argue that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s conclusion that the \u201cCorrective Disclosure Events\n\ncaused stock price movements that were statistically significant at better than the 50% level, i.e.,\n\nit is \u2018more likely than not\u2019 that the stock price declines were related to information released on\n\nthese dates, as opposed to random price movements\u201d is invalid. Mot. at 8; Ex. D, \u00b669. Dr. Bozanic\n\ndetailed the relevant academic research supporting his statement that \u201cstatistical significance is a\n\ncontinuum reflecting whether it is \u2018more likely than not\u2019 that the alleged misrepresentations had\n\nprice impact.\u201d 1 Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b613, 18. Notably, Dr. Rubinfeld\u2019s \u201cReference Guide on Multiple\n\nRegression\u201d states that \u201ccourts should avoid relying solely on sharply defined statistical tests.\u201d Id.,\n\n\n\n1\n Brav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power, Confounding\nEffects, and Bias,\u201d Washington University Law Review 93 (\u201c[S]tatistical significance is simply\ndescribing a set of returns that would be unusual to observe if there was no price impact. Lack of\nstatistical significance does not tell us that it is more probable than not that there was no price\nimpact.\u201d).\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 14 of 31\n\n\n\n\n\u00b614. 2 Indeed, the literature relied on by Defendants\u2019 expert, Dr. Garmaise 3, similarly describes the\n\n95% and 90% statistical significance levels as \u201cat best useful conventions.\u201d Id., \u00b617. As Dr.\n\nBozanic noted in his Reply, academic literature states that \u201cThe effect best supported by the data\n\nfrom a given experiment is always the observed effect, regardless of its significance.\u201d Id., \u00b619. 4 In\n\nfact, academic literature states that Defendants\u2019 argument that courts rely on stringent standards of\n\nstatistical significance would \u201cresult in the exclusion of price impacts that do not meet the high\n\nthreshold yet are still economically meaningful.\u201d Id., \u00b620. 5\n\n Courts have similarly found that failure to find statistical significance at the 95%\n\nconfidence level \u201cdoes not prove that information had no role in the observed stock price\n\nadjustment.\u201d Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co., 332 F.R.D. 370, 393\n\n(N.D. Ga. 2019); see also Vizirgianakis v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., 775 Fed.App\u2019x. 51, 53 (3d Cir.\n\nMay 30, 2019) (failure to prove price impact to a 95% confidence level is not \u201cnecessarily proof\n\nof the opposite.\u201d); Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Autos., N.V., 327 F.R.D. 38, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding\n\nthat a statistically significant stock price decline below the 95% confidence level following\n\ncorrective disclosure \u201cdoes not prove the absence of price impact\u201d) (emphasis in original);\n\nCarpenters Pension Tr. Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC, 310 F.R.D. 69, 89-90 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)\n\n(rejecting defendants\u2019 argument that plaintiffs\u2019 expert abandoned statistical significance where the\n\n\n\n\n2\n See, e.g., Rubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d in Reference Manual on\nScientific Evidence, Third Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011), p. 321.\n3\n Garmaise, \u00b636; Kaye, D. and D. Freedman, 2011, \u201cReference Guide on Statistics,\u201d in Reference\nManual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition.\n4\n Brav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power, Confounding\nEffects, and Bias,\u201d Washington University Law Review 93, at n.24, quoting Goodman, S., 2008,\n\u201cA Dirty Dozen: Twelve P-Value Misconceptions,\u201d Seminars in Hematology 45.\n5\n Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are\nReshaping Shareholder Class Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 15 of 31\n\n\n\n\nexpert found information that \u201cdoesn\u2019t rise to the level of statistical significance at the 5 percent\n\nlevel\u201d was \u201csignificant enough that a reasonable investor would say that would affect his or her\n\ninvestment decision\u201d and holding that \u201cdefendants\u2019 objections go to the weight, not the sufficiency\n\nof the evidence, and are therefore not a basis to exclude[.]\u201d); Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., 330 F.R.D.\n\n439, 450 (W.D. Tex. 2019) (p values of 0.234 and 0.233 \u201csuggest there is a 77 percent chance the\n\ncorrective disclosures identified by Plaintiff negatively impacted EZCORP\u2019s stock price on these\n\ndates. [] What they do not suggest is that the misrepresentation \u2018did not affect the stock price\u2019\u201d).\n\n Dr. Bozanic\u2019s methodology is consistent with academic literature and Defendants\u2019\n\ndisagreement with his conclusions is not grounds for exclusion. See Sjunde AP-Fonden v. Gen.\n\nElec. Co., 2023 WL 6314939, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2023) (constant dollar inflation \u201can\n\naccepted methodology\u201d and plaintiffs\u2019 expert\u2019s application of an accepted methodology a jury\n\nquestion. \u201cTo the extent that Defendants contend that there is evidence in the record to the contrary,\n\n[] the remedy is not exclusion, but \u2018[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary\n\nevidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)); Amorgianos v. Nat\u2019l\n\nR.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 2002) (\u201cthe district court must focus on the\n\nprinciples and methodology employed by the expert, without regard to the conclusions the expert\n\nhas reached or the district court\u2019s belief as to the correctness of those conclusions\u201d). 6\n\n B. The Corrective Disclosure Events Provided New Information To The Market\n Defendants argue that certain information regarding the corrective disclosures in the Culper\n\nReport was already public and that the informational efficiency theory Dr. Bozanic applied is\n\nunreliable. Mot. at 13-14. Defendants similarly argued in their motion to dismiss that the\n\n\n\n6\n Defendants point out that Dr. Bozanic applied 95% and 90% confidence levels in the ASP\nIsotopes, Verrica, and Teleperformance cases. (Mot. at 10) The application of those levels in other\ncases does not imply that lower confidence thresholds are inappropriate or unreliable.\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 16 of 31\n\n\n\n\ninformation in the Culper Report and related tweet regurgitated public information (ECF No. 45\n\nat 26) and the Court noted several cases, including Chicago Bridge, which stated that \u201cany third\n\nparty\u2019s analysis of a company\u2019s already-public financial information cannot contribute new\n\ninformation to the marketplace \u2026. is incorrect.\u201d Bishins v. CleanSpark, Inc., 2023 WL 112558, at\n\n*12-13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023); In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL\n\n1329354, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) (collecting cases); see also In re Winstar Commc\u2019ns,\n\n2006 WL 473885, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006) (loss causation may be based on stock drop\n\nfollowing short seller report, even when its findings are \u201cnot attributed to any non-public\n\ninformation\u201d and \u201cderived from an analysis of\u201d published financials); In re Take-Two Sec. Litig.,\n\n551 F. Supp. 2d 247, 283 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 16, 2008) (loss causation may be based on \u201cthird-party\n\nanalyses of a company\u2019s financials, which contradict representations made by defendants\u201d). Unlike\n\nOmnicom where the underlying accounting issue had been widely reported in the press (In re\n\nOmnicom Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., 541 F. Supp. 2d 546, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)), \u201cthe information in\n\nthe first Culper Report had been buried in the bankruptcy filings of an unrelated company.\u201d\n\nCleanSpark, 2023 WL 112558, at *12.\n\n Defendants also contend that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s disclosure processing costs theory is unreliable.\n\nDisclosure processing costs are costs related to the acquisition, analysis, and synthesis of\n\ninformation. Ex. F, \u00b632. Relying on academic literature, 7 Dr. Bozanic opined that the author of the\n\nCulper Report would not have incurred such costs if investors were already aware of the\n\ninformation revealed in the Culper Report. Id., \u00b6\u00b632-33. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s analysis is reliable and\n\n\n\n7\n See Fama, E., 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II\u201d Journal of Finance 46; Blankespoor, E., E.\nDeHaan, and I. Marinovic, 2020, \u201cDisclosure Processing Costs, Investors\u2019 Information Choice,\nand Equity Market Outcomes: A Review,\u201d Journal of Accounting and Economics 70.\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 17 of 31\n\n\n\n\nhelpful to the jury to understand why the corrective disclosures in the Culper Report and related\n\ntweet were new to the market and caused CleanSpark\u2019s stock price to drop.\n\n Defendants also incorrectly claim that a court rejected Dr. Bozanic\u2019s \u201cdrift\u201d theory based\n\nin part on a discussion of disclosure processing costs in Sundaram v. Freshworks Inc., 2025 WL\n\n1083168, at *5 n.6 (N.D Cal. Apr. 10, 2025). Mot. at 16. However, that court made no reference\n\nto disclosure processing costs in its opinion. See Freshworks, 2025 WL 1083168. Moreover, Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s opinions in this matter do not rely on the \u201cdrift\u201d theory, so Freshworks is not\n\nsubstantively relevant. In addition, the court in Freshworks noted \u201cdrift is supported in the\n\nacademic literature\u201d yet found that Dr. Bozanic never applied \u201cdrift\u201d theory to the facts of that case\n\nand thus it was \u201ctoo speculative to create a genuine dispute of material fact\u201d (id. at *5); however,\n\nDr. Bozanic was never asked to conduct such an analysis. Freshworks provides no basis to exclude\n\nDr. Bozanic\u2019s opinions in this matter.\n\n C. The Combination of Dates Is Supported By Academic Theory And Is\n Regularly Accepted By Courts\n The Supreme Court has declined to \u201cadopt any particular theory of how quickly and\n\ncompletely publicly available information is reflected in market price.\u201d Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485\n\nU.S. 224, 249 n.28 (1988). In Halliburton II, the Supreme Court again stated that it would not\n\n\u201center the fray\u201d of academic debates about the speed at which information is impounded into a\n\nstock price. Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 271-72 (2014) (\u201cHalliburton\n\nII\u201d).\n\n Dr. Bozanic combined dates because the market was responding to the same corrective\n\nevents. Dr. Bozanic found that the two-day abnormal return for January 14 and 15, 2021 of -23.2%\n\nand for February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 of -16% were each statistically significant at\n\ngreater than the 94% level. Ex. D, \u00b688. Dr. Bozanic explained that combining the January 14th and\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 18 of 31\n\n\n\n\n15th drops was reasonable because the market was responding to the same corrective event,\n\nspecifically the release of the Culper Report and the tweet bringing greater visibility to its contents.\n\nEx. F, \u00b623.\n\n Defendants take issue with Dr. Bozanic\u2019s cumulation of the February 12, 2021 and August\n\n17, 2021 drops, yet cite nothing, including any academic literature, to suggest this is inappropriate.\n\nSee Garmaise Report (ECF No. 108-5, \u201cEx. E\u201d), \u00b675. However, even when assessed individually\n\nthe statistical significance of the returns on these dates still demonstrates that the declines were\n\nrelated to the corrective disclosures. Ex. F, \u00b625. Dr. Bozanic explained that it was reasonable to\n\ncombine the February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 drops because both corrective disclosures\n\nconcern the delayed expansion timeline and they \u201creflect the market\u2019s response to the corrective\n\ninformation entering the market regarding expansion delays at the ATL facility.\u201d Id., \u00b625. As the\n\nCourt acknowledged in its opinion on the motion to dismiss, the misstatements regarding the\n\ntimeline were based on materialization of the concealed risk that the longer expansion project\n\ntimeline posed to investors. CleanSpark, 2023 WL 112558, at *13.\n\n Dr. Bozanic\u2019s analysis relies on academic literature stating that \u201cwhen a single corrective\n\ndisclosure is broken down into multiple disclosures, the statistical power to detect abnormal\n\nperformance decreases.\u201d Ex. F, \u00b623. 8 As explained in the literature cited by Dr. Bozanic, \u201cevent\n\nstudies used in securities litigation are likely to have very low power\u2014very low probability of\n\nrejecting an actually false null hypothesis\u2014when we insist on keeping the Type I error rate as low\n\nas 5%.\u201d Id., \u00b623 n.45.\n\n\n\n\n8\n Citing Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are\nReshaping Shareholder Class Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n 11\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 19 of 31\n\n\n\n\n \u201cThe selection of an appropriate event window is an inexact science,\u201d and the question of\n\nwhether a multi-day window is appropriate is fact dependent. United States v. Hatfield, 2014 WL\n\n7271616, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2014). Multi-day event windows have frequently been found\n\nappropriate for event study analysis in securities fraud class actions. See, e.g., In re Xcelera.com\n\nSec. Litig., 430 F.3d 503, 513 n.11 (1st Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that a two-day event window\n\nis inconsistent with an efficient market); In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., 639 F.3d 623, 635 (3d Cir.\n\n2011) (\u201cThat some information took two days to affect the price does not undermine a finding of\n\nefficiency.\u201d), abrogated on other grounds by Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust\n\nFunds, 568 U.S. 455, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013); In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Sec.\n\nLitig., 634 F. Supp. 2d 352, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (using a three-day window for analysis); In re\n\nDiamond Foods, Inc., 295 F.R.D. 240, 249 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing defense expert\u2019s assertion that\n\na \u201cproper test of market efficiency\u201d required analyzing whether the market price reacted to new\n\ninformation over more than one trading day in order to \u201cassess[ ] whether there are delayed price\n\nresponses to the events of interest\u201d); Fogarazzo v. Lehman Bros., 263 F.R.D. 90, 104 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n2009) (accepting event study with three-day event window and rejecting argument that this rule\n\nonly applied \u201cwhere the timing of discrete events was [not] ascertainable\u201d); Aranaz Catalyst\n\nPharm. Partners Inc., 302 F.R.D. 657, 669 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014) (citing significant two-day\n\nstock decline as \u201cstrong empirical evidence of market efficiency\u201d). Defendants\u2019 disagreement with\n\ncumulating related returns across days is not a basis for exclusion.\n\n D. The Dates Chosen By Dr. Bozanic Revealed New Information\n To The Market And Were Not Cherry-Picked\n\n Defendants claim Dr. Bozanic characterized old information as new and cherry-picked\n\nPlaintiff-friendly dates and excluded dates that would have yielded \u201ca positive cumulative\n\nabnormal return.\u201d Mot. at 17-18. Dr. Garmaise opined that January 5, 2021, March 2, 2021, and\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 20 of 31\n\n\n\n\nJuly 14, 2021 should have been included. Ex. E, \u00b676. However, none of these dates revealed new\n\ninformation to the market and thus were not corrective disclosures regarding expansion delays. Dr.\n\nBozanic explained that because these alternative dates did not alter the total mix of fraud-related\n\ninformation in the market, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s argument that these dates should be included is\n\nirrelevant to the primary issue of whether these dates conveyed new, fraud-related information to\n\nthe market. Ex. F, \u00b626.\n\n On January 5, 2021, Bradford had an after-market interview with the TDA Network, which\n\nCleanSpark tweeted. In that interview, Bradford stated: \u201cWe\u2019re expanding the facility from 20 MW\n\nup to 50 MW. We expect that that\u2019ll be done late spring / early July.\u201d 9 However, a press release\n\nissued that same day which was broadly released via GlobeNewswire made no mention of any\n\nexpansion delays and stated that \u201c[w]e anticipate completion of our near-term expansion within\n\nthe coming weeks\u201d (emphasis added), and that the Company had mined 31 bitcoins resulting in\n\n$873,000 in revenue. Ex. F, \u00b669. Dr. Bozanic concluded that the news of the 31 bitcoins and\n\n$873,000 was highly relevant given that in only 26 days of bitcoin mining it comprised almost\n\n90% of the quarterly revenues from all other segments combined for the quarter ended December\n\n31, 2019. Id., \u00b670; Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b6133, 135. He further noted that this was the focus of news articles and\n\nanalyst reports, which made no mention of the expansion delays. Ex. F, \u00b671. In addition, Dr.\n\nBozanic noted that with four months to go until the expected April 2021 completion date, \u201clate\n\nspring\u201d could reasonably be interpreted as \u2018on schedule\u2019. Id.; Ex. D, \u00b6134.\n\n With respect to the Company\u2019s March 2, 2021 statement that \u201cWe continue to aggressively\n\npursue the growth of our hash rate capacity and expect to reach 1 to 1.3 EH/s in total production\n\ncapacity this summer,\u201d Dr. Bozanic explained that this information was not new relative to the\n\n\n\n9\n https://twitter.com/CleanSpark_Inc/status/1346599574639497217\n 13\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 21 of 31\n\n\n\n\nFebruary 12, 2021 corrective disclosure and \u201cthus could maintain but not introduce additional\n\ninflation.\u201d Ex. F, \u00b626 n.50.\n\n On July 14, 2021, CleanSpark announced an agreement to send mining rigs to Coinmint\n\nsince the ATL Facility lacked power capacity. Bradford stated in that announcement that the ATL\n\nexpansion would be \u201cfinalized in the coming months.\u201d Dr. Bozanic concluded that statement could\n\nreasonably be interpreted by investors as consistent with the expectations set in the February 12,\n\n2021 corrective disclosure of \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-summer\u201d since the date range for \u201cmid-year\u201d to\n\n\u201cmid-summer\u201d is July 1 \u2013 August 5, 2021. And, similarly, since the last day of summer in 2021\n\nwas September 21, 2021, the July 14, 2021 disclosure indicating that the units would start to arrive\n\nin September could reasonably be interpreted as consistent with the February 12, 2021 disclosure.\n\nId., \u00b680. Dr. Bozanic also noted that this conclusion is consistent with Bradford\u2019s statement on a\n\nFireside Chat later the same day with Water Tower Research that \u201cwe\u2019re on track for late summer\n\nto bring that capacity online \u2026 by this September also we\u2019re going to be at 50 megawatts of total\n\npower at our current facilities.\u201d Id., \u00b681. On the other hand, Dr. Bozanic concluded that \u201cthis fall\u201d\n\n(i.e., September 22 \u2013 December 20, 2021) was a different time period than \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-\n\nsummer\u201d (i.e., July 1 \u2013 August 5, 2021), and thus the August 17, 2021 corrective disclosure re \u201cthis\n\nfall\u201d provided new information to the market. Id., \u00b680.\n\n For these reasons, the dates were not cherry-picked, but rather, were a product of Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s analysis of reliable academic principles. Defendants\u2019 disagreement with that analysis is\n\nnot a basis for exclusion.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 22 of 31\n\n\n\n\nVI. DR. BOZANIC\u2019S OPINIONS ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT AND WILL BE\n HELPFUL TO A JURY\n A. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Analysis Of Economically Materiality Is Highly Relevant\n\n Defendants incorrectly claim that Dr. Bozanic asserted that certain statements were\n\n\u201cmaterial simply because they were made\u201d and that this opinion is irrelevant given that a layperson\n\non the jury is capable of viewing the relevant documents. As stated in Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Merits Report\n\nhis finding of economic materiality was based on:\n\n (1) Defendants\u2019 own public statements portraying the ATL Facility\u2019s potential to\n rapidly increase expected profitability on the basis of increased operational capacity\n and lower energy costs; (2) analyst commentary demonstrating that the market\n relied upon Defendants\u2019 statements concerning the ability to increase operational\n capacity, the ability to secure power at low cost, and the anticipated timeline to\n rapidly increase expected profitability through scale; (3) the application of basic\n valuation principles to CleanSpark\u2019s business; and (4) my event study analysis that\n establishes statistically significant declines in the price of CleanSpark Common\n Stock on the Corrective Disclosure Events.\n\nEx. D, \u00b639.\n\n Dr. Bozanic found that Defendants\u2019 public statements reflect that \u201cCleanSpark considered\n\ninformation about expected operational capacity, expected energy costs, and the anticipated\n\ntimeline to rapidly increase expected profitability through scale as important drivers of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s value and the valuation of its stock.\u201d Id., \u00b640. His analysis of these statements\n\ndescribes why the information therein was important to investors. See id., \u00b6\u00b640-48. Dr. Bozanic\n\nnoted that CleanSpark regularly updated investors on the expansion timeline throughout the Class\n\nPeriod, which demonstrated that the Company understood the importance of this information. Id.,\n\n\u00b6\u00b644-45, 47-48. He also detailed how the statements reflect that Defendants recognized the\n\nimportance of obtaining power at a low cost. Id., \u00b6\u00b646, 48. As such, Dr. Bozanic\u2019s analysis of\n\nDefendants\u2019 public statements is highly relevant to his conclusion that these statements were\n\neconomically material and will assist the trier of fact.\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 23 of 31\n\n\n\n\n B. The Constant Dollar Inflationary Ribbon is Regularly Accepted by Courts\n and Defendants May Test its Merits Before the Jury\n Defendants argue that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s inflation measure is \u201cabsurd\u201d and suggests that\n\n\u201cinvestors utterly devalued parts of CleanSpark\u2019s business that are unrelated to the allegations\u201d\n\n(Mot. at 22). Defendants, however, offer no alternative methodology. Dr. Bozanic used the constant\n\ndollar methodology to measure inflation. This approach measures the inflation in the stock price\n\nattributable to the fraud on each day of the Class Period, and is calculated by working\n\nchronologically backward from the disclosures of the relevant truth, cumulating the artificial\n\ninflation in the stock price on each day. Ex. D, \u00b6\u00b6156-59. This is widely recognized as the\n\ntraditional measure of damages in Rule 10b-5 cases, and is amply supported by academic literature\n\nand case law. Sjunde, 2023 WL 6314939, at *16 (\u201cconstant-dollar inflation methodology is\n\nsufficiently reliable\u201d and \u201ccourts commonly accept the constant-dollar inflation\u201d); see Baker v.\n\nSeaWorld Ent., Inc., 423 F. Supp. 3d 878, 908 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (\u201cthe constant dollar inflation\n\nmethod is commonly used to calculate 10b-5 damages\u201d); Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., 2019 WL\n\n7282026, at *6-8 (D. Ariz. Dec 27, 2019) (constant dollar inflation \u201can accepted methodology\u201d);\n\nGlickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int\u2019l, Inc., 787 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (\u201cThe best way to\n\ndetermine the impact of a false statement is to observe what happens when the truth is finally\n\ndisclosed and use that to work backward, on the assumption that the lie\u2019s positive effect on the\n\nshare price is equal to the additive inverse of the truth\u2019s negative effect.\u201d). Thus, Dr. Bozanic\u2019s\n\nopinions about loss causation and damages are reliable under applicable law.\n\n While Dr. Bozanic chose the \u201cconstant dollar\u201d approach, he noted in his Reply that \u201cthe\n\nconstant percentage method represents an alternative approach to backcasting of artificial\n\ninflation.\u201d Ex. F, \u00b6119. Further, he stated in his Reply that these approaches are inputs to the out-\n\nof-pocket damages model that could easily be modified if the jury were to find the \u201cconstant\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 24 of 31\n\n\n\n\npercentage\u201d approach more appropriate. Id., \u00b6\u00b6121-25. Defendants\u2019 contention that there \u201cis\n\nsimply too great an analytical gap between the data\u201d in Dr. Bozanic\u2019s constant dollar approach\n\n(Mot. at 22) is unavailing, as Dr. Bozanic\u2019s theory can be supported through empirical price\n\nanalysis. As Dr. Bozanic demonstrates, CleanSpark\u2019s stock traded at virtually identical levels\n\nbefore and after the Class Period, averaging $11.80 in early December 2020 and closed at $11.65\n\non August 17, 2021. Ex. F, \u00b6118, n.186. This price symmetry directly contradicts Dr. Garmaise\u2019s\n\nspeculation that constant dollar inflation is inappropriate, demonstrating \u201cthe business outlook and\n\nvaluation for the Company was remarkably similar before versus after the Class Period.\u201d Id., \u00b6118.\n\n Moreover, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s implicit cap of artificial inflation at the $26.3 million ATL\n\ntransaction value ignores established academic literature. As Dr. Bozanic notes, acquirer wealth\n\ndestruction routinely exceeds acquisition costs when transactions signal deeper management\n\nfailures. Id., \u00b6118 n.187 (citing Moeller, S., F. Schlingemann, and R. Stulz, 2005, \u201cWealth\n\nDestruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave,\u201d\n\nJournal of Finance 60.).\n\n C. Disclosure Salience Is Supported By Academic Literature\n\n Disclosure salience is the theory that information can be considered more salient for\n\ninvestors when it is highlighted more prominently, earlier, or in a press release headline. Disclosure\n\nsalience is supported by academic literature on which Dr. Bozanic relies. Ex. F, \u00b6\u00b634-41. Thus, Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s assessment of the Culper Report\u2019s value relevance is reasonable, reliable, and consistent\n\nwith the literature\u2019s findings. In fact, Dr. Garmaise did not disavow the legitimacy of disclosure\n\nsalience, nor did he opine on how he would evaluate a disclosure\u2019s salience at his deposition.\n\nGarmaise Depo. Tr., at 43-44, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Christopher Fallon,\n\nsubmitted herewith. While Defendants attempt to distinguish this case on the grounds that it\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 25 of 31\n\n\n\n\nconcerns short seller statements, as opposed to corporate headlines discussed in the academic\n\nliterature, there is no reason to assert that the latter type of news would impact the stock price in a\n\nway that the former would not.\n\n Dr. Bozanic applied disclosure salience theory from published academic research \u201cto assess\n\nthe value relevance of the information conveyed by the Culper Report and related tweets.\u201d Then,\n\nrelying on that theory, he considered \u201cpoints that were not repeated across tweets as less\n\nemphasized and thus less value relevant\u201d. Ex. F, \u00b6\u00b642, 45-46. Defendants claim that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s\n\nuse of disclosure salience is \u201cspeculative, unsupported, and unreliable\u201d and was applied \u201cto bypass\n\ndisaggregation requirements.\u201d Mot. at 19, 21.\n\n Defendants fail to acknowledge that Dr. Bozanic did not simply claim that the points that\n\nwere not repeated were less value relevant. Rather, Dr. Bozanic analyzed each point that was not\n\nrepeated and explained why they lacked value relevance. Ex. F, \u00b6\u00b645-46. He explained that (i) the\n\nShoreline Schools announcement concerning a MOU was not relevant because a contract was not\n\nawarded; (ii) the tweet suggesting p2k Labs \u201cappears to also fake its customers\u201d was not relevant\n\nbecause it was based on some, but not all customers listed on p2K\u2019s website as case studies lacking\n\n\u201cweb presence\u201d; and (iii) the fact that the Culper Report alleges that Bradford is \u201cmoonlighting\u201d\n\nwas not relevant because CleanSpark disclosed that Blue Chip was 50% beneficially owned by\n\nBradford and performed all services at discounted rates and none of the charges were associated\n\nwith work performed by Bradford. Ex. F, \u00b646.\n\n While Defendants may disagree with Dr. Bozanic\u2019s conclusions, that is not a basis to\n\nexclude them. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; see also In re Valeant Pharms. Int\u2019l, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n\nNo. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-LHG, 2023 WL 9748644, at *24 (D.N.J. May 22, 2023) (\u201cWhile\n\nDefendants assert that [plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s] analysis is flawed, those flaws can be addressed if and\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 26 of 31\n\n\n\n\nwhen Plaintiffs\u2019 expert gives testimony at the time of trial. Defendants here have failed to establish\n\nthat [plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s] analysis and opinions are based on either invalid reasoning or unreliable\n\nmethodology.\u201d).\n\n D. The Event Study Disaggregated Market-Based, Industry-Based and Bitcoin\n Pricing-Based Confounding Information\n Dr. Bozanic examined the corrective disclosure dates (1/14-1/15, 2/12, and 8/17) and\n\nexamined the corrective disclosures, along with other non-fraud related news on those days. He\n\nused standard disaggregation methods to separate what portion of the price drops were due to the\n\nfraud, versus other non-fraud related factors. Disaggregation is an issue in many securities cases,\n\nand it\u2019s an issue of fact. See Carpenters Pension Tr. Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC, 750 F.3d\n\n227, 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (disaggregation \u201cinvolve[s] questions of fact\u201d).\n\n Defendants argue that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s analysis is unreliable because he did not disaggregate\n\n\u201csignificant bitcoin mining industry developments, \u2018substantial variation in bitcoin prices and\n\nnetwork difficulty,\u2019 and CleanSpark\u2019s own \u2018changing business model.\u2019\u201d Mot. at 21. However, Dr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s event study methodology explicitly controls for changes in the overall market, changes\n\nin CleanSpark\u2019s software-related industry, and changes in CleanSpark\u2019s bitcoin mining industry\n\n(including the price of bitcoin) throughout the Class Period. See Ex. A, Section V.E; Ex. D, \u00b668.\n\nThe event study controlled for market-based, industry-based, and Bitcoin pricing-based\n\nconfounding information occurring during the alleged Corrective Disclosure Events. While\n\nDefendants claim these were \u201cmajor factors that affected stock price during the Class Period\u201d\n\n(Mot. at 21), Dr. Garmaise never offered his own empirical quantification of what portions of the\n\nprice drops were due to non-fraud related factors. See Leone v. ASP Isotopes Inc., 2025 WL\n\n3484821, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025) (\u201crebuttal typically requires empirical evidence, often in\n\nthe form of an event study, demonstrating that other factors explain the entire price movement\u201d);\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 27 of 31\n\n\n\n\nWM High Yield Fund v. O\u2019Hanlon, 2013 WL 3230667, at *11\u201312 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013)\n\n(requiring an event study or other evidence to demonstrate a causal connection between a\n\nmisrepresentation and subsequent price decline).\n\n It is \u201cup to the jury to determine how much, if any, of the artificial inflation identified by\n\n[the damage expert] was caused by [defendants\u2019] alleged fraud (and thus by the various statements\n\n[they] released in the relevant period), by assessing the alleged misstatements and their connection\n\nto the misconception in question.\u201d In re Vivendi, S.A. Secs. Litig., 838 F.3d 223, 256 (2d Cir. 2016)\n\n(upholding jury finding where damages expert presented the \u201cmaximum amount\u201d of artificial\n\ninflation). The law is clear that the jury may adjust a damages expert\u2019s model to account for their\n\nliability findings. See, e.g., Gruber v. Gilbertson, 628 F. Supp. 3d 472, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)\n\n(upholding jury finding of 57% inflation where \u201cthe jury accepted some but not all\u201d of expert\u2019s\n\n\u201ctestimony regarding disaggregation\u201d because \u201cthis only shows how carefully they parsed the\n\nevidence\u201d); Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1129 (9th Cir. 2018) (upholding jury damages awards\n\nbased on expert testimony about a \u201crange\u201d of potential recoveries and upholding \u201cjury\u2019s choice\u201d\n\nto apportion profits of \u201capproximately 40%\u201d though no party argued for that percentage); Moonbug\n\nEntertainment Limited v. BabyBus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd., 2024 WL 2193323, at\n\n*16 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (\u201cit is within the province of the jury to award less than all of what\n\nthe plaintiff seeks,\u201d and \u201c\u2018the jury may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based\n\non relevant data\u2019\u201d and is \u201c\u2018allowed to act on probable and inferential as well as (upon) direct and\n\npositive proof\u2019\u201d) (quotation omitted).\n\n E. Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Market Efficiency Reports\n Are Relevant And Will Be Useful To The Jury\n\n Defendants argue that since the Court has certified the Class, Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Market\n\nEfficiency Reports (Ex. A, ECF No. 108-3, \u201cEx. C\u201d), submitted in connection with Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 28 of 31\n\n\n\n\nMotion for Class Certification, are not relevant and should be excluded. Mot. at 23. Defendants\n\nalso argue that \u201cto the extent that the Efficiency Reports contain opinions relating to loss causation,\n\ndamages, and/or materiality\u201d they are \u201cinadmissible\u201d, apparently because they argue Dr. Bozanic\u2019s\n\nMerits Reports should be excluded. Id.\n\n The Market Efficiency Reports are cited extensively throughout Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Merits\n\nReports and contain evidence that is relevant to loss causation and damages and will be helpful to\n\nthe jury. Ex. D, Section V., \u00b668. Town & Country Linen Corp. v. Ingenious Designs LLC, which\n\nDefendants cite in support of their argument, denied Daubert motions pertaining to Plaintiffs\u2019\n\ndamages expert because they \u201cpresent several questions related to damages that raise legal\n\nquestions that may shape the way the parties present their cases\u201d. 2022 WL 2757643, at *3\n\n(S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2022). Even if the Court were to exclude Dr. Bozanic\u2019s Merits Reports and\n\ntestimony, the Market Efficiency Reports remain relevant because district courts have the power\n\nto decertify a class at any time before the entry of final judgment, and Plaintiff would rely on those\n\nreports to challenge any decertification. See Mazzei v. The Money Store, 656 Fed. App\u2019x. 558 (2d\n\nCir. 2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (\u201cAn order that grants or denies class certification\n\nmay be altered or amended before final judgment.\u201d). Defendants have not foreclosed the possibility\n\nthat they will move to decertify the class, and the Court has the authority to do so on its own. Thus,\n\nDr. Bozanic\u2019s Market Efficiency Reports remain relevant.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 29 of 31\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Defendants\u2019 motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Dr.\n\nZahn Bozanic should be denied in its entirety.\n\nDated: January 26, 2026 By: /s/Gregory B. Linkh\n GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\n Gregory B. Linkh (GL-0477)\n 230 Park Ave., Suite 358\n New York, NY 10169\n Telephone:(212) 682-5340\n Facsimile: (212) 884-0988\n glinkh@glancylaw.com\n\n Christopher Fallon (admitted pro hac vice)\n 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Telephone: (310) 201-9150\n Facsimile: (310) 201-9160\n\n\n LAW OFFICES OF FRANK CRUZ\n Frank Cruz (admitted pro hac vice)\n 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Telephone: (310) 914-5007\n\n Lead Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Darshan\n Hasthantra and the putative Class\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 30 of 31\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n I, Gregory B. Linkh, that this brief contains 6,706 words, which complies with the word\n\nlimit of L.R. 7.1(c).\n\n\n /s/ Gregory B. Linkh\n Gregory B. Linkh\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 31 of 31\n\n\n\n\n PROOF OF SERVICE\n\n\n I, the undersigned say:\n\n I am not a party to the above case and am over eighteen years old.\n\n On January 26, 2026, I served true and correct copies of the foregoing document, by posting\n\nthe document electronically to the ECF website of the United States District Court for the Southern\n\nDistrict of New York, for receipt electronically by the parties listed on the Court\u2019s Service List.\n\n I affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2026.\n\n\n s/s Gregory B. Linkh\n Gregory B. Linkh\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:11:23.617280-07:00","document_number":"113","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038951492","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528821/","id":484528821,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/113/1/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:27.020397-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T20:43:38.492927-07:00","sha1":"e797878afa6e0e0fa35db886afd6da686e4ad721","page_count":7,"file_size":396969,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.113.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.113.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page1of7\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00511 (LAP)\nV.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al.\n\nDECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER FALLON IN SUPPORT OF\nPLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION\n\nI, Christopher Fallon, hereby declare as follows:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. I am a partner of Glancy\nProngay & Murray LLP, Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Darshan Hasthantra and\nClass Counsel. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon to testify,\nI could and would do so truthfully and accurately. I make this declaration, together with the\nattached exhibits, in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Exclude the\nReports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic.\n\n2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (\u201cEx. 1\u201d) is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the\ndeposition of Mark Garmaise, Ph.D, taken September 30, 2025.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\nforegoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 26th day of January 2026,\nat Los Angeles, California.\n\n/s/ Christopher R. Fallon\nChristopher R. Fallon\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of7\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3of7\n\nPage 1\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al., )\n)\nPlaintiff, )\n)\nvs. ) NO. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al., )\n\nDefendants. )\n\nDEPOSITION OF\nMARK GARMAISE, Ph.D.\n\n(Via Videoconference)\n\nTuesday, September 30, 2025\n\n12:00 p.m. - 1:44 p.m.\n\nVideoconference deposition of MARK GARMAISE, Ph.D.,\nnoticed by the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action,\ntaken before Ruben Garcia, a shorthand reporter within and\n\nfor the State of California.\n\nMAGNA\u00ae\u00a9\n\nLEGAL SERVICES\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document113-1 Filed 01/26/26\n\nPage 4 of 7\n\nAPPEARANCE S\n\nFOR THE PLAINTIFF:\n\n4 (Remotely)\n\n5 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\nBY: GREGORY B. LINKH, ESQ.\n\n6 1925 Century Park East\nSuite 2100\n\n7 Los Angeles, California 90067\n310.201.9150\n\n8 Glinkh@glancylaw.com\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:\n\n(Remotely)\n\n13\nWILK AUSLANDER LLP\n\n14 BY: DAVID PARTIDA, ESQ.\n\nLINDA BURNS, ESQ.\n\n15 825 8th Avenue\nRM 2900\n\n16 New York, New York 10019\n212.981.2313\n\n17 dpartida@wilkauslander.com\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21 Also Present: Zahn Bozanic\n\n22 Videographer: Brad Bissegger\n23\n24\n25\n\nPage 2\n\nMAGNA\u00ae\u00a9\n\nLEGAL SERVICES\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5of7\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nPage 43\n\nA My comment here is that Dr. Bozanic's 01:15:33\nclaims are not supported by the literature that he\ncites. \"T'm not sure\" is the answer to your question.\nBut there's no evidence cited by Dr. Bozanic in\nsupport of that claim. 01:15:52\nQ So is it your opinion that\nDr. Bozanic's analysis regarding disclosure salience\nis inconsistent with this paper by Dr. Cheng?\nA Well, here I make the point that it's\nnot supported by this paper. So the Cheng, et al. 01:16:14\npaper doesn't address repetition in subsequent\npublications, and it also doesn't address short-seller\nreports. So in those two respects, it's simply not\nsupported by the paper that he cites.\nQ Is it your opinion that Dr. Bozanic's 01:16:32\nanalysis is inconsistent with disclosure salience\nliterature as a whole?\nA It's my opinion that his analysis is\nnot supported by the academic literature that he\ncites. 01:16:49\nQ But is there any academic literature\nfor which Dr. Bozanic's analysis is consistent with\nconcerning disclosure salience?\nA IT don't see that cited in his report.\n\nQ Have you found any peer-reviewed 01:17:11\n\nMAGNA\u00ae\u00a9\n\nLEGAL SERVICES\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 7\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nPage 44\n\nstudies concluding that repetition across a 01:17:13\nshort-seller's report is not a valid proxy for\ninvestor value-relevance?\nA Here I'm pointing out that\nDr. Bozanic's conclusion is not supported by the 01:17:27\nliterature that he cites. IT don't have a cite along\nthe lines that you just described.\nQ Do you have an opinion about criteria\nthat you would use to decide whether disclosure\noutside in an earnings announcement is sufficiently 01:17:45\nsalient to expect investor attention?\nA T don't as I sit here today. I haven't\ndeveloped a formal opinion on that. T'd have to think\nabout that. I do know that Dr. Bozanic's opinion in\nthese two respects that we've been discussing is not 01:18:06\nSupported by the literature that he cites.\nQ Are you familiar with a gentleman named\nDr. David Hirshleifer, the last name is spelled\nH-i-r-s-h-e-i -- l-e-i-f-e-r.\nA Yes, Counselor. 01:18:29\nQ Are you familiar with his work on\nlimited attention?\nA Yes, I have read some of his work on\nit. I don't claim to have all of his work on that\n\nsubject memorized. But I have seen some work of his 01:18:39\n\nMAGNA\u00ae\u00a9\n\nLEGAL SERVICES\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 113-1 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 7\n\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nPage 55\n\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA )\n\nCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )\n\nI, RUBEN GARCIA, CSR, do hereby certify that I ama\nduly qualified Certified Shorthand Reporter, in and for the\nState of California, holder of Certificate Number 11305,\nwhich is in full force and effect.\n\nThat the foregoing reporter videoconference\nproceedings were taken before me at the time herein set\nforth; that any witness in the foregoing proceedings, prior\nto testifying, were placed under oath; that every attempt\nwas made to ensure a verbatim record of the remote\nproceedings which inherently have technical interference\nand audio interruptions and issues. Such transcript was\ncreated by me usSing machine shorthand which was thereafter\ntranscribed under my direction.\n\nI further certify that I am not a relative or\nemployee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties nor\nam I financially interested in the outcome of this action.\n\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name\n\nthis ist day of October, 2025.\n\nRUBEN GARCIA, CSR NO. 11305\n\nMAGNA\u00ae\u00a9\n\nLEGAL SERVICES\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:02.565382-07:00","document_number":"113","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127038951493","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-01-26T15:08:15.112716-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.653588-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-26","time_filed":"18:03:40","entry_number":113,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":400,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 107 MOTION to Preclude Notice of Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Proposed Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic. . Document filed by Darshan Hasthantra. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration).(Linkh, Gregory) (Entered: 01/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/451640131/","id":451640131,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/466486851/","id":466486851,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/114/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-26T15:08:14.906218-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:31.534483-07:00","sha1":"194302dad2f7a17e0072c6e6557e39ca5907855d","page_count":24,"file_size":294094,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.114.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.114.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 24\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, Individually Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\nand On Behalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW\nSCHULTZ,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'\n MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS\n OF DAVID M. PONTE'S EXPERT REPORT\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 24\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1\n\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2\n\n I. THE PONTE REPORT SATISFIES\n ALL REQUIREMENTS OF FRE 702 ............................................................................... 3\n\n A. The Ponte Report Provides Specialized Knowledge That Will\n Help the Trier of Fact Understand the Evidence (FRE 702(a)) .................................... 3\n\n B. The Ponte Report Is Based on Sufficient Facts and Data (FRE 702(b)) ...................... 4\n\n C. The Ponte Report Is the Product of Reliable\n Principles and Methods (FRE 702(c)) .......................................................................... 5\n\n D. The Ponte Report Reflects a Reliable Application of the Principles and Methods to\n the Facts of the Case (FRE 702(d))............................................................................... 7\n\n II. DEFENDANTS\u2019 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE\n PONTE REPORT ARE WITHOUT MERIT ..................................................................... 8\n\n A. Mr. Ponte\u2019s Recitation of Facts Is Necessary for\n His Analysis and Is Not Improper Factual Narrative.................................................... 8\n\n B. Mr. Ponte Does Not Opine on Defendants\u2019\n Knowledge, Intent, or Credibility ............................................................................... 12\n\n C. Mr. Ponte Does Not Offer Improper Legal Opinions ................................................. 14\n\n D. Mr. Ponte Does Not Improperly Rely on Hearsay ...................................................... 15\n\n III. DEFENDANTS\u2019 REMAINING OBJECTIONS\n GO TO WEIGHT, NOT ADMISSIBILITY ..................................................................... 17\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 24\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page\n\nStatutes and Rules\n\nFederal Rule of Evidence 702 ................................................................................................ passim\n\nFederal Rules of Evidence 703 ................................................................................................. 2, 15\n\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) ............................................................................ 3\n\nCases\n\nAccent Delight Int\u2019l., Ltd., v. Sotheby\u2019s et al.,\n 2023 WL 2307179 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 1, 2023) ......................................................................... 9, 10\n\nAmorgianos v. Nat\u2019l R.R. Passenger Corp.,\n 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................ 3\n\nCoco Rico LLC v. Universal Ins. Co.,\n 2024 WL 3737063 (D.P.R. May 30, 2023)................................................................................. 6\n\nDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,\n 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ................................................................................................................ 2, 3\n\nGLF Constr. Corp. v. FEDCON Joint Venture, Inc.,\n 2019 WL 7423552 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2019) ............................................................................ 6\n\nIn re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.,\n 645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................... 9\n\nIn re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig.,\n 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................................... 9\n\nKasuba v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,\n 710 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D. Conn. 2024) ....................................................................................... 14\n\nLCC-MZT Team IV. v. U.S.,\n 155 Fed. Cl. 387 (2021) .............................................................................................................. 6\n\nPolk Co., IA, v. Populous, Inc.,\n 2013 WL 12284713 (S.D. Iowa Jul. 12, 2013) ........................................................................... 6\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 24\n\n\n\n\nSantopietro v. City of New Haven,\n 239 Conn. 207, 682 A.2d 106 (1996) ....................................................................................... 14\n\nScentsational Techs. Inc. v. Pespi, Inc.,\n 2018 WL 1889763 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2018)....................................................................... 9, 10\n\nScott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,\n 315 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) .................................................................................................. 9\n\nU.S. v. Duncan,\n 42 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 1994)............................................................................................................ 9\n\nU.S. v. Locascio,\n 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir. 1993).......................................................................................................... 16\n\nWilner v. U.S.,\n Cl. Ct. 241 (1991) ....................................................................................................................... 6\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 24\n\n\n\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Defendants ask this Court to strike core portions of the Expert Report of David Ponte,\n\ndated July 18, 2025 (\u201cPonte Report\u201d, attached as Exhibit A to the Affirmation of David J.\n\nPartida (ECF No. 111)). This case turns on a practical question where specialized project\n\nmanagement analysis will help the jury: when Defendants told investors the Godby Road data\n\ncenter expansion was expected to be completed by specific dates, did the project actually have\n\nthe planning and controls that make those dates achievable?\n\n Mr. Ponte meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence (\u201cFRE\u201d) 702. He brings\n\nforty years of experience in construction scheduling and forensic project controls to this matter.\n\nHe applies the same methods routinely used by owners, contractors, and construction managers\n\nto evaluate schedule feasibility. His opinions are grounded in an adequate factual record and\n\nrely on principles long accepted in the industry. He applies those principles directly to the facts\n\nof this project. He does not speculate, advocate, or address Defendants\u2019 intent or credibility;\n\ninstead, he evaluates objective indicators, and explains what they reveal about whether the\n\nstated completion dates were achievable.\n\n This is exactly the kind of specialized, technical assistance contemplated by FRE 702.\n\nMr. Ponte\u2019s analysis aligns with the facts of the case and will assist the jury in determining\n\nwhether the timelines Defendants presented reflected ordinary project management practice.\n\nBy characterizing this applied analysis as mere \u201cnarrative\u201d or \u201crehashing,\u201d Defendants ignore\n\nhow schedule feasibility is evaluated in practice and improperly conflate admissibility with\n\nweight.\n\n Mr. Ponte offers no legal opinions or conclusions. He merely applies technical project\n\nmanagement principles to the facts. Defendants argue to the contrary, taking certain words in\n\nthe report out of context and improperly ascribing them a \u201clegal\u201d meaning, as opposed to their\n\nobvious technical meaning.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 24\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s testimony does not improperly rely on hearsay. In accordance with FRE\n\n703, he relies on project records and communications in the customary way that similar experts\n\nwould, and then uses the evidence to inform his analysis. Further, much of the evidence he\n\ncites is not hearsay, because it would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted.\n\n Defendants chose not to submit a competing expert report 1 identifying why Mr. Ponte\u2019s\n\nanalysis is methodologically incorrect. As a result, their criticisms rest entirely on attorney\n\nadvocacy, rather than contrary technical evidence from a qualified professional. They also\n\nelected not to depose Mr. Ponte, forgoing the most basic opportunity to examine his methods,\n\nassumptions, or conclusions.\n\n The Court should deny Defendants\u2019 motion, and allow the jury to hear the technical\n\nevidence it needs to decide whether Defendants\u2019 completion timelines had a practical\n\nfoundation.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95\n\n(1993) explained that \u201c[t]he inquiry envisioned by Rule 702, we emphasize, a flexible one. Its\n\noverarching subject is the scientific validity and thus the evidentiary relevance and reliability\u2014\n\nof the principles that underlie a proposed submission. The focus, of course, must be solely on\n\nprinciples and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.\u201d\n\n The Court has a \u201cgatekeeping role\u201d to \u201censur[e] that an expert\u2019s testimony both rests\n\non a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.\u201d Id. at 597. However, \u201cthe district\n\ncourt must focus on the principles and methodology employed by the expert, without regard to\n\nthe conclusions the expert has reached or the district court\u2019s belief as to the correctness of those\n\n\n\n1\n On September 2, 2025, the parties jointly requested an extension to file a rebuttal report to\nMr. Ponte, citing the Defendants\u2019 rebuttal expert\u2019s preexisting schedule. [ECF No. 99]. In light\nof that request, Plaintiffs were taken by surprise when Defendants abruptly changed course and\nopted not to submit a rebuttal report at all.\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 24\n\n\n\n\nconclusions.\u201d Amorgianos v. Nat\u2019l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nDisputes about the strength of an expert\u2019s conclusions go to weight, not admissibility, and are\n\nresolved through \u201cvigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful\n\ninstruction on the burden of proof.\u201d Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.\n\n As demonstrated below, the Ponte Report satisfies all four requirements of FRE 702,\n\nand Mr. Ponte\u2019s testimony should not otherwise be excluded or restricted.\n\nI. THE PONTE REPORT SATISFIES\n ALL REQUIREMENTS OF FRE 702\n\n FRE 702 permits expert testimony when: (a) the expert\u2019s scientific, technical, or other\n\nspecialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a\n\nfact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the\n\nproduct of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert\u2019s opinion reflects a reliable\n\napplication of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.\n\n The Ponte Report satisfies each of these requirements.\n\n A. The Ponte Report Provides Specialized Knowledge That Will\n Help the Trier of Fact Understand the Evidence (FRE 702(a))\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s opinions are directly relevant to the core issues in this case. To establish a\n\nviolation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants\n\nmade materially false or misleading statements. Whether project completion forecasts had a\n\nreasonable technical basis at the time they were made is central to that inquiry. Ponte\u2019s\n\ntestimony will assist the jury in understanding whether, from a project management\n\nperspective, the announced dates were supportable given the documented planning record. This\n\nis precisely the type of \u201cspecialized knowledge\u201d contemplated by FRE 702(a)\n\n The Ponte Report is explicitly proffered to provide this specialized knowledge. As\n\nstated in his report\u2019s Statement of Purpose, he was retained \u201cto provide an overview of\n\nconstruction project management principles, including the use of tools such as Critical Path\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 24\n\n\n\n\nMethod (CPM) scheduling, and to offer an opinion on the reasonableness of the Defendants\u2019\n\nvarious assertions regarding project completion in light of the project\u2019s own estimated\n\ncompletion dates.\u201d Ponte Report at 1. His opinions are \u201climited solely to issues relating to the\n\nconstruction project management process, including the feasibility, planning, scheduling, and\n\nexecution of the expansion of the Godby Road facility.\u201d Id. at 8 n.1.\n\n These opinions rest on principles specific to project management that are not within\n\ncommon knowledge. The Critical Path Method (\u201cCPM\u201d), for example, is \u201ca widely recognized\n\nproject management technique used to plan, schedule, and monitor complex projects\u201d that\n\nidentifies \u201cthe longest sequence of dependent activities that determines the minimum project\n\nduration.\u201d Ponte Report at 10. Understanding what constitutes a validated CPM schedule, how\n\nprocurement lead times integrate into project planning, or what risk factors competent project\n\nmanagers should account for requires training and experience that lay juror should not be\n\nexpected to possess. Defendants do not criticize the validity or applicability of CPM.\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s qualifications to provide this specialized knowledge are amply supported\n\nby the record. He is a licensed Professional Engineer with forty years of experience in the\n\ndesign, construction, and management of large, complex construction projects. He holds\n\ncertifications as a Certified Construction Manager and Certified Forensic Claims Consultant.\n\nHis expertise includes \u201cpreparing detailed construction cost estimates and project budgets,\n\ndeveloping large, complex CPM schedules, and preparing and analyzing construction claims.\u201d\n\nPonte Report at 1. Defendants do not challenge these qualifications, which are set forth in detail\n\nat Appendix A of his Report.\n\n B. The Ponte Report Is Based on Sufficient Facts and Data (FRE 702(b))\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s conclusions are based, among other things, on a comprehensive review of\n\n\u201cavailable documents, deposition testimony, and project records.\u201d Ponte Report at 25.\n\nSpecifically, he examined, among other things, the Power Sales Agreement dated September\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 24\n\n\n\n\n1, 2020; meeting notes from the January 7, 2021 coordination meeting with the City of College\n\nPark; internal planning documents from January 29, 2021; the March 3, 2021 email\n\ntransmitting the preliminary Gantt chart; deposition transcripts of Zach Bradford, Lisa DeKalb,\n\nand Kent Shelley; ForeSite invoices; and contemporaneous project records.\n\n When evaluating whether projected completion dates were supportable, a construction\n\nexpert would be expected to review the project schedule (or absence thereof), planning\n\ndocuments, communications, and progress records. Mr. Ponte applied standard project\n\nmanagement analytics to these materials, reconstructing the timeline from documents and\n\ncomparing publicly announced milestones to documented internal project status.\n\n Defendants have not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence Mr. Ponte examined.\n\nDefendants have not proffered a competing expert, and they do not argue that he failed to\n\nreview relevant documents or that his data set was incomplete or unrepresentative. Defendants\u2019\n\ndid not even seek to depose Mr. Ponte. This further underscores that Defendants\u2019 objections\n\ngo to the weight of Mr. Ponte\u2019s opinions, not the admissibility.\n\n C. The Ponte Report Is the Product of Reliable\n Principles and Methods (FRE 702(c))\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s methodology is grounded in well-established construction project\n\nmanagement principles. The Ponte Report provides a detailed overview of \u201cthe project\n\nmanagement processes and practices typically required for the successful execution of a data\n\ncenter expansion,\u201d structured around \u201cstandard project phases: initiation, planning, execution,\n\ntesting, and commissioning.\u201d Ponte Report at 9. He discusses the functional use of Gantt charts\n\nand CPM. These are techniques that are not merely accepted, but foundational to the\n\nconstruction industry.\n\n CPM, as Mr. Ponte explains, is a \u201cwidely recognized project management technique\u201d\n\nthat enables \u201cstakeholders to understand which tasks are critical, which have flexibility, and\n\nwhere delays may jeopardize the overall schedule.\u201d Ponte Report at 10. See also LCC-MZT\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 10 of 24\n\n\n\n\nTeam IV. v. U.S., 155 Fed. Cl. 387, 457 (2021) (detailing use of CPM in litigation); Wilner v.\n\nU.S., Cl. Ct. 241, 244-45 (1991) (same). This is not a novel or untested methodology. CPM\n\nscheduling has been the industry standard for complex project management for decades. Courts\n\nroutinely admit expert testimony applying CPM analysis to evaluate project delays, schedule\n\nfeasibility, and the reasonableness of project completion forecasts. See, e.g., Coco Rico LLC v.\n\nUniversal Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3737063, at *2 (D.P.R. May 30, 2023) (court noting opposing\n\nparty didn\u2019t challenge the reliability of CPM); GLF Constr. Corp. v. FEDCON Joint Venture,\n\nInc., 2019 WL 7423552, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2019) (CPM was not disputed by parties and\n\n\u201cappears generally accepted in the industry and subject to peer review\u201d); Polk Co., IA, v.\n\nPopulous, Inc., 2013 WL 12284713, at *2 (S.D. Iowa Jul. 12, 2013) (qualifying expert on CPM\n\nscheduling, among other things).\n\n Mr. Ponte also applies standard risk analysis principles, noting that \u201cCPM is not a static\n\ntool; it requires regular updating to reflect actual project progress, incorporate newly identified\n\nrisks or delays, and provide an accurate basis for forecasting and decision-making.\u201d Ponte\n\nReport at 10. His methodology incorporates assessment of known risk factors specific to early\n\n2021, including supply chain disruptions and COVID-19-related impacts, that were \u201cwidely\n\nrecognized across the construction and electrical sectors by the fall of 2020.\u201d Ponte Report at\n\n19. This contextual risk analysis reflects standard practice in forensic schedule analysis.\n\n Defendants have not challenged these principles and methods. They do not argue that\n\nCPM scheduling is unreliable, that Gantt chart analysis is improper, or that construction experts\n\nshould not consider documented risk factors when evaluating schedule feasibility. Defendants\u2019\n\nsilence on methodology is telling. They attack the conclusions without engaging the analytical\n\nframework that produced them.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 11 of 24\n\n\n\n\n D. The Ponte Report Reflects a Reliable Application of the Principles and\n Methods to the Facts of the Case (FRE 702(d))\n\n Mr. Ponte consistently applies his methodology throughout the Report, to compare\n\nstandard project management processes and practices to the evidence regarding what was, or\n\nwas not, done on the Godby Road expansion. His analysis is systematic and grounded in the\n\nproject record.\n\n First, Mr. Ponte uses his professional opinion to evaluate the realism of the proposed\n\nschedule. As one example, when the project planner flagged the schedule as \u201cincredibly fast\n\nand probably unrealistic,\u201d Mr. Ponte explains that \u201cmanagement bears a responsibility to\n\ninvestigate those concerns, determine which assumptions are driving the risk, and revise the\n\nschedule to reflect a more achievable execution strategy. Failure to do so increases the risk of\n\ndownstream delays, coordination failures, and unmet expectations.\u201d Ponte Report at 15. This\n\nopinion applies standard project management principles to the specific conduct documented in\n\nthe record.\n\n Second, Mr. Ponte reconstructs the timeline based on invoice data, noting that by\n\nAugust 2021, \u201cconstruction administration services had commenced but were only\n\napproximately 18% billed.\u201d Ponte Report at 20. From this, he calculates that \u201cthe anticipated\n\nduration for a project of this scale . . . would typically extend over a minimum period of four\n\nto six months,\u201d placing \u201cexpected substantial completion or operational turnover in the range\n\nof March to May 2022.\u201d Id. This is precisely the type of forensic schedule reconstruction that\n\nconstruction experts routinely perform.\n\n Third, Mr. Ponte compares publicly announced timelines to internal project status at\n\neach relevant point in time. For instance, as one example, he notes that in \u201clate 2020, Bradford\n\npublicly represented to investors that the 30 MW Godby Road expansion would be completed\n\nby April 2021. At this time, there was no formal engineering schedule, no validated critical\n\npath, and key project consultants and contractors had not yet been engaged.\u201d Ponte Report at\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 12 of 24\n\n\n\n\n25. This comparative analysis applies project management standards to assess whether project\n\ncompletion forecasts had technical support.\n\n Fourth, Mr. Ponte addresses the foreseeability of risks, noting that \u201c[s]upply chain\n\ndisruptions, weather impacts, permitting delays, and underground utility coordination are well-\n\nrecognized risks in large-scale infrastructure and data center projects.\u201d Ponte Report at 19. His\n\nopinion that competent project managers should have accounted for these risks reflects\n\nstandard practice, and not speculation or hindsight bias.\n\n Fifth, Mr. Ponte addresses the Power Agreement\u2019s limitations from a project planning\n\nperspective, explaining that without \u201cclear commitments on feasibility, timing, and\n\ninfrastructure responsibilities, project stakeholders cannot reliably coordinate design,\n\npermitting, construction sequencing, or commissioning activities.\u201d Ponte Report at 12. He is\n\nnot providing any \u201clegal\u201d interpretation of this agreement. Rather, this analysis reflects\n\nstandard construction practice, where contracts are reviewed, not to determine liability or other\n\nlegal issues, but to identify the inputs available for schedule development and risk planning.\n\nII. DEFENDANTS\u2019 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE\n PONTE REPORT ARE WITHOUT MERIT\n\n A. Mr. Ponte\u2019s Recitation of Facts Is Necessary for\n His Analysis and Is Not Improper Factual Narrative\n\n Defendants\u2019 primary objection, that the Report constitutes \u201cimproper factual narrative\u201d\n\n(Def. Br. at 5-9), fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Mr. Ponte\u2019s expert testimony.\n\nAn expert evaluating the feasibility of projected completion dates must identify the forecasts\n\nbeing tested and the contemporaneous project context against which accepted project\n\nmanagement standards are applied. Otherwise, the analysis cannot be performed reliably. 2 Mr.\n\n\n2\n Under Defendants\u2019 theory, any construction expert who references project documents when\nexplaining schedule deficiencies would be providing \u201cimproper factual narrative.\u201d But that is\nprecisely what such experts should do, and must do, to assist the jury. The alternative would\nbe an abstract lecture on CPM scheduling divorced from the actual project, which would be far\nless helpful to the trier of fact.\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 13 of 24\n\n\n\n\nPonte identifies when estimated completion dates were communicated publicly, and then\n\napplies specialized project management standards and methodologies to assess whether those\n\ndates had a technical foundation at the time they were made.\n\n A lay jury can read emails announcing purported completion dates, but it is more\n\ndifficult to determine without expert assistance whether the absence of a validated critical path\n\nschedule, unresolved permitting, inadequate long-lead procurement planning, or undefined\n\nsequencing renders a project completion forecast unreliable from a project management\n\nstandpoint. The timeline section in the Ponte Report that Defendants criticize exemplifies this\n\napplied analysis: Mr. Ponte explains the industry requirements for a credible forecast and\n\nevaluates whether those requirements were met as of the relevant dates, including whether\n\nknown constraints were reflected in the schedule. Because one cannot opine on the feasibility\n\nof a timeline without identifying what the timeline is, Mr. Ponte\u2019s factual references are\n\nnecessary to, and inseparable from, his expert methodology. \u201cAn expert [] may offer\n\ncommentary on documents in evidence if the expert\u2019s testimony relates to the context in which\n\ndocuments were created, defining any complex or specialized terminology, or drawing\n\ninferences that would not be apparent without the benefit of experience or specialized\n\nknowledge.\u201d Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 33, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting\n\nIn re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). Mr. Ponte\u2019s\n\nopinions \u201cprovide the groundwork . . . to enable the jury to make its own informed\n\ndetermination.\u201d In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 114 (2d Cir.\n\n2013) (quoting U.S. v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)).\n\n This is not a case where an expert is merely reciting documents because they are\n\ninteresting, without applying specialized expertise. 3 Four examples of Mr. Ponte\u2019s application\n\n\n3\n Defendants\u2019 reliance on Accent Delight Int\u2019l., Ltd., v. Sotheby\u2019s et al., 2023 WL 2307179\n(S.D.N.Y. Mar 1, 2023) and Scentsational Techs. Inc. v. Pespi, Inc., 2018 WL 1889763\n(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2018) is misplaced. In fact, in both cases, the respective courts indeed let\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 14 of 24\n\n\n\n\nof his expertise are set forth below.\n\n 1. January 7, 2021 CoCP coordination meeting\n (Ponte Report at 12-13)\n\n Defendants characterize Ponte\u2019s discussion of the January 7, 2021 coordination\n\nmeeting with the City of College Park (\u201cCoCP\u201d) as mere \u201cnarrative.\u201d Mr. Ponte, however, cites\n\nthe meeting notes and related communications to apply standard project management principles\n\nfor scheduling with CoCP. Ponte uses this evidence to conclude that \u201cas of early January 2021,\n\nthe ability of CleanSpark to meet CoCP\u2019s target delivery milestones was contingent upon\n\nnumerous tasks that were still in progress or had not yet been initiated. Moreover, the absence\n\nof clear commitments in the Power Sales Agreement regarding the timing or feasibility of\n\nexpanded power delivery introduces ambiguity regarding the parties\u2019 respective expectations\n\nand obligations.\u201d Ponte Report at 13.\n\n 2. March 3, 2021 preliminary Gantt chart flagged \u201cunrealistic\u201d\n (Ponte Report at 14-17)\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s discussion of the March 3, 2021 email transmitting a preliminary Gantt\n\nchart likewise is not improper storytelling; it is CPM-based analysis of baseline schedule\n\nvalidity. The contemporaneous record reflects that the schedule was expressly flagged as\n\n\u201cincredibly fast and probably unrealistic,\u201d and that its assumptions depended on ideal\n\nconditions and variables outside the project team\u2019s control, while the schedule was not updated\n\nas realities emerged. Mr. Ponte uses this evidence to opine that:\n\n\n\nthe experts in question testify on several topics. In Accent Delight, 2023 WL 2307179, at *28,\nhowever, the court excluded certain other expert testimony where the experts interpreted emails\nfor the jury, and opined on what defendants \u201cknew\u201d or believed, and other ipse dixit testimony\nnot grounded in specific expertise. Likewise, in Scentsational, 2018 WL 1889763, at **7-8,\nthe court barred an expert from providing certain select testimony, finding that in that instance\nthe expert had certain opinions that improperly ventured into legal testimony, and drew\nconclusions outside the experts field of expertise. By contrast, Mr. Ponte does not merely recite\ndocuments, supply a theory of culpability, or opine on state of mind. His limited reference to\nthe project record serves only as the necessary predicate for applying specialized construction\nproject-management principles to evaluate the technical feasibility of projected completion\ndates.\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 15 of 24\n\n\n\n\n In a well-managed project, the timeline would have been developed jointly\n by the project manager and contractor, reviewed in detail with the client,\n and formally approved (typically through signoff or written acceptance).\n This baseline schedule would then serve as the foundation for subsequent\n project controls, including tracking, reporting, change management, and\n delay analysis. The absence of such a document not only undermines\n effective project execution, but also exposes the project to heightened risk\n of misalignment, misunderstanding, and ultimately, misrepresentation of\n project status to external stakeholders.\n\nPonte Report at 18. That is a technical opinion about schedule feasibility, not a comment on\n\ncredibility, intent, or the legal elements of the case.\n\n 3. Lack of Effective Scheduling\n (Ponte Report at 17-20)\n\n Defendants\u2019 \u201cnarrative\u201d objection to Ponte\u2019s discussion of ForeSite\u2019s engagement\n\ntiming ignores the purpose of that discussion: explaining why the project lacked the\n\nstakeholder-integrated controls required for reliable schedule forecasting. Ponte reviews record\n\nevidence showing that the engineering/project management firm (ForeSite) had limited\n\ninvolvement in the initial schedule development, and was not formally engaged until after key\n\npublic timeline estimations were already made.\n\n From a project management perspective, the inference is technical but straightforward.\n\nSchedules for complex expansions are typically developed and validated through collaboration\n\namong the owner or client, project manager, design professionals, and contractor or\n\nconstruction manager, with formal approval creating a common reference for tracking progress,\n\nmanaging changes, and addressing delays. The absence of such collaborative validation and\n\nsign-off is not a mere factual summary. It is the foundation of Ponte\u2019s expert opinion that\n\nCleanSpark lacked a professionally managed baseline schedule and, consequently, a\n\ntechnically sound basis for the aggressive completion timelines it communicated.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 16 of 24\n\n\n\n\n 4. Analysis of Invoices\n (Ponte Report at 20-21)\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s reliance on contemporaneous invoices and progress billing is also a\n\nstandard forensic project controls technique, not improper advocacy. The invoices reflect that\n\nconstruction administration and program management scopes were only approximately 18%\n\nbilled by August 2021, corroborating that major execution activities were still underway well\n\nafter the April 2021 and \u201csummer 2021\u201d completion targets.\n\n Mr. Ponte relies on objective progress indicators to make a technical feasibility\n\ninference common in construction management. When project administration and major\n\nconstruction scopes remain at an early stage while a project is publicly portrayed to be at a later\n\nstage, the claimed schedule conflicts with normal sequencing and the time required for\n\nremaining tasks, such as equipment installation, utility coordination, and commissioning. This\n\ntype of specialized assessment helps the jury under FRE 702 without drawing legal conclusions\n\nor supplanting the jury\u2019s function.\n\n B. Mr. Ponte Does Not Opine on Defendants\u2019\n Knowledge, Intent, or Credibility\n\n Defendants contend that Mr. Ponte \u201cimproperly opines on Defendants\u2019 knowledge and\n\ncredibility\u201d (Def. Br. at 10-11), but this mischaracterizes both the substance and methodology\n\nof his testimony. Mr. Ponte does not purport to assess what Defendants subjectively believed,\n\nintended, or why they acted. He does not offer opinions about credibility or state of mind.\n\nInstead, he applies construction project management principles to an question of objective\n\nfeasibility: whether, at the time projected completion dates were communicated, the project\n\nhad the planning maturity and controls that a reasonable construction manager would require.\n\n Where Defendants fault Mr. Ponte\u2019s use of phrases like \u201cknown risks, constraints, and\n\nfeasibility limitations\u201d or \u201cinternal realities known\u201d (Def. Br. at 10), those terms refer to risks\n\nand constraints reflected in the project record or inherent in projects at that stage (such as\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 17 of 24\n\n\n\n\napprovals, procurement, and sequencing), and not to Defendants\u2019 subjective awareness or\n\nintent. Construction experts routinely evaluate whether such documented or typical constraints\n\nwere incorporated into schedules. That analysis assesses process and planning adequacy, not\n\nmental state. 4\n\n For example, when Mr. Ponte states that the March 3, 2021 email \u201cindicates an early\n\nacknowledgment that the timeline was likely unattainable\u201d (Ponte Report at 15) he is not\n\nopining on Bradford\u2019s subjective beliefs. He is observing that project personnel flagged the\n\nschedule as \u201cincredibly fast and probably unrealistic\u201d and applying his expert judgment that,\n\nunder standard project management practice, \u201cmanagement bears a responsibility to investigate\n\nthose concerns, determine which assumptions are driving the risk, and revise the schedule.\u201d Id.\n\n Similarly, Mr. Ponte\u2019s discussion of Bradford\u2019s qualifications addresses whether\n\nBradford had the \u201ctechnical background necessary to evaluate project feasibility.\u201d Ponte Report\n\nat 5. This is a question relevant to whether the company\u2019s planning processes met industry\n\nstandards. He does not opine on what Bradford actually \u201cknew\u201d or intended. His opinion that\n\nBradford \u201cwas dependent on the input, analysis, and validation provided by qualified project\n\npersonnel and consultants\u201d but that \u201ccontemporaneous records show no evidence that these key\n\nstakeholders were substantively engaged\u201d (Ponte Report at 24) is an observation about the\n\nproject record, not a credibility determination.\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s opinions are anchored to contemporaneous project materials and explain\n\nwhy, under accepted project management practice, the absence of standard controls undermines\n\nthe technical support for project completion forecasts, regardless of motive, optimism, or good\n\nfaith. Any disagreement with his conclusions is properly addressed through cross-examination\n\n\n\n\n4\n To the extent any phrasing could be misconstrued as an opinion on state of mind, Plaintiff\nwill cabin Mr. Ponte\u2019s trial testimony to project management issues and will not ask him to\nopine on what Defendants believed, intended, or whether any witness was credible.\n 13\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 18 of 24\n\n\n\n\nand contrary evidence. This is particularly true where Defendants not only offered no\n\ncompeting expert to challenge his opinions, but declined to depose Mr. Ponte.\n\n C. Mr. Ponte Does Not Offer Improper Legal Opinions\n\n Defendants criticize Mr. Ponte\u2019s use of terms such as \u201cstandard of care,\u201d \u201creasonable\n\nbasis,\u201d and \u201cforeseeable\u201d (Def. Br. at 11-12), but the context of his opinions makes clear that\n\nthese terms are used in their ordinary project management sense, not as legal conclusions. Mr.\n\nPonte employs this language to describe professional norms governing construction project\n\nplanning: the level of CPM rigor typically required to support a project completion forecast,\n\nthe integration of procurement lead times and permitting status into a schedule, and the\n\nidentification of risks that competent project managers routinely account for when sequencing\n\nwork. In fact, \u201c[i]f the determination of the standard of care requires knowledge that is beyond\n\nthe experience of an ordinary fact finder, expert testimony will be required.\u201d Kasuba v. Costco\n\nWholesale Corp., 710 F. Supp. 3d 122, 127 (D. Conn. 2024) (quoting Santopietro v. City of\n\nNew Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 682 A.2d 106, 115 (1996)).\n\n Defendants similarly fault Mr. Ponte\u2019s use of the phrase \u201cmaterial disconnect,\u201d but that\n\ncriticism ignores context. Mr. Ponte uses this term in its ordinary project management sense to\n\ndescribe a substantial technical gap between projected completion dates and the planning inputs\n\nrequired to support those projections. He does not invoke, apply, or opine on the securities law\n\nconcept of materiality, nor does he address investor expectations or disclosure obligations. His\n\nopinion reflects a project management gap analysis explaining why the absence of standard\n\nplanning controls created a significant disconnect that undermined the technical reliability of\n\nthe asserted completion timelines. For example, the phrase \u201cmaterial disconnect\u201d is analogous\n\nto \u201csubstantial,\u201d \u201csignificant,\u201d or \u201cmeaningful disconnect\u201d in project management terms.\n\nRelatedly, when Ponte uses terms like \u201creasonable basis,\u201d he employs them in their project\n\nmanagement sense: whether the project completion forecast was grounded in a validated\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 19 of 24\n\n\n\n\nschedule, integrated known constraints, and reflected standard risk analysis. He does not opine\n\non legal reasonableness under securities law. Ultimately, the jury will determine issues of\n\nmaterial falsity or scienter.\n\n To be clear, Mr. Ponte has specifically qualified that his opinions are \u201climited solely to\n\nissues relating to the construction project management process, including the feasibility,\n\nplanning, scheduling, and execution of the expansion of the Godby Road facility.\u201d Ponte\n\nReport at 8 n.1. Mr. Ponte does not opine on securities law, disclosure obligations, or what\n\nDefendants were required to say to investors. His opinions are confined to whether projected\n\ncompletion dates were supported by the types of planning controls and risk analyses that\n\nconstitute accepted practice in construction project management. The use of industry\n\nterminology to explain technical adequacy does not transform his analysis into an\n\nimpermissible legal opinion.\n\n Defendants\u2019 challenge to Mr. Ponte\u2019s discussion of the Power Agreement fails to\n\nrecognize that Mr. Ponte does not opine on the agreement\u2019s legal interpretation or offer\n\nopinions regarding the parties\u2019 contractual rights or obligations. Rather, he evaluates the\n\nagreement exclusively as an input to project planning and explains, from a project management\n\nstandpoint, that the absence of defined milestones, sequencing provisions, or risk allocation\n\nmechanisms complicates the preparation of a reliable CPM schedule and increases uncertainty\n\nin projected completion dates. His testimony is directed to technical feasibility and planning\n\ndiscipline, not contract interpretation.\n\n D. Mr. Ponte Does Not Improperly Rely on Hearsay\n\n Defendants\u2019 hearsay objection fails because Mr. Ponte is not a \u201cconduit\u201d for hearsay.\n\nAs FRE 703 explicitly provides, \u201c[i]f experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on\n\nthose kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible\n\nfor the opinion to be admitted.\u201d Technical experts like Mr. Ponte should be expected to rely on\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 20 of 24\n\n\n\n\nrelevant testimony, project communications, and other records when conducting their analysis.\n\nSee U.S. v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 938 (2d Cir. 1993) (\u201cAn expert who meets the test of Rule\n\n702 . . . is assumed \u2018to have the skill to properly evaluate the hearsay, giving it probative force\n\nappropriate to the circumstances.\u2019\u201d) (quotation omitted).\n\n Furthermore, many pieces of evidence considered by Mr. Ponte are not hearsay,\n\nbecause he does not rely on them for the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, he applies project\n\nmanagement expertise to assess whether the project record reflects the scheduling rigor, risk\n\nintegration, and planning controls required to support projected completion dates. When he\n\ndiscusses deposition testimony from Lisa DeKalb, for example, he does not testify to prove the\n\ntruth of her statements. Rather, he analyzes whether the concerns she documented, such as that\n\nthe schedule was \u201cincredibly fast and probably unrealistic\u201d and included \u201ctoo many variables\n\nover which none of us had any control,\u201d are the type that, under standard project management\n\nprinciples, would ordinarily be incorporated into schedule risk analysis. Whether or not her\n\nconcerns ultimately proved accurate, standard project management practice would require\n\nDefendants to follow up on her warning. Mr. Ponte\u2019s opinion that management failed to\n\nadequately respond to these documented concerns is an application of expertise, not mere\n\nrepetition of hearsay.\n\n Similarly, when Mr. Ponte reviews the Power Agreement or meeting notes from the\n\nJanuary 7, 2021 coordination meeting with the City of College Park (Ponte Report at 12-13),\n\nhe does so not to opine on their legal meaning or to establish the truth of statements therein,\n\nbut to assess whether they provided the inputs typically necessary to develop a reliable\n\nconstruction schedule. His conclusions flow from his application of specialized project\n\nmanagement expertise to the presence, or absence, of standard project controls in the record,\n\nnot from parroting the statements of any third party.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 21 of 24\n\n\n\n\n Critically, Mr. Ponte\u2019s opinions do not depend on presenting the specific wording of\n\nany email or specific testimony from a witness. The relevance of many of these materials lies\n\nin their technical implications (or omissions), not their truth. Whether ForeSite was engaged in\n\nMarch 2021, whether a formal site plan was submitted in April 2021, or whether the City issued\n\na permit in June 2021, are historical facts that form the framework for Mr. Ponte\u2019s schedule\n\nanalysis. His expert opinion concerns what those facts mean from a project management\n\nstandpoint: whether the sequence and timing of these activities could support the publicly\n\nannounced completion dates. His synthesis and interpretation, through the lens of specialized\n\nexpertise, is not improper hearsay transmission.\n\nIII. DEFENDANTS\u2019 REMAINING OBJECTIONS\n GO TO WEIGHT, NOT ADMISSIBILITY\n\n To the extent Defendants disagree with Mr. Ponte\u2019s conclusions, those disagreements\n\ngo to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. Vigorous cross-examination,\n\npresentation of contrary evidence, and careful jury instruction are the appropriate means of\n\nattacking evidence.\n\n Defendants had ample opportunity to challenge Mr. Ponte\u2019s analysis. They could have\n\ndeposed him to probe the basis for his opinions. They could have retained their own\n\nconstruction expert to offer competing opinions on whether the project planning met industry\n\nstandards or whether the projected timelines were supportable. They did neither. Instead, they\n\nfiled this motion attacking methodology they do not dispute, facts they do not challenge, and\n\nconclusions they have not rebutted with expert testimony of their own. These are precisely the\n\nissues that should be tested through the adversarial process at trial, not resolved through\n\nexclusion.\n\n Mr. Ponte\u2019s forty years of experience in construction project management, his\n\nprofessional certifications, his detailed review of project documents, and his application of\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 22 of 24\n\n\n\n\nstandard industry methods all support the reliability of his opinions. Whether those opinions\n\nultimately persuade the jury is a question for trial.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n The Ponte Report satisfies every requirement of FRE 702, and should not be otherwise\n\nexcluded or limited. Defendants\u2019 motion should be denied in its entirety.\n\nDated: January 26, 2026 By: /s/ Gregory B. Linkh\n GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\n Gregory B. Linkh (GL-0477)\n 230 Park Ave., Suite 358\n New York, NY 10169\n Telephone:(212) 682-5340\n Facsimile: (212) 884-0988\n glinkh@glancylaw.com\n\n Christopher Fallon (admitted pro hac vice)\n 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Telephone: (310) 201-9150\n Facsimile: (310) 201-9160\n\n\n LAW OFFICES OF FRANK CRUZ\n Frank Cruz (admitted pro hac vice)\n 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Telephone: (310) 914-5007\n\n Lead Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Darshan\n Hasthantra and the putative Class\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 23 of 24\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n I, Gregory B. Linkh, that this brief contains 5,339 words, which complies with the word\n\nlimit of L.R. 7.1(c).\n\n\n /s/ Gregory B. Linkh\n Gregory B. Linkh\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 114 Filed 01/26/26 Page 24 of 24\n\n\n\n\n PROOF OF SERVICE\n\n I, the undersigned say:\n\n I am not a party to the above case and am over eighteen years old.\n\n On January 26, 2026, I served true and correct copies of the foregoing document, by\n\nposting the document electronically to the ECF website of the United States District Court for\n\nthe Southern District of New York, for receipt electronically by the parties listed on the\n\nCourt\u2019s Service List.\n\n I affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that\n\nthe foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2026.\n\n\n\n s/s Gregory B. Linkh\n Gregory B. Linkh\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:11:22.826389-07:00","document_number":"114","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038951499","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-01-26T15:08:14.879117-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.755314-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-26","time_filed":"18:04:52","entry_number":114,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-26.002","pacer_sequence_number":403,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 110 MOTION to Preclude Notice of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Portions of David M. Ponte's Expert Report. . Document filed by Darshan Hasthantra..(Linkh, Gregory) (Entered: 01/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447115987/","id":447115987,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461857997/","id":461857997,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/107/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T21:07:21.429336-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:48:41.090554-07:00","sha1":"cf61605625a4c936b38e709753deef7b918eb4c5","page_count":3,"file_size":162369,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.107.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.107.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 107 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, Individually and Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\non Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION\n v. TO EXCLUDE THE REPORTS AND\n TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY PROPOSED EXPERT DR. ZAHN\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ, BOZANIC\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Defendants CleanSpark, Inc., Zachary Bradford,\n\nand S. Matthew Schultz (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702,\n\nLocal Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n\nDistricts of New York, and 15 U.S.C. 78u-4, upon: (i) the accompanying Memorandum of Law\n\nin Support of Defendants\u2019 Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff\u2019s Proposed\n\nExpert Dr. Zahn Bozanic, (ii) the Affirmation of David J. Partida, dated December 12, 2025, and\n\nthe exhibits thereto, and (iii) the pleadings and papers on file in this action, Defendants will move\n\nthis Court, before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge, at the United\n\nStates District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY\n\n10007, on a date and time to be designated by the Court, for an Order (a) pursuant to Federal Rule\n\nof Evidence 702, Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the\n\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York, and 15 U.S.C. 78u-4, excluding the reports and\n\ntestimony of Plaintiff\u2019s proposed expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic and (b) granting such other and further\n\nrelief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 107 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that answering papers, if any, shall be served by\n\nPlaintiff Darshan Hasthantra no later than January 26, 2026, and any reply papers shall be served\n\nby Defendants no later than March 3, 2026, pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order, dated November 6,\n\n2025 (Dkt. No. 106).\n\n Defendants respectfully request oral argument.\n\n\n\nDated: December 12, 2025\n New York, New York\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n WILK AUSLANDER LLP\n\n\n ____________\n Jay S. Auslander\n David J. Partida\n Wilk Auslander LLP\n 825 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2900\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: 212-981-2300\n jauslander@wilkauslander.com\n dpartida@wilkauslander.com\n\n Attorneys for Defendants CleanSpark, Inc.,\n Zachary Bradford, and S. Matthew Schultz\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 107 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that I am not a party to this action, that I am above eighteen years of age,\n\n and that on December 12, 2025, I served true and correct copies of the foregoing Notice of\n\n Defendants\u2019 Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff\u2019s Proposed Expert Dr.\n\n Zahn Bozanic, together with the accompanying:\n\n 1. Notice of Motion of Jay S. Auslander.\n\n 2. Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Exclude the Reports and\n\n Testimony of Plaintiff\u2019s Proposed Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic.\n\n 3. Affirmation of David J. Partida, together with Exhibits A through M thereto.\n\n Upon all parties of record to this action, through each of their counsel of record, by filing\n\n the same electronically with the United States District Court for the Southern District of\n\n New York through that Court\u2019s electronic case filing (\u201cECF\u201d) system.\n\n\n\n I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on December 12, 2025, New York, New York.\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n ___________\n David J. Partida\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:14:00.019184-07:00","document_number":"107","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727927","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Preclude","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-12T21:07:21.326284-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-25T13:39:40.176115-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-12","time_filed":"23:47:57","entry_number":107,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":384,"description":"MOTION to Preclude Notice of Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Proposed Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic. Document filed by Zachary Bradford, CleanSpark, Inc., S. Matthew Schultz..(Partida, David) (Entered: 12/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447115985/","id":447115985,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/31444248/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461857995/","id":461857995,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T21:07:20.066167-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:42:12.744041-07:00","sha1":"692ea25c2633cbde812141b2c69b5a715043eaf5","page_count":3,"file_size":179365,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, Individually and Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\non Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n AFFIRMATION OF\n v. DAVID J. PARTIDA IN SUPPORT OF\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO\nCLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY EXCLUDE THE REPORTS AND\nBRADFORD, and S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ, TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n PROPOSED EXPERT DR. ZAHN\n Defendants. BOZANIC\n\n\n DAVID J. PARTIDA, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the courts of the\n\nState of New York, does hereby affirm, under penalties of perjury, as follows:\n\n 1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and an associate with the law firm of Wilk\n\nAuslander LLP, counsel to Defendants CleanSpark, Inc. (\u201cCleanSpark\u201d), Zachary Bradford, and\n\nS. Matthew Schultz (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) in the above-captioned matter.\n\n 2. I submit this affirmation in support of Defendants\u2019 Motion to Exclude the Reports\n\nand Testimony of Plaintiff\u2019s Proposed Expert Dr. Zahn Bozanic, filed concurrently herewith, dated\n\nDecember 12, 2025.\n\n 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, being filed concurrently herewith, dated January\n\n10, 2025.\n\n 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Confidential Transcript of the February 27, 2025 Deposition of Dr. Zahn Bozanic,\n\nbeing filed concurrently herewith.\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Reply Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, being filed concurrently herewith, dated\n\nMay 2, 2025.\n\n 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Merits Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, being filed concurrently herewith, dated July\n\n18, 2025.\n\n 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Mark Garmaise, being filed concurrently herewith, dated\n\nSeptember 12, 2025.\n\n 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Merits Reply Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, being filed concurrently herewith,\n\ndated October 9, 2025.\n\n 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Confidential Transcript of the October 30, 2025 Deposition of Dr. Zahn Bozanic,\n\nbeing filed concurrently herewith.\n\n 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 1:24-cv-09253 (Mark Leone\n\nv. ASP Isotopes Inc., Paul E. Mann, and Heather Kiessling), being filed concurrently herewith,\n\ndated June 26, 2025.\n\n 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 2:22-cv-02226-KNS (Kranthi\n\nGorlamari v. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ted White, and P. Terence Kohler Jr.), being filed\n\nconcurrently herewith, dated June 12, 2025.\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 1:23-cv-24580-CMA (City of\n\nWarren General Employees\u2019Retirement System v. Teleperformance SE), being filed concurrently\n\nherewith, dated November 5, 2024.\n\n 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the Culper Research\n\nReport, being filed concurrently herewith, dated January 14, 2020.\n\n 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Culper Research\n\ntweets, being filed concurrently herewith, dated January 15, 2021.\n\n 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy, excepting the exhibits\n\nthereto, of the Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 3:22-cv-06750-CRB (In re\n\nFreshworks Inc.), being filed concurrently herewith, dated March 13, 2025.\n\n\n\nI hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on December 12, 2025, New York, New York.\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n __________\n David J. Partida\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:01.393164-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727938","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Affirmation in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528953/","id":484528953,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/1/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:52.568681-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:45.220986-07:00","sha1":"295d7124fe07f17a8fcabe69a7f91701cbc23c7d","page_count":34,"file_size":374810,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-1 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 34\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page22of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n CLASS ACTION\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n January 10, 2025\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page33of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nI. Scope of Report and Opinions ..........................................................................................1\nII. Qualifications......................................................................................................................2\nIII. Case Background and Alleged Fraudulent Scheme .......................................................4\nIV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency ........................................................................6\nV. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for CleanSpark Common Stock ..................8\n A. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume ................................ 10\n B. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage .......................................................... 11\n C. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers .............................................................. 13\n D. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility ................................... 15\n E. Cammer Factor 5: Cause and Effect Relationship Between\n Company Information and Stock Prices...................................................... 16\n F. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization .................................................. 24\n G. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread ............................................................ 25\n H. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float .................................................................. 26\nVI. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis ...................................................27\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)\n of the Exchange Act .................................................................................... 27\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate\n Alternative Findings .................................................................................... 30\nVII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................31\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page44of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nI. Scope of Report and Opinions\n 1. Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys have asked me to determine whether the market for CleanSpark\n\nInc.\u2019s (\u201cCleanSpark\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) common stock (\u201cCommon Stock\u201d) was efficient during\n\nthe period December 10, 2020 to August 16, 2021, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d).\n\n 2. Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys have also asked me to opine on whether damages for investors\n\ntrading in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock during the Class Period can be calculated using a common\n\nmethodology for all Class members that is consistent with Plaintiff\u2019s claims under (i) Section 10(b)\n\nof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) and U.S. Securities & Exchange\n\nCommission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder (collectively, the \u201c\u00a710(b) claims\u201d), and\n\n(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.1\n\n 3. Based on my analysis to date and the evaluation of the factors described throughout\n\nthis report, I have formed the following opinions:\n a. The market for CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock was efficient throughout the\n Class Period.\n b. The Cammer and Krogman factors accepted and applied by courts to assess\n market efficiency corroborate that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in\n an efficient market.\n c. Though not necessary for a finding of market efficiency, the cause-and-\n effect relationship between new Company disclosures and resulting\n Common Stock price movements (which I analyze under the fifth Cammer\n factor) further shows that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an\n efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n d. Damages in this matter can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a\n standard, common methodology for Plaintiff\u2019s pending claims. In\n particular, the out-of-pocket damages methodology, which is used in\n virtually all Section 10(b) class action securities cases, is appropriate and\n applicable here.\n\n\n\n1\n See Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc. 36)\n(\u201cComplaint\u201d) and Order, dated January 5, 2023 (Doc. 60) (the \u201cMTD Order\u201d). I understand\nDefendants to include CleanSpark, Zachary Bradford (CleanSpark\u2019s CEO), and S. Matthew\nSchultz (CleanSpark\u2019s Chairman).\n\n\n A-1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page55of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 4. The remainder of my report is organized as follows: Section II describes my\n\nqualifications. Section III summarizes the case background. Section IV briefly explains the bases\n\nfor the reliance requirement and the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory relating to market efficiency.\n\nSection V presents my analyses of the market efficiency factors for the Common Stock during the\n\nClass Period. Section VI addresses how damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject\n\nto a common methodology under Section 10(b). Section VII summarizes my conclusions.\n\nII. Qualifications\n 5. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Pennsylvania State University\n\nand am a tenured, full Professor of Accounting at Florida State University. I also hold the William\n\nHillison Professorship of Accounting. I teach Ph.D. and Master\u2019s-level courses, present my\n\nresearch at universities and conferences both domestic and abroad, deliver guest lectures,\n\nparticipate in academic seminars, attend academic conferences, peer review academic work,\n\norganize academic conferences, and conduct research on areas related to accounting, finance,\n\nstatistics, economics, and law.\n\n 6. My research focuses on topics related to corporate disclosure, debt contracting,\n\nfinancial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement. More\n\nspecifically, my research has examined periodic corporate disclosures (e.g., 10-K\u2019s, earnings press\n\nreleases, etc.), earnings guidance, earnings management, earnings manipulation, financial\n\nstatement irregularities, debt contracts (e.g., private bank loans and public bonds), debt covenants,\n\nsecuritized debt, credit analysts, equity analysts, SEC comment letters, SEC requests for comment,\n\nand SEC investigations.\n\n 7. I have been engaged in university-level teaching and academic research for over 15\n\nyears and continue to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting, economics, and\n\nfinance. At the undergraduate level, I have taught courses on financial accounting, investments,\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page66of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nvaluation, and financial statement analysis. In addition, I have taught data analytics, valuation, and\n\nfinancial statement analysis at the Master\u2019s level as well as academic research seminars on\n\nempirical research methods in accounting at the doctoral level. I am an Editorial Board member of\n\nseveral peer-reviewed journals, and am an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting.\n\n 8. Before my current roles, I was a tenured, Associate Professor of Accounting and\n\nthe Director of the Ph.D. Program in Accounting at Florida State University. Prior to then, I was\n\nan Assistant Professor of Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a Research Fellow at\n\nThe National Center for the Middle Market.\n\n 9. Prior to working for Ohio State, I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\nfrom the Pennsylvania State University. Before my graduate work at Penn State, I was employed\n\nby Wells Fargo Bank as a Financial Consultant and Product Manager. I received an M.A. from the\n\nUniversity of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.\n\n 10. I have published research in leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields of finance,\n\naccounting, and economics, including: Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting\n\nand Economics, The Accounting Review, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Review of\n\nQuantitative Finance and Accounting, and Journal of Financial Reporting, inter alia. My\n\ncurriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A, further details my publication record. I have presented\n\nmy academic research at over 50 academic institutions, as listed in my curriculum vitae. I have\n\nalso received several awards and honors from my peers both nationally and globally related to my\n\nresearch, peer reviewing activities, and doctoral research supervision.\n\n 11. The materials I have considered in forming my opinions are listed and summarized\n\nin Appendix B. My time is billed at a rate of $900 per hour for my work on this matter. I have\n\nbeen assisted in this matter by staff at Cleveland Analytics, LLC working under my direction. My\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page77of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\ncompensation is in no way contingent on the outcome of this case. My curriculum vitae, attached\n\nas Appendix A, further details my testimony experience.\n\n 12. My work is ongoing, and I reserve the right to update my analyses and opinions\n\nbased upon new information, discovery, expert reports, or other information that comes to my\n\nattention.\n\nIII. Case Background and Alleged Fraudulent Scheme2\n 13. CleanSpark is headquartered in Nevada and has bitcoin mining facilities throughout\n\nthe United States.3 The Company\u2019s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Exchange under the\n\nticker CLSK.4 Prior to the Class Period, CleanSpark was a provider of \u201cadvanced software and\n\ncontrols technology solutions to solve modern energy challenges\u201d and \u201ca suite of software\n\nsolutions that provide end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy market communications and\n\nenergy management solutions.\u201d5 During the Class Period, CleanSpark pivoted to purportedly\n\nbecome a \u201cleading bitcoin mining and diversified energy company\u201d according to its 2021 10-K.6\n\nReinforcing this pivot in business strategy, CleanSpark\u2019s website touts the company to be\n\n\u201cAmerica\u2019s Bitcoin Miner\u201d and its CEO stated in December of 2021 that \u201cCleanSpark is a bitcoin\n\nminer. Bitcoin mining is our primary business segment in terms of revenue. Our most efficient in\n\nterms of cost and margin and our most important in terms of maximizing value for our\n\nshareholders.\u201d7\n\n2\n The following overview section summarizes the allegations in the Complaint as context for\nPlaintiff\u2019s claims. I make no findings or opinions as to these allegations, and the opinions I reach\nin other sections of this report regarding market efficiency and the calculation of damages are not\ntied to any specific allegations summarized herein.\n3\n Complaint, \u00b6 21; See https://investors.cleanspark.com.\n4\n Id., \u00b6 21\n5\n Id., \u00b6 25\n6\n Id., \u00b6 26\n7\n Id., \u00b6 27; See https://www.cleanspark.com/\n\n\n A-4\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page88of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 14. CleanSpark\u2019s pivot towards bitcoin mining began with its announcement of the\n\nacquisition of ATL Data Centers Inc. (the \u201cATL Facility\u201d).8 The profitability of a bitcoin mining\n\noperation is directly related to the cost of energy used to mine bitcoin. The Complaint alleges that\n\nDefendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions touting that the ATL\n\nFacility was supplied energy at cost advantaged rates and that CleanSpark\u2019s proprietary energy\n\nmanagement software would further reduce its cost of energy.9 The Complaint further alleges that\n\nDefendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the expected timeline to\n\nexpand operations to more than double the existing energy capacity at the ATL Facility, from 20\n\nto 50 megawatts, and thus rapidly enhance CleanSpark\u2019s expected profitability.10\n\n 15. The Complaint alleges that the truth regarding the ATL acquisition and\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s projections relating to the ATL expansion project was partially revealed, and/or the\n\nconcealed risks materialized, on or about: January 14-15, 2021, February 12, 2021, and August\n\n17, 2021.11 This includes the publication of a report by Culper Research on January 14, 2021,\n\nwhich was followed with a Tweet by Culper Research on January 15, 2021.12 The report and Tweet\n\nraised concerns about the ATL acquisition, as ATL had undergone several name changes, a\n\nbankruptcy, and a failed acquisition attempt by Marathon Patent Group (\u201cMarathon\u201d). 13 Most\n\nsignificantly, it was revealed that Marathon pulled out of the proposed deal because the energy\n\nagreement with the municipality had too few years left to make the acquisition \u201ceconomically\n\n\n\n8\n Id., \u00b6 3.\n9\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 47, 118, 130.\n10\n Id., \u00b6 3-4, 9-12, 36, 38, 54-55, 118.\n11\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 6-7, 12, 88-89, 110-112, 152. I understand the Complaint alleges additional\ncorrective disclosures which Plaintiff is no longer pursuing.\n12\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 45-46; 51.\n13\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 45-50.\n\n\n A-5\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page99of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nviable.\u201d14 The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented ATL facility\u2019s operating\n\npotential by omitting material facts related to the acquisition and timeline for completing the\n\nexpansion project.15\n\n 16. The Complaint also alleges that the relevant truth was partially revealed on\n\nFebruary 12, 2021 when Defendants announced Q1 2021 earnings and disclosed that the ATL\n\nFacility\u2019s expansion project would not be completed until mid-year 2021 instead of April 2021.16\n\nThe Complaint further alleges that the relevant truth was revealed on August 17, 2021 when\n\nDefendants\u2019 announced Q3 2021 earnings and disclosed that the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion project\n\nwould not be completed until fall of 2021.17 As a result of the repeated delays in expansion plans,\n\nCleanSpark paid to deploy bitcoin mining equipment at a third-party facility, and was unable to\n\nutilize the cost-advantaged energy rates at the ATL Facility and therefore unable to deliver on the\n\nexpected capacity goals.18\n\n 17. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of Defendants\u2019 fraudulent scheme,\n\nmisstatements, and omissions, investors traded CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock at artificially inflated\n\nprices during the Class Period.19 Exhibit 1 graphs the closing stock price and trading volume for\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock shares throughout the Class Period.\n\nIV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency\n 18. I understand that, with respect to their claims under \u00a710(b), Plaintiff asserts the\n\n\u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory of class-wide reliance, i.e., that all CleanSpark shareholders relied\n\n\n14\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 47-48.\n15\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 45-46; 51.\n16\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 88-90.\n17\n Id., \u00b6 110.\n18\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 110-111.\n19\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 138-140, 151-152.\n\n\n A-6\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page10\n 10of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\non the alleged misrepresentations (and the fraudulent schemes and acts underlying such\n\nmisstatements and omissions) through their effect on stock prices in an informationally efficient\n\nmarket.20\n\n 19. As courts, including the Supreme Court, have explained, the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d\n\ntheory of class-wide reliance holds that investors trading securities in an informationally efficient\n\nmarket rely on any misrepresentations or material omissions of fact because those statements or\n\nmaterial omissions of fact have distorted the value of each class member\u2019s purchase price. As the\n\nSupreme Court explained in its Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision:\n\n [I]n an open and developed securities market, the price of a\n company\u2019s stock is determined by the available material information\n regarding the company and its business . . . . Misleading statements\n will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do\n not directly rely on the misstatements . . . . The causal connection\n between the defendants\u2019 fraud and the plaintiffs\u2019 purchase of stock\n in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance\n on misrepresentations.21\n 20. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the availability of this theory to satisfy Section\n\n10(b)\u2019s reliance requirement on a class-wide basis in Halliburton II:\n\n More than 25 years ago, we held that plaintiffs could satisfy the\n reliance element of the Rule 10b\u20135 cause of action by invoking a\n presumption that a public, material misrepresentation will distort the\n price of stock traded in an efficient market, and that anyone who\n purchases the stock at the market price may be considered to have\n done so in reliance on the misrepresentation. We adhere to that\n decision and decline to modify the prerequisites for invoking the\n presumption of reliance.22\n\n\n\n\n20\n Id., \u00b6 159.\n21\n Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n22\n Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n\n\n A-7\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page11\n 11of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 21. A market is considered informationally efficient when the market price of securities\n\nquickly responds to publicly available information.23 In securities fraud cases, courts have\n\nendorsed the widely-cited five-factor test laid out in Cammer v. Bloom to evaluate whether a\n\nmarket is efficient for the purposes of establishing the presumption of reliance.24 Courts also accept\n\nadditional factors for evaluating market efficiency found in another widely cited opinion, Krogman\n\nv. Sterritt.25\n\n 22. Research in accounting, economics, and finance support the factors cited by the\n\nCammer and Krogman courts as indicators of market efficiency.26 However, as explained below,\n\nit is important to understand that an assessment of market efficiency does not hinge on any single\n\nfactor; rather, it is an assessment of all the factors together that allows one to reach the conclusion\n\nthat a market for a security is efficient.27\n\nV. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for CleanSpark Common Stock\n 23. I now turn to discuss the Cammer and Krogman factors and evaluate them in\n\nrelation to CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock. To do so, I compare the factors\u2019 application to\n\n\n\n23\n In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005). \u201cFor purposes of establishing\nthe fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, we adopt the prevailing definition of market\nefficiency, which provides that an efficient market is one in which the market price of the stock\nfully reflects all publicly available information. By \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 we mean that market price\nresponds so quickly to new information that ordinary investors cannot make trading profits on the\nbasis of such information. This is known as \u2018informational efficiency.\u2019 We reject a second and\nmuch broader meaning of \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 known as \u2018fundamental value efficiency,\u2019 which requires\nthat a market respond to information not only quickly but accurately, such that the market price of\na stock reflects its fundamental value.\u201d\n24\n Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264, 1292 (D.N.J. 1989).\n25\n Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n26\n See, e.g., Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings\nAnnouncements: The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\nAccounting 57.\n27\n Id., at 204-205.\n\n\n A-8\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page12\n 12of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock against: (1) benchmarks established by courts; (2) scientific tests of\n\nstatistical significance; and/or (3) findings from peer-reviewed, published academic research.\n\n 24. As discussed below, my analyses and findings on the various market efficiency\n\nfactors support the conclusion that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n 25. One academic study that I use for comparison purposes was published by Mola,\n\nRau, and Khorana, which I refer to as the \u201cMRK Study.\u201d28 In this study, the authors examined two\n\nsamples of firms. The first sample included companies that lost all analyst coverage (the \u201cMRK\n\nSample\u201d firms); these firms had smaller market capitalizations, less trading volume, larger bid-ask\n\nspreads, and lower institutional ownership relative to analyst-covered firms, both before and after\n\nlosing analyst coverage. The second sample included the analyst-covered firms (the \u201cMRK\n\nCovered\u201d firms), and the differences between the two samples in average and median market\n\ncapitalization, trading volume, bid-ask spread, and institutional ownership were all statistically\n\nsignificant at the 99% level.29\n\n 26. The authors of the MRK Study summarize their findings as follows:\n\n This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms\n by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor\n interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at\n least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm\n both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm\u2019s\n future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for\n that firm\u2019s stock. . . . Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue\n to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading\n volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant\n difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers.30\n\n\n28\n Mola, S., Rau, P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\nCoverage? The Accounting Review 88, at pp. 667-705.\n29\n MRK Study at 678, 681-682.\n30\n MRK Study at 667.\n\n\n A-9\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page13\n 13of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 27. The authors describe these variables as reflective of investor interest: after losing\n\nanalyst coverage, \u201cinvestor interest characteristics, such as market capitalization, trading volume,\n\nbid-ask spread, institutional holdings, and number of institutions, significantly worsen relative to\n\n[analyst-]covered peers.\u201d31 Therefore, I interpret the sample of MRK Covered firms as those\n\neliciting high investor interest and reflect factors common to firms operating in efficient markets.\n\n 28. Below, I compare several of CleanSpark\u2019s market efficiency factors to the samples\n\nof firms in the MRK Study to assess whether the Company\u2019s characteristics are consistent with\n\nfirms operating in efficient markets.\n\n A. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume\n 29. Trading volume refers to the number of shares of a security transacted between\n\nmarket participants. The greater the amount of buying and selling activity of a security, the more\n\nlikely it is that new information will be quickly incorporated into the price of that security.32 Thus,\n\ntrading volume is an indicator of how developed, liquid, and efficient the market is for a given\n\nstock.33 The first Cammer factor, stock trading volume, has been defined by the Cammer court\n\nusing average weekly trading volume relative to shares outstanding. In setting a threshold of\n\ntrading volume for the presumption of market efficiency, the court stated:\n\n Turnover measured by average weekly trading of 2% or more of the\n outstanding shares would justify a strong presumption that the\n market for the security is an efficient one; 1% would justify a\n substantial presumption.34\n\n\n\n31\n MRK Study at 681 (footnotes omitted).\n32\n See, e.g., Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency\nIndicators for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review, at pp. 101-102. (the \u201cBhole\nStudy\u201d); Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the\nRegulatory Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems 63, at p. 108; MRK Study at p. 681.\n33\n Id.\n34\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293 (quoting Bromberg, \u00a78.6).\n\n\n A-10\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page14\n 14of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 30. Exhibit 2 graphs CleanSpark\u2019s common stock\u2019s weekly trading volume as a\n\nfraction of Common Stock outstanding throughout the Class Period.35 The average weekly trading\n\nvolume was 41.9% of CleanSpark\u2019s common stock outstanding over the Class Period. This level\n\nof trading volume substantially exceeds the 1% and 2% thresholds established by the Cammer\n\ncourt. As a result, CleanSpark\u2019s level of Common Stock trading volume throughout the Class\n\nPeriod supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n 31. Additionally, CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock daily turnover rate of 8.5% during the\n\nClass Period placed it above the 95th percentile of all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the\n\nNYSE from 2016-2018.36 This further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n B. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage\n 32. An analyst is someone, usually working for a financial institution such as a\n\nbrokerage, bank, or investment bank, who studies financial information and trends for a specific\n\ncompany or industry. Analysts typically publish reports in which they assess recent company\n\nbusiness developments, review historical financial performance and provide forecasts of future\n\noperating performance, or make investment recommendations, such as whether investors should\n\nbuy, sell, or hold the company\u2019s stock.\n\n 33. Analyst coverage can be indicative of market efficiency since research analysts help\n\nto disseminate new important company-specific information to investors, thus impounding new\n\ninformation into stock prices quickly and efficiently. The Cammer court similarly stated:\n\n\n35\n In this analysis, a \u201ctrading week\u201d consists of five consecutive trading days, which may not follow\nthe calendar week.\n36\n Bhole Study at 102. The 95th percentile of daily turnover for the 2016-2018 sample period is\n2.95%. The 2016-2018 subsample time period is the most recent period reported in this study.\n\n\n A-11\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page15\n 15of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n [I]t would be persuasive to allege a significant number of securities\n analysts followed and reported on a company\u2019s stock during the\n class period. The existence of such analysts would imply, for\n example, the [auditor] reports were closely reviewed by investment\n professionals, who would in turn make buy/sell recommendations to\n client investors.37\n\n\n 34. In Exhibit 3 I reviewed the analyst coverage of CleanSpark over the Class Period.\n\nI identified a total of at least 41 reports issued by analysts at 10 separate firms during that period.38\n\nThe list of analyst reports that I was able to identify includes reports by firms that conducted\n\nthorough and detailed research on CleanSpark and the industry within which it operated, such as\n\nthe reports prepared by analysts at Water Tower Research, H.C. Wainwright & Co., and Plunkett\n\nResearch, among others. Collectively, this is a significant degree of analyst coverage which served\n\nto disseminate important new publicly available information to investors, including company\n\nnews, financial performance, forecasts, and analyst commentary and recommendations.\n\n 35. This degree of analyst coverage compares favorably to that documented by\n\nacademic research. For example, the MRK Study noted that 19% of U.S. firms covered by I/B/E/S\n\nreceived no analyst coverage in a given year.39 Further, Lee and So documented that, on average,\n\nfirms were covered by between 0.765 and 7.614 analysts when ranking firms into deciles by the\n\ntotal number of analyst forecasts issued.40 In other words, many firms within the category of the\n\nleast amount of analyst coverage in their sample were covered by only one or two analysts.\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s analyst coverage is consistent with the MRK Covered firms which elicited high\n\ninvestor interest.\n\n\n37\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1286.\n38\n These statistics represent a lower bound of the analyst coverage of CleanSpark because many\nanalyst reports are provided directly to investors but are not captured by third-party data vendors.\n39\n MRK Study at 668.\n40\n Lee, C., and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\nProxies. Journal of Financial Economics 124, at 336. (see Table 1, Panel B \u2013 \u201cCOV\u201d).\n\n\n A-12\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page16\n 16of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 36. Moreover, CleanSpark\u2019s high level of analyst coverage also placed it between the\n\n50th and 75th percentiles when compared with all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the NYSE\n\nfrom 2016-2018.41 The significant analyst coverage of CleanSpark during the Class Period\n\nsupports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n 37. In addition to the analyst coverage documented above, investors could access\n\ninformation about CleanSpark from a variety of other sources. For example, I conducted a search\n\nof press and news articles about CleanSpark using Factiva, a well-known provider of access to\n\nbusiness news across a comprehensive set of publications. Factiva coverage includes Dow Jones\n\nNewswires, GlobeNewswire, PR Newswire, Reuters, Business Wire, and numerous other outlets.\n\nThis search produced approximately 400 articles throughout the Class Period.42\n\n 38. As a result, the amount of analyst coverage, number of analyst research reports\n\nproduced, and substantial public dissemination of news and information about CleanSpark support\n\nthe conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in a well-developed and informationally\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n C. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers\n 39. The third Cammer factor relates to securities trading outside of major exchanges,\n\nin over-the-counter markets without continuous reporting of trading volume. This factor examines\n\nmarket makers, which are firms that facilitate the buying and selling of shares among investors in\n\na company\u2019s stock during trading hours.43 Market makers are present on major exchanges as well\n\n\n41\n Bhole Study at 104 (50th percentile defined as 6.2 analysts; 75th percentile defined as 12.2\nanalysts).\n42\n The articles were identified through a Factiva search of articles with CleanSpark\u2019s company tag\nfrom all available sources..\n43\n \u201cA \u2018market maker\u2019 is a firm that stands ready to buy or sell a stock at publicly quoted prices.\u201d\nSee https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/market-makers.\n\n\n A-13\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page17\n 17of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nas over-the-counter markets. In particular, market makers can facilitate market efficiency in an\n\nover-the-counter market because they are:\n\n [P]resumably knowledgeable about the issuing company and the\n stocks\u2019 supply and demand conditions (i.e., the \u201corder flow\u201d).\n Therefore, it is believed the larger the number of market makers in\n a given security, the more information is available about it and the\n quicker its dissemination in the price.44\n 40. In evaluating market efficiency by looking at market makers, the Cammer court\n\nheld:\n\n For over the counter markets without volume reporting, the number\n of market makers is probably the best single criterion. Ten market\n makers for a security would justify a substantial presumption that\n the market for the security is an efficient one; five market makers\n would justify a more modest presumption.45\nThe court thus stated that market makers can be an important indicator of market efficiency for\n\nstock trading in an over-the-counter market without continuous trading volume reporting.\n\n 41. CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock had at least 73 market makers and brokers providing\n\nsimilar activity over the Class Period.46 The presence of more than 10 market makers thus supports\n\n\n\n44\n Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators\nof Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law 19, at p. 291.\n45\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293; see also Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL\n7406418, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (\u201cThe Court agrees that both the presence of a designated\nmarket maker and so many market makers in other trading venues weigh in favor of a finding of\nmarket efficiency.\u201d).\n46\n See Bloomberg \u201cRANK\u201d function (\u201cRANK provides brokers\u2019 advertised trade volume\non a post-trade basis, so you can analyze which brokers provide the greatest liquidity, assess how\nyou rank against your peers, and evaluate the greatest liquidity providers in a corporation. RANK\ngenerates historical broker ranking reports, comparing broker activity in a single security or across\nan exchange, index, or portfolio, helping you trade with minimal market impact . . . RANK\nprovides the equity market share data that is critical to helping buy-side firms identify which\nbrokers potentially are the market makers in a stock in which they are interested, so that trading\ndecisions can be made more accurately. Additionally, sell-side firms can demonstrate their\nhistorical ability to source liquidity for clients, while investment bankers can market their ability\nto manage their corporate finance clients\u2019 flow.\u201d).\n\n\n A-14\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page18\n 18of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nthe Cammer Court\u2019s \u201csubstantial presumption\u201d of the efficiency of the market for the Company\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock throughout the Class Period.\n\n 42. In addition to the presence of market makers, the presence of institutional investors\n\ncan be an indicator of market efficiency. These investors can improve market efficiency by\n\ndigesting new public information and making investment decisions over large block holdings of\n\nshares, thus causing new information to be quickly impounded into stock prices. During the Class\n\nPeriod, between 69 and 115 institutions held CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock.47 By comparison, the\n\nMRK Study found that the MRK Sample firms had a median of only nine institutional investors\n\nwhile the MRK Covered firms had a median of 40 institutional investors.48 CleanSpark\u2019s\n\ninstitutional ownership base greatly exceeds both of these levels. Moreover, CleanSpark\u2019s\n\ninstitutional ownership as a percent of shares during the Class Period placed it between the 10th\n\nand 25th percentile of NYSE and NASDAQ traded companies.49 Thus, the significant institutional\n\nownership base for CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock further supports the conclusion that the Common\n\nStock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n D. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility\n 43. The fourth Cammer factor is SEC Form S-3 filing eligibility:\n\n [I]t would be helpful to allege the Company was entitled to file an\n S-3 Registration Statement in connection with public offerings or, if\n ineligible, such ineligibility was only because of timing factors\n rather than because the minimum stock requirements set forth in the\n instructions to Form S-3 were not met. Again, it is the number of\n\n\n\n\n47\n Data Source: S&P Capital IQ.\n48\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n49\n Bhole Study, at 106: 10th percentile defined as institutional ownership of 13.48% of shares\noutstanding; 25th percentile defined as 33.58%. CleanSpark institutional ownership fluctuated\nbetween 17.0% and 30.9% of shares outstanding for quarters ending within the Class Period.\n\n\n A-15\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page19\n 19of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n shares traded and value of shares outstanding that involve the facts\n which imply efficiency.50\n\n 44. Form S-3 filing eligibility allows companies to file a shortened form with the SEC\n\nin order to raise capital, by providing references to previous SEC filings as opposed to repeating a\n\nlarge quantity of information. This eligibility includes the following requirements: the registrant\n\nhas a class of securities subject to the Exchange Act, the registrant has filed all necessary filings\n\nwith the SEC in a timely manner for the past 12 months, the registrant has a float of at least $75\n\nmillion, and the registrant has not failed to pay any dividend or sinking fund installment on\n\npreferred stock or defaulted on any material debts or leases.51 The rationale behind this factor as\n\ndiscussed by the Cammer court is that a company which makes timely financial filings with\n\nregulators implies that investors have timely access to publicly available information about the\n\nissuer.\n\n 45. CleanSpark made all required filings with the SEC in a timely manner during the\n\nClass Period and satisfied the other Form S-3 requirements.52 CleanSpark made Form S-3 filings\n\nwith the SEC before, during, and after the Class Period.53 As a result, this factor is consistent with\n\nthe efficiency of the market for the Company\u2019s Common Stock throughout the Class Period.\n\n E. Cammer Factor 5: Cause and Effect Relationship Between Company\n Information and Stock Prices\n 46. The fifth Cammer factor relates to whether a company\u2019s stock price quickly\n\nresponds to and incorporates new value-relevant information. The Cammer court held:\n\n [O]ne of the most convincing ways to demonstrate [market]\n efficiency would be to illustrate, over time, a cause and effect\n\n50\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n51\n See SEC Form 3, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3.pdf.\n52\n See: SEC EDGAR, CleanSpark, Inc., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=827876&owner=exclude.\n53\n See Id.\n\n\n A-16\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page20\n 20of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n relationship between company disclosures and resulting movements\n in stock price.54\n 47. I summarize my empirical analysis below, which finds that CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock exhibited the type of cause-and-effect relationship between company-specific information\n\nflow and price movement described in Cammer. I compare the behavior of CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock on days when company-specific news is issued with its behavior on days when no such news\n\nis issued. This analysis demonstrates that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price reacted rapidly to\n\ncompany-specific news and, thus, further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common\n\nStock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n i. Event Study Methodology\n\n 48. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I ran empirical tests using the results of an\n\nevent study. Event studies are widely used by economists to measure the reaction of a security to\n\nthe disclosure of new, issuer-specific information, including in connection with assessments of\n\nmarket efficiency in securities litigation.55 As Professor Fama has explained:\n\n The cleanest evidence on market-efficiency comes from event\n studies, especially event studies on daily returns. When an\n information event can be dated precisely and the event has a large\n effect on prices, the way one abstracts from expected returns to\n measure abnormal daily returns is a second-order consideration. As\n a result, event studies can give a clear picture of the speed of\n adjustment of prices to information.\n\n There is a large event-study literature on issues in corporate finance.\n The results indicate that on average stock prices adjust quickly to\n information about investment decisions, dividend changes, changes\n in capital structure, and corporate-control transactions. This\n evidence tilts me toward the conclusion that prices adjust efficiently\n to firm-specific information. More important, the research uncovers\n\n54\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1291.\n55\n See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\nLiterature 13.\n\n\n A-17\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page21\n 21of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n empirical regularities, many surprising, that enrich our\n understanding of investment, financing, and corporate-control\n events, and give rise to interesting theoretical work.56\n\n 49. To determine whether CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price movements on any given\n\ndate are statistically significant, I performed an event study using generally accepted economic\n\nmethods, specifying a regression model over a selected time period to observe the typical\n\nrelationship between the price of the relevant security and market and industry indices.\n\n 50. Through this regression model, an economist can model the predicted daily return\n\nof the relevant security, based on market and industry returns. By subtracting the predicted return\n\nfrom the actual return, an economist can calculate the \u201cabnormal\u201d return in the company\u2019s daily\n\nsecurity price movement, which represents the component of the daily security price return that is\n\nnot attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements, but rather is attributable to company-\n\nspecific news. Finally, as part of an event study analysis, an economist tests whether the deviation\n\nfrom expected price movements (i.e., the \u201cabnormal return\u201d) is \u201cstatistically significant,\u201d i.e.,\n\nsufficiently large compared to the usual volatility in the company security price return such that\n\nsimple random movement can be rejected as the cause.\n\n 51. I applied these widely used and generally accepted econometric methodologies to\n\nperform my event study here. Specifically, in order to isolate the impact of company-specific news\n\non CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price during the Class Period, I performed regression analyses to\n\nmeasure the relationship between the Company\u2019s Common Stock price returns and: (1) changes in\n\nmarket-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks; and (2) changes in industry-wide\n\nfactors that would be expected to impact stocks in industries similar to CleanSpark. By modeling\n\nhow CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns moved relative to an overall market index and an\n\n\n\n\n56\n Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance 46, at p. 1607.\n\n\n A-18\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page22\n 22of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nindustry index, I was also able to measure the response of the Company\u2019s common stock to\n\nannouncements of company-specific news.\n\n 52. I conducted my event study regression analysis over an Analysis Period\n\nencompassing the Class Period (December 10, 2020 to August 16, 2021, inclusive), plus one year\n\nbefore and after the Class Period (Analysis Period = December 10, 2019 to August 16, 2022,\n\ninclusive). For each trading day, I constructed a regression model using data from the prior six\n\nmonths of trading days (the \u201cEstimation Window\u201d).57\n\n 53. To study the relationship between CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns and\n\noverall market factors, I used the NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index (the \u201cMarket Index\u201d).\n\nTo study the relationship between CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns and changes in\n\nindustry-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks in CleanSpark\u2019s industry, I used\n\ntwo industry indices \u2013 the S&P Software & Services Select Industry Index and the Bloomberg\n\nBitcoin Index (the \u201cIndustry Indices\u201d) \u2013 to accommodate CleanSpark\u2019s transition from a traditional\n\nsoftware services provider to a Bitcoin mining firm during the Class Period.\n\n 54. I established the relationship between the daily return of CleanSpark\u2019s common\n\nstock, the daily return on the Market Index, and the daily returns on the Industry Indices over the\n\n\n\n\n57\n I utilized an Estimation Window of 120 trading days, which is approximately six calendar\nmonths. This allowed my regression approach to adapt to the changing volatility of stock returns\nover time. See, e.g., Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in\nSecurities Fraud Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Business\nLawyer 49; MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\nLiterature 35, at p. 15. (\u201cGiven the selection of a normal performance model, the estimation\nwindow needs to be defined. The most common choice, when feasible, is using the period prior to\nthe event window for the estimation window. For example, in an event study using daily data and\nthe market model, the market model parameters could be estimated over the 120 days prior to the\nevent. Generally, the event period itself is not included in the estimation period to prevent the event\nfrom influencing the normal performance model parameter estimates.\u201d).\n\n\n A-19\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page23\n 23of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nEstimation Window.58 As shown in Exhibit 4, the event study models revealed an evolving\n\nrelation between the daily returns of CleanSpark\u2019s common stock and those of the overall stock\n\nmarket and industry indices throughout the Class Period. In other words, movements of the Market\n\nIndex and the Industry Indices help explain movements in the Company\u2019s common stock prices.\n\n 55. Consistent with generally accepted econometric methods, these observed\n\nrelationships allowed me to construct a model to predict the expected daily return of the Company\n\non any given date within the Class Period which controls for that day\u2019s market and industry returns.\n\nAgain, in accordance with standard event-study methodology, I then subtracted this predicted\n\nreturn from the actual return to obtain the \u201cabnormal\u201d return, which represents the component of\n\nthe return that is not attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements.\n\n 56. Finally, I calculated the statistical significance of the abnormal return by comparing\n\nit to the usual volatility in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\u2019s price return. An important statistic from\n\na regression analysis is the standard deviation of the errors, which measures the degree of\n\nimprecision in the predictions from the regression model. In other words, the standard deviation\n\nof errors provides a measure for how much idiosyncratic company-specific volatility (or\n\n\u201crandomness\u201d) remains in the price movement of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock after controlling\n\nfor the Market Index and the Industry Indices. Exhibit 5 plots the standard deviation of the\n\nregression errors, also known as Root Mean Squared Error, over the Class Period.\n\n ii. Cause and Effect Analysis of Comparing CleanSpark Common Stock Price\n Behavior on News Versus No News Days\n\n\n\n\n58\n My use of this estimation model accounts for the relationship between the Company, market,\nand industry daily returns. This method has been accepted by academics in peer-reviewed\nliterature. See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of\nEconomic Literature 35; Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News,\nVolatility, and Betas. Journal of Finance 50, at p. 1597.\n\n\n A-20\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page24\n 24of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 57. A generally-accepted and peer-reviewed approach to evaluating whether a stock\n\nprice responds to news (including with regard to testing market efficiency in the securities class\n\naction context) is to compare the stock\u2019s behavior on news days with its behavior on other days\n\nwith relatively little or no news.59 In showing that a security\u2019s price is more volatile on news days\n\nthan on no news days to a statistically significant degree indicates that the security responds\n\npromptly to news and, therefore, supports a finding of efficiency.\n\n 58. Importantly, research has shown that in an efficient market, it is possible for a\n\nsecurity to exhibit some large price movements despite the absence of news and, conversely, for\n\none to observe news without large price movements.60 For instance, a company may announce\n\nearnings that are in line with investor expectations and, while such an expected announcement is\n\nclearly important to investors, it will often not alter the total mix of information significantly\n\nenough to elicit a statistically significant stock price movement. Likewise, a disclosure may\n\ncontain a mix of positive and negative information, which may effectively offset each other, which\n\nagain would result in no statistically significant price movement. Further, if a company\u2019s\n\ndisclosure conceals important information, the effect of the concealment will generally not result\n\nin a significant stock price movement, but will instead simply maintain the price at its then-current\n\nlevel. Accordingly, a generally-accepted, peer-reviewed methodology accepted by numerous\n\ncourts is to compare stock price behavior on a group of \u201cnews days\u201d to stock price behavior on a\n\ngroup of \u201cno news days.\u201d\n\n\n59\n Paul Ferrillo, Frederick Dunbar, and David Tabak, 2004, The \u2018Less Than\u2019 Efficient Capital\nMarkets Hypothesis: Requiring More Proof From Plaintiffs in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases, St.\nJohn\u2019s Law Review 78, at pp. 120-21; Miguel O. Villanueva and Steven Feinstein, 2021, Stock\nPrice Reactivity to Earnings Announcements: The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors, Review\nof Quantitative Finance and Accounting 57.\n60\n See Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S. and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading, and\nVolatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies 32, at p. 1004; Fair,\nR., 2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business 75, at pp. 713-714.\n\n\n A-21\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page25\n 25of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 59. Here, I performed such an analysis comparing the behavior of CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock on news versus no news days. My analysis demonstrates that the price of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s stock was statistically significantly more volatile on news days than on no news\n\ndays. This result supports the conclusion that there was a \u201ccause and effect relationship between\n\ncompany disclosures and resulting movements in stock price\u201d for CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\nduring the Class Period and, thus, further supports a finding of market efficiency.\n\n 60. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I analyzed CleanSpark\u2019s earnings\n\nannouncements during the Class Period. These types of announcements represent a potential\n\nopportunity for the public release of new value-relevant Company information to investors.61\n\n 61. As shown in Exhibit 6, CleanSpark issued 12 earnings announcements during the\n\nAnalysis Period. I classified each day on which such earnings release was first issued as a \u201cNews\n\nDay.\u201d62 I then compared the stock returns and trading volume of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock on\n\nthese \u201cNews Days\u201d versus those metrics on trading days that contained the least news during the\n\nClass Period (the \u201cNo News Days\u201d). The No News Days provide a benchmark measurement of\n\ndays in which relatively little or no new CleanSpark-specific information was provided to the\n\nmarket. If CleanSpark\u2019s stock prices tend to move more significantly on News Days than on No\n\n\n\n\n61\n See SEC, \u201cHow to Read an 8-K,\u201d https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-\nresources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/how-read-8 (\u201cThe types of information\nrequired to be disclosed on Form 8-K are generally considered to be \u201cmaterial.\u201d That means that,\nin general, there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the\ninformation important in making an investment decision.\u201d).\n62\n If the release were issued after the close of the market, the relevant news day is appropriately\ndeemed to be the next trading day.\n\n\n A-22\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page26\n 26of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nNews Days, this would support a conclusion of market efficiency. As discussed below, there were\n\n532 No News Days during the Class Period.63\n\n 62. Exhibit 6 reports the results of the event study using CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\nreturns. The columns list the market impact dates, raw return, abnormal return from my event\n\nstudy, abnormal dollar change in stock price from my event study, the t-statistic, the p-value\n\ncorresponding to statistical significance, and a description of the earnings announcement on each\n\ndate. Overall, 3 out of 12 CleanSpark earnings announcements caused stock price movements that\n\nwere statistically significant at the 95% level or better. I compare this rate with that on the No\n\nNews Days in the following exhibit.\n\n 63. Exhibit 7 summarizes the statistical comparison of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\nreturns and trading volume following the 12 News Days versus these metrics as measured on the\n\n532 No News Days. As shown in the Exhibit 7, 25% of the earnings announcements caused stock\n\nmovements that were statistically significant at the 95% level. This compares to 3.9% of the No\n\nNews Days with statistically significant stock price movements. The difference between these two\n\npercentages is statistically significant at the 95% level. In other words, the rate of statistically\n\nsignificant News Days is more than six times greater than that of the No News Days. These results\n\nprovide strong evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between new information and\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price movements. Moreover, relative to the No News Days, the\n\nNews Days had a higher average absolute abnormal return and greater trading volume.\n\n 64. In summary, relative to other trading days contained in each event study\u2019s\n\nEstimation Window, News Days caused a greater proportion of statistically significant stock price\n\n\n\n63\n I identified \u201cNo News Days\u201d as days on which there were no: a) earnings announcements, b)\nalleged corrective disclosures, c) alleged misrepresentations, or d) Dow Jones news articles on\nFactiva tagged to CleanSpark. I ignore news articles about trading halts due to volatility or\nannouncements related to shareholder lawsuits.\n\n\n A-23\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page27\n 27of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nmovements at the 95% level. This finding establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship between\n\nnew company-specific information and CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price movements. As a\n\nresult, this Cammer Factor 5 analysis supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market during the Class Period.\n\n F. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization\n 65. Beyond the five Cammer factors, I have also considered several additional factors\n\narticulated by the Krogman court. The first of these is the total value of stock outstanding, or\n\nmarket capitalization. The Cammer court acknowledged this factor as indicative of market\n\nefficiency, holding that \u201cit is the number of shares traded and value of shares outstanding that\n\ninvolve the facts which imply efficiency.\u201d64 Similarly, the Krogman court stated that \u201c[m]arket\n\ncapitalization, calculated as the number of shares multiplied by the prevailing share price, may be\n\nan indicator of market efficiency because there is a greater incentive for stock purchasers to invest\n\nin more highly capitalized corporations.\u201d65\n\n 66. Conversely, as noted previously, the MRK Study found that companies that lack\n\nanalyst coverage are also companies that are generally associated with other factors \u2013 such as\n\nrelatively small market capitalization \u2013 that indicate that their shares trade in less developed and\n\nefficient markets. The median market capitalization of the MRK Sample firms was $27.91\n\nmillion.66 By contrast, the MRK Covered firms had a median market capitalization of $243.97\n\nmillion.67 This study thus supports the view that firms with larger market capitalizations tend to\n\ntrade in more efficient markets.\n\n\n\n64\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n65\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n66\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n67\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n\n\n A-24\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page28\n 28of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 67. Exhibit 8 reports the market capitalization of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\nthroughout the Class Period. This market capitalization averaged $625.4 million over the Class\n\nPeriod. The Company\u2019s Common Stock market capitalization places it between the 25th and 50th\n\npercentiles of all companies listed on either the NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018.68\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock market capitalization also exceeded the MRK Sample firms on an\n\ninflation-adjusted basis.69 CleanSpark\u2019s number of shares outstanding were approximately 30.3\n\nmillion during the Class Period. CleanSpark\u2019s market capitalization, shares outstanding available\n\nfor trading, and its sizeable float as discussed below, are consistent with the conclusion that the\n\nCompany\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market during the Class Period.\n\n G. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread\n 68. The Krogman court considered the bid-ask spread as another factor that can indicate\n\nmarket efficiency: \u201c[a] large bid-ask spread is indicative of an inefficient market, because it\n\nsuggests that the stock is too expensive to trade.\u201d70\n\n 69. The bid-ask spread is the difference between the price at which an investor could\n\npurchase a stock (the ask) and the price at which an investor could sell the stock (the bid). This\n\nspread can be expressed as the difference between these prices in their quoted currency or as a\n\npercentage relative to the bid-ask midpoint. A narrow bid-ask spread indicates lower transaction\n\ncosts to trade in a given stock and is indicative of a more informationally efficient market. A wider\n\nbid-ask spread indicates that investors will pay more to buy and sell a given stock, and these higher\n\n\n\n\n68\n Bhole Study at 107 (25th percentile of market capitalization defined as $167 million; 50th\npercentile defined as $781 million).\n69\n U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator. See\nhttps://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.\n70\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n\n\n A-25\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page29\n 29of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\ntransaction costs can discourage trading and price discovery, thus indicating a less liquid and less\n\nefficient market.\n\n 70. I analyzed the bid-ask spread of CleanSpark\u2019s common stock during the Class\n\nPeriod. Exhibit 9 reports the Company\u2019s bid-ask spread as a percentage of the bid-ask midpoint.71\n\nThis spread averaged 0.35% over the Class Period.\n\n 71. By way of comparison, the MRK Study found that MRK Sample firms had a\n\nmedian bid-ask spread of 4.55%, while MRK Covered firms had a median bid-ask spread of\n\n1.69%.72 CleanSpark\u2019s bid-ask spread was significantly smaller than both of these values,\n\nindicating that investors could trade the Company\u2019s Common Stock at very low relative cost.\n\nAdditionally, CleanSpark\u2019s average bid-ask spread over the Class Period places it between the 50th\n\nand 75th percentiles of all companies listed on NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018 (lower\n\npercentile rankings correspond to smaller bid-ask spreads).73\n\n 72. As a result, CleanSpark\u2019s bid-ask spread also supports the conclusion that the\n\nCompany\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n H. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float\n 73. The Krogman court also considered the public float of a company in weighing\n\nmarket efficiency.74 The public float represents the number of shares outstanding that are available\n\nfor trading and not held by corporate insiders. Even if a company has a large market capitalization,\n\nif the majority of the equity is held by its CEO and/or other insiders, then investors may be unable\n\n\n\n71\n Bloomberg daily reported \u201cAVERAGE_BID_ASK_SPREAD_%\u201d variable.\n72\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n73\n Bhole Study at 105 (50th percentile of bid-ask spread defined as 0.14%; 75th percentile defined\nas 0.75%).\n74\n \u201cIn determining efficiency, courts also consider the percentage of shares held by the public,\nrather than insiders.\u201d Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n\n\n A-26\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page30\n 30of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nto trade the stock without exerting undue pricing pressure resulting from a lack of liquidity and\n\nsupply/demand imbalances.\n\n 74. CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock had a market capitalization averaging $625.4 million\n\nand between 21.8 and 35.6 million shares outstanding during the Class Period. Furthermore,\n\nCleanSpark insiders held roughly 5.02% to 7.01% of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock during the\n\nClass Period.75 As a result, approximately 93% of the Company\u2019s Common Stock was held and\n\nfreely tradeable by outside investors during the Class Period. Hence, the large degree of public\n\nfloat for the Company\u2019s Common Stock supports the conclusion that CleanSpark traded in an\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\nVI. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis\n 75. I have also been asked to opine on whether per-share damages for traders of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock can be assessed for all Class members based upon a methodology\n\ncommon to all Class members and consistent with Plaintiff\u2019s theories of liability. As discussed\n\nbelow, damages for each of Plaintiff\u2019s claims can be calculated on a class-wide basis through a\n\ncommon methodology.\n\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\n Exchange Act\n 76. For the \u00a710(b) claims, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants\u2019 fraudulent scheme,\n\nmisstatements, and omissions artificially inflated the market price of CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock, and caused Class members to purchase CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock at artificially inflated\n\nprices.76 Plaintiff also claims certain Defendants are liable as control persons under section 20(a).77\n\n\n75\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n76\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 138-140, 151-152.\n77\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 133-134. Section 20(a) provides that control persons shall be \u201cjointly and severally\n[liable] with and to the same extent\u201d as the controlled person(s) that violated the securities law. 15\n\n\n\n A-27\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page31\n 31of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 77. The \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method of calculating damages represents a standard and well-\n\naccepted methodology under \u00a710(b) of the Exchange Act. This approach calculates investor\n\ndamages formulaically as the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor\n\npurchase minus the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor sale. If shares\n\nare not sold prior to the full revelation of the fraud, then the difference is relative to a 90-day\n\nlookback period under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).78 This\n\ncap on damages is also applied class-wide.\n\n 78. The claims process produces information necessary for the calculation of damages\n\nfor each Class member as inputs to the formula above, including the purchase and sale information\n\nfor the Class member\u2019s trades (including transaction dates and quantity of shares traded). This\n\ninformation is available from brokerage statements, trade blotters, and/or other documentation of\n\nsecurities transactions.\n\n 79. Another input to the above formula, the quantification of artificial inflation per\n\nshare, is based upon a detailed loss causation analysis. I have not been asked to perform a loss\n\ncausation analysis at this time, and such analysis often incorporates information produced during\n\ndiscovery. Nonetheless, the method employed to calculate artificial inflation can be applied class-\n\nwide as an input to the out-of-pocket formula. For example, event studies are widely employed to\n\ncalculate artificial inflation. Event studies measure stock price reactions to corrective disclosures\n\n\n\n\nU.S.C. \u00a778t(a). Given \u00a720(a)\u2019s derivative nature, I understand that \u00a720(a) damages can be\ncalculated using the same methodology for assessing \u00a710(b) damages.\n78\n The PSLRA states: \u201cin any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to\nestablish damages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the\nplaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as\nappropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security\nduring the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the\nmisstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.\u201d 15 U.S.\nCode \u00a778u-4 (codifying language).\n\n\n A-28\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page32\n 32of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\nwhich revealed the relevant truth that was concealed by alleged fraudulent schemes and\n\nmisrepresentations.79\n\n 80. To the extent that reliable evidence is introduced to show that a significant portion\n\nof the difference in artificial inflation between the purchase and sale of securities may be attributed\n\nto non-fraud related factors, the impact of such \u201cconfounding information\u201d on the price of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s securities can be determined on a common, class-wide basis using various accepted\n\nmethodologies. The value of any confounding information can then be subtracted from the price\n\nimpact of corrective disclosures in calculating inflation. This process may rely upon additional\n\ninformation learned during discovery and will be based on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances in a given case.\n\n 81. A loss causation analysis also documents how artificial inflation per share evolved\n\nthroughout the Class Period. This determination depends on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances for a given case and also could incorporate information produced through discovery.\n\n 82. One frequent method for modeling the evolution of inflation is to assume \u201cconstant\n\ndollar inflation.\u201d This assumes that per share inflation equaled a constant dollar amount above the\n\ncorrect share price over the Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates\n\nartificial inflation based upon the abnormal dollar value of stock price decline from an event study\n\naround one or more corrective disclosures.\n\n 83. Alternatively, one can measure \u201cconstant percentage inflation,\u201d which assumes that\n\neach share price was inflated by a constant percentage amount above the correct stock price over\n\nthe Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates artificial inflation based\n\nupon the abnormal percentage return in stock price from an event study around one or more\n\ncorrective disclosures.\n\n79\n In this report I conducted an event study to assist with the evaluation of market efficiency. My\nevent study in this report was not intended to quantify artificial inflation.\n\n\n A-29\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page33\n 33of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 84. In other instances, artificial inflation may have varied and could evolve throughout\n\nthe Class Period based on the timing of specific information or statements. In any of these\n\napproaches, the calculations of artificial inflation and any potential disaggregation of confounding\n\ninformation are based on the specific set of facts and circumstances in a given case and can involve\n\nvaluation techniques, event studies, published academic research studies, analyst research, or other\n\ncase-specific documents.\n\n 85. All of these loss causation calculations can be performed on a class-wide basis and\n\nare not dependent upon individual Class member identities or circumstances.\n\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate Alternative Findings\n 86. The damages methodology I have laid out above is flexible and able to incorporate\n\nalternative findings of fact regarding the quantification, as well as the timing, of artificial inflation\n\nand how it evolves over the Class Period. The methodology can be modified based on alternative\n\nfindings the finder of fact may determine, including, but not limited to any: (1) confounding\n\ninformation versus corrective information; (2) how to back-cast inflation over the Class Period;\n\nand (3) the first actionable fraudulent conduct or misstatement.\n\n 87. First, irrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury, determines is the\n\nappropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of corrective versus\n\nconfounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted into the standard damages model\n\nthat I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket formula. Regardless of how the jury weighs\n\nevidence, whether they find that any such disaggregation analysis I may conduct is the most\n\nappropriate, or they determine that based upon the evidence, a different amount is more\n\nappropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages calculation.\n\n\n\n\n A-30\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-1\n 91-1 Filed\n Filed01/10/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page34\n 34of\n of53\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 88. Second, should the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over the\n\nClass Period, my out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a scenario and can\n\nmechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis.\n\n 89. Third, should the jury decide that the first actionable misstatement or otherwise\n\nactionable fraudulent conduct happened at a date later than December 10, 2020, prior to such date,\n\ninflation could simply be set to zero.\n\n 90. If the jury determines that a change to inflation would be necessary over the Class\n\nPeriod, any such change can easily be incorporated into the model.\n\n 91. To summarize, I have not been asked to calculate damages in this matter. Such\n\nanalysis would depend on information produced in discovery and development of the case record.\n\nBased on my experience, qualifications, and understanding of the nature of the claims in this\n\nmatter, I conclude that Common Stock damages in this case can, however, be calculated using a\n\nstandard and well-established methodology, and can be applied on a class-wide basis.\n\nVII. Conclusion\n\n 92. In conclusion, based on my analysis of the market efficiency factors considered by\n\ncourts and in academia, it is my opinion that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient\n\nmarket throughout the Class Period. Moreover, it is my opinion that damages in this matter under\n\nSections 10(b) and 20(a) can be calculated on a class-wide basis utilizing a common methodology.\n\nI declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n A-31\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:23.229816-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727939","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit A - Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated January 10, 2025","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528954/","id":484528954,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/2/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:52.596020-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:29:24.636667-07:00","sha1":"8744e6202fad9c5406f7859f8203626eb8a2ddff","page_count":369,"file_size":1576591,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 369\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 1\n\n1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n3 ________________________________\n4 DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n5 Plaintiffs,\n6 v. Case No.\n7 CLEANSPARK, INC., et al., 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\n8 Defendants.\n9 ________________________________\n10 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF\n11 ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n12 DATE: Thursday, February 27, 2025\n13 TIME: 10:04 a.m.\n14 LOCATION: Remote Proceeding\n15 Tallahassee, FL 32317\n16\n17 REPORTED BY: Cristina Betts\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\n1 A P P E A R A N C E S\n2 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.:\n3 GREGORY LINKH, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n4 CHRIS FALLON, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n5 Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP\n6 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530\n7 New York, NY 10169\n8 glinkh@glancylaw.com\n9 cfallon@glancylaw.com\n10 (212) 682-5340\n11 (888) 773-9224\n12\n13 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS CLEANSPARK, INC., ZACHARY\n14 BRADFORD, AND S. MATTHEW SCHULTZ:\n15 DAVID J. PARTIDA, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n16 Wilk Auslander LLP\n17 825 8th Avenue\n18 New York, NY 10019\n19 dpartida@wilkauslander.com\n20 (212) 981-2313\n21\n22 ALSO PRESENT:\n23 Kevin Gallagher, Videographer - Icon Digital\n24 Media, Inc. (by videoconference)\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n\n1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)\n2 ALSO PRESENT:\n3 Alejandro Hoyos Suarez, Senior Manager -\n4 Cornerstone Research (by videoconference)\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\n1 I N D E X\n2 EXAMINATION: PAGE\n3 By Mr. Partida 7\n4 By Mr. Linkh 288\n5\n6 E X H I B I T S\n7 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE\n8 Exhibit 72 Notice of Deposition of Dr.\n9 Zahn Bozanic 13\n10 Exhibit 73 Expert Report of Zahn\n11 Bozanic, Ph.D. - CleanSpark 14\n12 Exhibit 74 Expert Report of Zahn\n13 Bozanic, Ph.D. -\n14 Teleperformance SE 23\n15 Exhibit 75 Expert Report of Matthew\n16 D. Cain, Ph.D. - Dentsply\n17 Sirona, Inc. 63\n18 Exhibit 76 Water Tower Research Report 96\n19 Exhibit 77 Spreadsheet Backup Report 147\n20 Exhibit 78 H. C. Wainwright Report 182\n21 Exhibit 79 Culper Research Report 206\n22 Exhibit 80 Research - Search Results 227\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 5\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going\n3 on the record at approximately 10:04 a.m.\n4 Today's date is February 27, 2025. This\n5 is media unit number 1 of the video\n6 recorded deposition of Dr. Zahn Bozanic.\n7 And my name is Kevin Gallagher; I am\n8 the videographer. The court reporter is\n9 Cristina Betts, and she will take over\n10 from here.\n11 THE REPORTER: Thank you.\n12 I am a notary authorized to take\n13 acknowledgments and administer oaths in\n14 New York. Parties agree that I will swear\n15 in the witness remotely.\n16 Additionally, absent an objection on\n17 the record before the witness is sworn,\n18 all parties and the witness understand and\n19 agree that any certified transcript\n20 produced from the recording of this\n21 proceeding:\n22 - is intended for all uses permitted\n23 under applicable procedural and\n24 evidentiary rules and laws in the\n25 same manner as a deposition recorded\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 by stenographic means; and\n3 - shall constitute written\n4 stipulation of such.\n5 At this time will everyone in\n6 attendance please identify yourself for\n7 the record.\n8 DR. BOZANIC: Zahn Bozanic.\n9 MR. PARTIDA: David Partida, counsel\n10 for defendants.\n11 MR. LINKH: Greg Linkh from Glancy\n12 Prongay & Murray, counsel for Plaintiffs.\n13 MR. HOYOS: Alejandro Hoyos with\n14 Cornerstone Research for Defendants.\n15 THE REPORTER: Thank you.\n16 Hearing no objection, I will now\n17 swear in the witness.\n18 Please raise your right hand.\n19 WHEREUPON,\n20 ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.,\n21 called as a witness and having been first\n22 duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole\n23 truth, and nothing but the truth, was\n24 examined and testified as follows:\n25 THE REPORTER: Thank you.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Counsel, you may proceed.\n3 MR. PARTIDA: All right.\n4 EXAMINATION\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q Good morning, Dr. Bozanic. My\n7 name is David Partida. As I said, I'm\n8 counsel for the defendants here in this\n9 case, and those defendants are CleanSpark,\n10 the company, and the two individual\n11 defendants, Matthew Schultz and Zachary\n12 Bradford. We're here today in the matter\n13 of Hasthantra vs. CleanSpark, and I just\n14 have a couple of precursor questions\n15 before we get into the mix.\n16 First is, have you ever been\n17 deposed before?\n18 A I have.\n19 Q How many times?\n20 A I've been deposed twice, one in\n21 a personal matter, one in a professional\n22 matter.\n23 Q Okay. What professional matter?\n24 A As an expert, testifying expert\n25 in a securities class action lawsuit.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 8\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And what was the name of that\n3 lawsuit?\n4 A This was Teleperformance SE.\n5 Q Okay. So I want to cover a\n6 couple of ground rules with how a\n7 deposition works. You've said you've been\n8 deposed before, but I just want to cover a\n9 couple of them. So you met the court\n10 reporter, Ms. Betts, who swore you in.\n11 She'll be recording everything that you\n12 and I and anyone else says in this\n13 deposition. You will also be recorded on\n14 video. The testimony that you're going to\n15 give is under oath.\n16 And one of the most important\n17 things that I need you to do in this\n18 deposition is to make sure that you\n19 understand the question that I'm asking,\n20 and that you do your best to answer that\n21 question and only that question. Most of\n22 the questions that I think I'm going to\n23 ask, I think are pretty clear unless I\n24 really just don't understand the issue.\n25 And hopefully, you'll be able to help me\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 explain it to me, but I really do want to\n3 make sure that you understand what I'm\n4 asking.\n5 I will ask for your expert\n6 opinion, as you are an expert, based on,\n7 you know, the report that you've given in\n8 this matter, but I don't want you to\n9 speculate about things that are outside of\n10 your knowledge. As I said, the court\n11 reporter is taking down everything that is\n12 said, so it's very important for us to\n13 speak, so no, you know, mm-hmm, no shaking\n14 your head, things like that.\n15 The second thing is, she has to\n16 be able to take down what we say clearly,\n17 so it helps her a lot if we speak, you\n18 know, one at a time. I don't anticipate\n19 that will be a problem, but sometimes it\n20 does come up naturally when you're\n21 speaking with someone in a conversation.\n22 So just to the best we can, let's try and\n23 not speak over one another.\n24 From time to time, your\n25 attorney, Mr. Linkh, or the attorney for\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the plaintiffs, Mr. Linkh, might object to\n3 a question that I have. The fact that he\n4 objects doesn't mean you don't have to\n5 answer the question. I'm still entitled\n6 to answer the question, unless he\n7 instructs you not to answer it.\n8 Do you have any questions about\n9 anything that I've said so far?\n10 A I do not.\n11 Q If at any time you need a\n12 comfort break, you need a glass of water,\n13 anything like that, let me know, and I'm\n14 happy to accommodate you. The only thing\n15 that I ask is that if there is a question\n16 pending, which means I've asked a question\n17 and you haven't given your answer, that\n18 you give your answer before we take\n19 whatever break we have. Is that fair\n20 enough?\n21 A Fair enough.\n22 Q All right. Okay.\n23 So I want to ask you just a\n24 couple of questions. Do you have anyone\n25 else in the room with you?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 12 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I do not.\n3 Q Do you have any -- I see some\n4 sort of paper, it looks like, in the\n5 background. Do you have any paper, notes,\n6 anything like that in front of you?\n7 A I have one unmarked copy of my\n8 report, if that's permissible, on my desk.\n9 Q You're welcome to have it. If\n10 it helps you, I'll be looking at paper all\n11 day, so --\n12 A Just --\n13 Q Okay. Perfect.\n14 Do you have access -- or do you\n15 have a phone with you, like a cell phone?\n16 A I do, but it's tucked in my\n17 drawer.\n18 Q Okay. I just ask that it be\n19 silenced pending the next question I'm\n20 going to ask you. The way I intend to\n21 share exhibits today would be to send them\n22 via email. So I'd like to be able to\n23 circulate an email. I was going to use\n24 the chat function and send them. But the\n25 first question I actually have to ask for\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 13 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that is, would you have access like to a\n3 computer or something like that where you\n4 would be able to look at the exhibit if I\n5 send it to you via email? If not, that's\n6 not a problem. I can use it by sharing\n7 the screen share function. I just find\n8 typically people find it easier to be able\n9 to flip through the exhibit themselves.\n10 A As you wish. I can accommodate\n11 either.\n12 Q Okay. Well, then I'll send an\n13 email, and we'll test right now the first\n14 one. So you're going to get an email from\n15 me, dpartida@wilkauslander.com, and it's\n16 going to have the subject Dr. Bozanic Depo\n17 Exhibits, and it's going to have an\n18 attachment that says Exhibit 72. So I'm\n19 going to send that right now, and then you\n20 all can tell me if you received it.\n21 A Received.\n22 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So what I'd like\n23 to introduce as Exhibit 71, and if you\n24 want to go ahead and open that -- oh, 72.\n25 I'm sorry, 72. Exhibit 72 is the February\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 14 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 20th, 2025, notice of deposition of Dr.\n3 Zahn Bozanic.\n4 (Exhibit 72 was marked for\n5 identification.)\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Do you see that, Dr. Bozanic?\n8 A I do.\n9 Q And are you familiar with this\n10 document? Have you seen it?\n11 A I have seen it. I am familiar\n12 with it.\n13 Q Okay. And is that the reason\n14 you're here today?\n15 A That is the reason I'm here\n16 today.\n17 Q Okay. And you understand that\n18 everything is under oath here today?\n19 A I do.\n20 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So I'm going to\n21 send the next exhibit, and that exhibit\n22 that I would like to introduce is going to\n23 be Exhibit 73. I'll send in one second.\n24 Okay. And I think I probably made\n25 the mistake again of saying 72 instead of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 15 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 73. But just to be clear, the first\n3 exhibit was 72; that's the notice of\n4 deposition. And this next exhibit is\n5 Exhibit 73, and that's the January 10th,\n6 2025, Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic.\n7 (Exhibit 73 was marked for\n8 identification.)\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q And am I pronouncing that\n11 correctly, Dr. Bozanic?\n12 A That's correct. Thank you. And\n13 I may refer to my paper copy if you're\n14 sending over my report?\n15 Q Absolutely. Yep. I just have\n16 to send it officially, and it'll be marked\n17 Exhibit 73. And, you know, I'm looking at\n18 a paper copy too. But at the top of the\n19 copy that you're looking at, it probably\n20 should say Document 91-9 on it at the very\n21 top in blue, or do you have the not filed\n22 copy? I just want to make sure if you're\n23 looking at a paper copy, we're looking at\n24 the same document.\n25 A I'm looking at my paper copy,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 16 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 but the electronic copy does have a\n3 stamped Document 91-1.\n4 Q Okay. And that's probably\n5 because once you give the report to Mr.\n6 Linkh, he puts it in the court system, and\n7 then the court system applies this stamp.\n8 But just to be clear, the very front cover\n9 page of the one you're looking at says\n10 United States District Court, Southern\n11 District of New York, and then it has the\n12 caption, Darshan Hasthantra et al.,\n13 Plaintiff v. CleanSpark, Inc. et al.,\n14 Defendants, and then Case No 1:21-CV-511.\n15 Do you see that? Is that the\n16 document you're looking at?\n17 A I do, and it is.\n18 Q And then the very last\n19 page -- and that document includes the\n20 exhibits, the printed copy you have?\n21 A Let me double check the\n22 electronic version. Let me scroll down.\n23 Okay. It appears to be a complete\n24 representation of the report that I\n25 submitted, yes.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 17 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. Great.\n3 Okay. So if you can please turn\n4 to page A-1 of the report. And do you see\n5 that?\n6 A I do.\n7 Q Okay. And so I just want to be\n8 clear, so in paragraph 3, which is the one\n9 I'd like to go to, and we'll get into the\n10 rest of this report later, but for right\n11 now I want to focus on paragraph 3, it\n12 says \"Based on my analysis to date and the\n13 evaluation of the factors described\n14 through this report, I have formed the\n15 following opinions.\" And then you list\n16 four opinions, A, B, C, and D. Is that\n17 correct?\n18 A That is correct.\n19 Q And then I want you to flip to\n20 page -- hmm, let me find it -- I think\n21 it's 31, but yeah, page A-31. And you can\n22 tell me when you're there.\n23 A Almost.\n24 Q All right. Can you look in\n25 paragraph 92 and tell me when you finished\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 18 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 reading it?\n3 A Yes, I finished reading it.\n4 Q All right. And then right below\n5 where you say \"I declare under the penalty\n6 of perjury that the foregoing is true and\n7 correct,\" you sign the document. Isn't\n8 that correct?\n9 A That is correct.\n10 Q Okay. So one thing that\n11 interested me about this report when I was\n12 reading it, I was like, wow; I think I've\n13 read this before. And so it turns out I\n14 have, maybe a couple of times. And so my\n15 question is, how much of this report did\n16 you copy and paste from other reports?\n17 A This report is my report that I\n18 have reviewed, that I have written, that I\n19 have created. Every word has been\n20 reviewed by me; every word has been\n21 approved by me. I have edited this\n22 document; I have created this document,\n23 and so this document reflects my opinions\n24 today.\n25 Q That's fine. That's not the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 19 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 question I asked you. I asked you how\n3 much of this report did you copy and paste\n4 from other reports? So I'd like an answer\n5 to that question.\n6 A Sure. Again, what I will say is\n7 the report was written by me, reviewed by\n8 me, and every word in this paper is my\n9 opinion in terms of the matters in this\n10 case.\n11 Q Okay. Again, I'm going to move\n12 to strike that answer as nonresponsive.\n13 That's not responsive. You repeated the\n14 same answer you just gave me, which didn't\n15 answer my question.\n16 My question is, Dr. Bozanic, how\n17 much of this report did you copy and paste\n18 from other reports?\n19 A So as I said --\n20 Q That's an easy question. Yes or\n21 no. Let me strike that. Withdraw that.\n22 Have you copied and pasted any\n23 of the texts in this report from a\n24 different document?\n25 A So I've worked on several market\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 20 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 efficiency reports, and so there are\n3 elements that are similar; there are\n4 elements that are unique.\n5 Q Okay. That's, again, I -- I\n6 don't know how this is a difficult\n7 question, so maybe you can explain to me\n8 what's unclear about my question. Did you\n9 select text from other reports, other\n10 expert reports, and put it into this\n11 document?\n12 A So I have written other reports;\n13 I've written several reports, worked on\n14 several reports, and so there are common\n15 elements to those reports. And so those\n16 would be used again in other reports as\n17 needed. So in terms of quantifying the\n18 amount, that's what's unclear.\n19 Q Sure. And we can get into all\n20 of that because I have the red lines;\n21 right? So we can walk through all of\n22 that, and that's fine. But we're going to\n23 get to that after you answer my question.\n24 And my question is, how much of\n25 this report, how much of the text in this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 21 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report, did you cut and paste from a\n3 different document?\n4 A And my response is I'm not sure\n5 how much in terms of percent with respect\n6 to two different documents. So I have not\n7 quantified that. What I have said is\n8 there are common elements across reports.\n9 And so to the extent possible, if I can\n10 save the client money, then I'm going to\n11 not have to reinvent the wheel. So I\n12 don't need to reinvent the wheel every\n13 time I write a report, given the\n14 commonalities across reports with respect,\n15 for example, the Cammer and Krogman\n16 factors.\n17 So those factors aren't\n18 changing. Those are factors that the\n19 courts appreciate hearing an opinion\n20 about. And so in terms of copying and\n21 pasting, yes, there would be a word\n22 Krogman that's pasted, Cammer that's\n23 pasted repeatedly. The factors are\n24 similar across reports as well. In terms\n25 of quantifying the amount, that's what I'm\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 22 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 taking issue with, with respect to how\n3 much.\n4 Are there elements that are\n5 common across reports? Absolutely.\n6 Q Fair enough. But I just want\n7 this to be crystal clear, so we'll just\n8 walk through it really, really slowly\n9 because you said a lot there, and it's\n10 fair. You did take text from other\n11 reports and use it for this report. Isn't\n12 that correct?\n13 A I have worked on the reports --\n14 Q That's a yes or no.\n15 A This report is a new report for\n16 this case and this matter, and it has\n17 specifics to this case and there are\n18 generalities that would be applicable to\n19 other cases. And so to the extent needed,\n20 if I need to copy and paste a sentence\n21 that I have used in another report, that\n22 would be efficient for the client rather\n23 than retyping everything in regards to,\n24 say, Cammer or Krogman repeatedly.\n25 Q Listen, you write your reports\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 23 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 how you write them. I'm not the expert\n3 here. I'm just asking you how you wrote\n4 your report. And I'm just asking you, did\n5 you copy and paste text from other\n6 reports?\n7 A I believe I've already answered\n8 that question. And so in regards to your\n9 first question, I've told you my procedure\n10 in terms of how I approach reports. That\n11 was the first response I gave you.\n12 Q So the procedure is to -- okay,\n13 so let's go to -- I'm talking to a vacuum\n14 here.\n15 All right. Well, let's do that\n16 actually for a second. How many previous\n17 expert reports have you prepared, you\n18 personally?\n19 A So as lead expert, this is my\n20 second report.\n21 Q This is your second report.\n22 Okay. And so let's flip back to -- let's\n23 see what this is -- page A-38.\n24 A I'm sorry. A-30 what?\n25 Q A-38.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 24 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A 38, thank you.\n3 Q And so tell me when you're\n4 there.\n5 A I'm there.\n6 Q Okay. Do you see the third\n7 bold, I guess, where it says expert\n8 witness experience?\n9 A I do.\n10 Q \"In re Teleperformance SE\n11 Securities Litigation\"?\n12 A I do.\n13 Q Okay. And that's your report\n14 that you prepared?\n15 A I did prepare a report for that\n16 case, yes.\n17 Q Okay. I just sent Exhibit 74,\n18 so you can tell me when you received it.\n19 (Exhibit 74 was marked for\n20 identification.)\n21 A Sure.\n22 Q Do you have it open?\n23 A I'm just receiving it, just\n24 opening it, scanning through it.\n25 Q Okay.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 25 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Okay. I've reviewed it.\n3 Q And this is your report that you\n4 prepared for this case Teleperformance?\n5 A That is correct.\n6 Q You look at just the first page\n7 of that report, the first page with text\n8 on it?\n9 A Which page number?\n10 Q It would be page number 2.\n11 A Okay.\n12 Q Just take a minute to\n13 familiarize yourself with it, I guess as\n14 much as you need. It's your report.\n15 A I have reviewed this page.\n16 Q Okay. Now, can you go back to\n17 Exhibit 73?\n18 A Yes.\n19 Q And can you flip to page A-1 of\n20 that report?\n21 A I'm there.\n22 Q Can you familiarize yourself\n23 with that?\n24 A I am familiar.\n25 Q This would be an example of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 26 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 where you would recycle an old report that\n3 you wrote for a new report?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q You can answer.\n7 A I'm sorry. Are you making a\n8 statement or asking a question? I didn't\n9 quite hear it correctly.\n10 Q Sure. My question is specific.\n11 Did you recycle the beginning of the\n12 Teleperformance report for this report?\n13 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n14 A I'm not quite sure what you mean\n15 by recycle, but are there common elements\n16 across the reports? Absolutely.\n17 Q Sure. Okay. Can you tell me\n18 the difference between what words are\n19 different in paragraph one of each?\n20 A So in regards to the companies\n21 under consideration, those are different,\n22 the focus in terms of the security is also\n23 different, the class period is also\n24 different. So there are several elements\n25 in that first paragraph on this page that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 27 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 are different.\n3 Q Perfect. And one of those\n4 differences that you pointed out was the\n5 class period. Isn't that correct?\n6 A That is correct.\n7 Q And so the class period on page\n8 A-1 of Exhibit 73 is December 10, 2020, to\n9 August 16, 2021. Is that accurate?\n10 A It appears to be so, yes.\n11 Q I want you to flip to -- can you\n12 flip to page A-19 of your report?\n13 A I can.\n14 Q Exhibit 73.\n15 A You said paragraph 52?\n16 Q Yes.\n17 A Okay. I'm there.\n18 Q So if I'm understanding this,\n19 that your event study regression analysis\n20 is for an analysis period that is\n21 essentially the class period, which is\n22 December 10, 2020, to August 16, 2021,\n23 inclusive, plus a year before and a half.\n24 So that's your analysis period; correct?\n25 A That is correct.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 28 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And that's different than the\n3 class period; correct?\n4 A It does extend the class period\n5 one year before and one year after the\n6 class period dates. That's correct.\n7 Q So it's different? It's a\n8 different period; correct?\n9 A It extends the class period\n10 beyond the class period one year before,\n11 one year after. Correct.\n12 Q So it's different?\n13 A It's including the class period.\n14 Q Why is it so hard to say it's\n15 different? Is it two different time\n16 periods? These are not trick questions.\n17 So I'm trying to understand.\n18 A The analysis period is inclusive\n19 of the class period. And so I'm answering\n20 your question and saying that, yes,\n21 there's the class period as defined;\n22 there's the analysis period also as\n23 defined which extends the class period.\n24 Q Great. So it's different?\n25 A It's overlapping. So when you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 29 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 say different --\n3 Q It's different?\n4 A -- it undermines the fact that\n5 they're overlapping.\n6 Q Okay. So they're overlapping\n7 but different?\n8 A The dates that are used for the\n9 analysis period are different in the class\n10 period because they extend the class\n11 period out on the front and on the back.\n12 Q Excellent. Okay. So what I\n13 want to go to then is -- bear with me one\n14 moment -- I want you to go to paragraph 64\n15 of your report.\n16 MR. LINKH: David, just to be clear,\n17 this is paragraph 64 of the CleanSpark\n18 report?\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Yes, sorry, of Exhibit\n20 73, the CleanSpark report on page A-23.\n21 THE WITNESS: I'm there.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q And in that you say -- or you\n24 could just read the paragraph and tell me\n25 when you finish reading it.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 30 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Yes, I've finished reading it.\n3 Q Okay. Now, it's not quite\n4 accurate to say that the analysis supports\n5 the conclusion that it traded in an\n6 efficient market during the class period;\n7 right? Because when we just looked just\n8 looked at paragraph 52, your analysis\n9 period, as you testified, is different\n10 than the class period because it extends\n11 it a year before and a year after.\n12 So what I guess I'm trying to\n13 say is that the sentence here at the end\n14 of 64 isn't really accurate because the\n15 analysis supports the conclusion that the\n16 company stock traded in an efficient\n17 market during the analysis period; right?\n18 But that's a longer, much longer period\n19 than the class period. Isn't that\n20 correct?\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 A So I appreciate going to the\n23 front end and the back end without the\n24 sausage in the middle. So there's a\n25 reason in terms of why I chose an analysis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 31 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 30\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 period, and this goes back to power within\n3 the class period with regards to the\n4 events that are being analyzed. And so\n5 it's very common and reasonable when you\n6 have a short class period, when you have\n7 few events in that class period, there's a\n8 low power situation, statistically\n9 speaking, to extend the window to\n10 get -- create a power because you have\n11 additional events by which you can\n12 analyze.\n13 Q But again, my question is a\n14 little bit different than that, and we'll\n15 talk about all the middle. I'm not\n16 interested in skipping any of this,\n17 actually. But what I'm saying is that, I\n18 guess, when you say -- let's look at a\n19 different example. Okay? And then we'll\n20 get back to 64 since you want to talk\n21 about the paragraphs in the middle.\n22 Let's go to paragraph 60. Have\n23 you read that?\n24 A Oh, sorry. Yeah, I'm there.\n25 Let me read it. Yes.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 32 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 31\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q So it says, paragraph 60, \"I\n3 analyzed CleanSpark's announcements during\n4 the class period.\" But again, when we go\n5 back to paragraph 52, what I'm trying to\n6 understand here is, when I read this\n7 report, I look at paragraph 52, and I see\n8 where it says, okay, I picked an analysis\n9 period, one year before and one year\n10 after, it includes the class period, but\n11 it's clearly different because you go out\n12 of your way to say what each is.\n13 So I'm trying to understand then\n14 why we're not talking about the analysis\n15 period, because that's what you've defined\n16 it as, the period you analyzed. So I\n17 guess I'm trying to understand how you get\n18 from we have to analyze outside of the\n19 class period back down to, okay,\n20 everything we analyze outside of the class\n21 period says a whole bunch of stuff about\n22 what happened inside the class period.\n23 That's what I'm trying to\n24 understand is, how the oscillation works.\n25 How do you start with the class period,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 33 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 32\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 expand it out for purposes of your\n3 analysis, and then contract it for\n4 purposes of your conclusion?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q You can answer. We'll get these\n8 more clear. I'm trying to understand --\n9 A Sure. Understood. The analysis\n10 period is the period that I'm analyzing\n11 for Cammer factor five with regards to\n12 exhibit 6 and 7. The focus obviously is\n13 on the class period, but the issue is with\n14 respect to statistical power. And so to\n15 increase the power of the test given the\n16 short class period, I have to extend the\n17 window for analysis for statistical\n18 purposes. But the class period -- the\n19 analysis period is inclusive of the class\n20 period.\n21 Q So why do you have to do that?\n22 I guess is what I'm not understanding.\n23 Why do you have to increase the analysis\n24 period? Why do you have to increase it?\n25 Or why did you increase it for this case?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 34 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 33\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Let's just talk about it that way. How\n3 did you decide, just walk me through that,\n4 on paragraph 52, how did you decide to\n5 come up with the analysis period?\n6 A So I believe I've already\n7 answered this question a few minutes ago\n8 where I said the concern; right? And a\n9 reasonable approach to overcome the\n10 concern is lack of power. When you have a\n11 short class period with few events under\n12 analysis, there's a power issue,\n13 statistically speaking. So a very\n14 reasonable and objective methodology is to\n15 proceed to extend the period under\n16 analysis to include additional events\n17 adjacent to the class period to increase\n18 the power of the test.\n19 Q Okay. So when you say increase\n20 the statistical power, what do you mean?\n21 A When you have too few events to\n22 analyze, there's an issue with the number\n23 of observations statistically speaking.\n24 To draw statistical inference, you have to\n25 have a decent number of observations to be\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 35 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 34\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 able to draw that inference. And\n3 depending upon what the analysis is, the\n4 number of observations could change;\n5 right? So for example with respect to\n6 portfolio formation in terms of optimal\n7 diversification, the number that you\n8 typically hear about academically is 30;\n9 you need 30 firms; right?\n10 So there are issues in terms of\n11 power where you have a larger sample size,\n12 where it can get you somewhere where you\n13 couldn't absent the ability to -- to study\n14 that phenomena because you don't have\n15 enough events to study.\n16 Q Got it. So how did you pick a\n17 year before and a year after here? How\n18 did you as an expert say, okay, I have\n19 this problem I need to solve, the one you\n20 just described, I'm going to find a\n21 solution, which you say is reasonable, how\n22 did you decide that that was the\n23 reasonable solution? I'm trying to\n24 understand. Just explain it to me how you\n25 get to say, okay, like if you were\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 36 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 35\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 teaching me a class. Well, you know, I\n3 come to you and I say, well, how would I\n4 do this? How do I solve this problem?\n5 How did you pick this solution?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to the form.\n7 A -- question. So I'm looking at\n8 earnings analysis. These happen on a\n9 quarterly basis. So if I were to go out\n10 one quarter, well, I might have one more\n11 observation in the sample depending upon\n12 the days chosen. And so I'm looking at\n13 studying an event that happens with\n14 regularity on a quarterly basis. And so\n15 given the length of the class period and\n16 given the few number of observations in\n17 that class period, by extending out a\n18 year, I can increase the power.\n19 Now, if there were events that\n20 happen with greater periodicity than each\n21 quarter, then perhaps that window could be\n22 shortened. But that wasn't the\n23 consideration in this particular case; the\n24 consideration was in looking at earnings\n25 announcements. And so therefore, I need\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 37 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 36\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to increase the window so that I can\n3 include more earnings announcements in\n4 that analysis.\n5 Q Okay. So why not go back two\n6 years?\n7 A So again, I'm trying to provide\n8 a reasonable and objective criteria that I\n9 can say I have a power; I want to increase\n10 the length by which I do an analysis;\n11 right? But then you're correct. There is\n12 some subjectivity in saying you go back\n13 one year, two year, five years. Well,\n14 then you have a different issue; right?\n15 Then you have other confounding events.\n16 And so there is a point in time\n17 where the expert has to subjectively make\n18 a call and say, what is reasonable, what\n19 is objective in this case? And that was\n20 my conclusion.\n21 Q And why was that your conclusion\n22 that it was reasonable and objective to\n23 extend back one year and forward one year?\n24 A Because I'm not cherry picking\n25 events. All I'm saying is I need\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 38 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 37\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 additional events to analyze to increase\n3 the power of my test; these happen on a\n4 quarterly basis. And so in terms of the\n5 extension of the window, one year is a\n6 very reasonable basis to extend the\n7 window, but also not include other\n8 confounding events --\n9 Q Okay. What was the\n10 initial -- okay.\n11 So you said that you need to\n12 increase the statistical power. What was\n13 the statistical power calculation on the\n14 initial class period? When you discovered\n15 you had this power problem, when you ran\n16 the test initially, December 10th, 2020,\n17 to August 16, 2021, what was that power\n18 calculation?\n19 MR. LINKH: Objection.\n20 A There is no power calculation.\n21 This is my assessment reviewing the facts\n22 of the case and looking at the class\n23 period, the number of events in that class\n24 period.\n25 Q So I just -- so you did not\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 39 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 38\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 do -- what you're saying is this report\n3 doesn't -- as part of preparing this\n4 report, you did not conduct a power\n5 calculation for the class period, December\n6 10, 2020, to August 16, 2021?\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 A On the basis of my education and\n9 experience and having worked on similar\n10 cases, the issue remains the same. This\n11 isn't a matter of needing to do a\n12 statistical test to assess the power of\n13 those three events within the class\n14 period. It's looking at the class period\n15 and looking at saying there's only three\n16 events. My experience, both academically\n17 as an expert, would say that's too few in\n18 terms of the number of events to analyze.\n19 So there was no test whereby things were\n20 changed --\n21 Q Okay. So just to be clear, you\n22 didn't run -- do an initial power\n23 calculation of the class period?\n24 A That would undermine the\n25 objectivity of my report.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 40 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 39\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q So you did not do it? Okay.\n3 Did you run a power calculation\n4 for the analysis period?\n5 A As I've already said, the issue\n6 at that point -- so when you have\n7 statistical significance, then you don't\n8 have to really worry about power. If it's\n9 statistically significant, statistically\n10 significant at that point in time, there\n11 is no power calculation need to be done ex\n12 post.\n13 Q So you're saying that -- you're\n14 going to have to help walk me through this\n15 again because I really -- I don't\n16 understand. So what I'm trying to\n17 understand is you say that there's a\n18 problem that you need to increase the\n19 power. Is that accurate for this class\n20 period? I just want to go step by step to\n21 make sure I understand it.\n22 For 52, we're talking only about\n23 paragraph 52, I just want to understand\n24 that. You came up with the analysis\n25 period to solve a problem with the power\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 41 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 40\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that you needed for your statistical\n3 analysis. Is that accurate?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A It is accurate insofar as what I\n6 have said. When the class period is short\n7 and there are a few events to analyze,\n8 then there is potentially a power issue\n9 given the number of events, and you can\n10 overcome the power issue by increasing the\n11 window and then you would have more events\n12 to consider, which would thus increase the\n13 power. There's not a test that's\n14 necessary.\n15 Q So you just know there's a power\n16 issue and then you just pick a period and\n17 you say, based on my experience, that\n18 should solve the power issue and go from\n19 there?\n20 A So again --\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 A -- I have seen this method in\n23 other reports. This is a reasonable and\n24 objective method that other experts have\n25 also used in other cases where there are\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 42 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 41\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 power issues because of a short class\n3 window.\n4 Q Dr. Bozanic, I'm not asking\n5 about a bunch of other experts or reports\n6 you may or may not have copied. What I'm\n7 asking about is your report, and what I'm\n8 asking about is your analysis, and what\n9 I'm trying to understand quite simply is,\n10 I guess what I understand that you've\n11 testified to, which is that in your\n12 experience when you have a short class\n13 period with few events, there's a power\n14 issue and you solve that by using your\n15 experience as an expert relying on what\n16 other experts have done in other reports\n17 to expand the class period to include more\n18 events, and that solves the power problem\n19 or should?\n20 A Given my academic --\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 A Sorry. Given my academic\n23 training and my experience, this is a\n24 reasonable method to approach this\n25 particular issue.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 43 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 42\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And I'm just saying,\n3 though, I'm trying to understand, though,\n4 that's the issue, is it's we need a longer\n5 analysis period than the class period\n6 because the class period is short with few\n7 events, and I need to increase the power\n8 of my event analysis, and so I expanded\n9 and that's reasonable. That's what you're\n10 testifying? And that's fine, I just want\n11 to understand that that's what we're\n12 working with.\n13 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n14 A I'll say it again what I've said\n15 before, which is yes, because of power\n16 issues, because of too few events within\n17 the class period, the period was extended\n18 into an analysis period to increase the\n19 power of the test. That's correct.\n20 Q Okay. Perfect. Now I\n21 understand that part.\n22 Now the part that I'm trying to\n23 get to, and the part that I'm trying to\n24 understand when I point you to paragraph\n25 60, for example, if you want to flip\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 44 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 43\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 there, where it says \"To assess the extent\n3 of a 'cause and effect relationship\n4 between company disclosures and resulting\n5 movements in stock price' I analyzed\n6 CleanSpark's earnings announcements during\n7 the class period.\" Okay.\n8 What I'm trying to understand\n9 is -- when I read the sentence I thought\n10 it should say I analyzed CleanSpark's\n11 earnings announcements during the analysis\n12 period, which I understand includes the\n13 class period but it's longer for precisely\n14 what you just testified to is the need the\n15 solve this problem you were facing. And\n16 so I guess what I'm trying to understand\n17 is where I went wrong, why this says class\n18 period? And that's what I'm talking about\n19 when I say, we start with this class\n20 period and you say, well, there's an issue\n21 with this class period; we got to expand\n22 it. Okay. I got you. I understand that.\n23 Then you come back and when you\n24 talk about your conclusions, you say,\n25 well, all this analysis is just about the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 45 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 44\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 class period. So that's where I'm trying\n3 to understand is how you get back to this\n4 point by saying, okay, because I did this\n5 analysis of the analysis period which is\n6 longer, I therefore can make this\n7 conclusion about the class period. That's\n8 what I'm trying to understand.\n9 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n10 A Understood. And I appreciate\n11 the confusion. The class period is\n12 inclusive -- or the analysis period is\n13 inclusive of the class period.\n14 Q Right. I get that. What I'm\n15 saying is how does expanding the class\n16 period or the analysis period allow you to\n17 draw those conclusions taking the events\n18 from outside of the class period about the\n19 actual class period? How do you say,\n20 okay, because I analyzed this two-year\n21 period of events, I can say this about the\n22 specific class period that's within it;\n23 right?\n24 So to use a different example,\n25 I'm just using this as a hypothetical;\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 46 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 45\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 right? I have a son. He's two years old.\n3 If I were to say, okay, I started, you\n4 know, I can't just look at, you know, what\n5 my relationship was with my son for six\n6 months; you really got to look at the\n7 whole period he was alive. And when I\n8 look at the whole period that he was\n9 alive, overall, you know, they had a good\n10 relationship.\n11 How can you then say, okay, but\n12 for this specific two-month period in time\n13 where maybe we were really at odds; right?\n14 Because they overall had a good\n15 relationship during that two-month period,\n16 you know, they had a good relationship.\n17 So again, I get that that's an\n18 objectionable question. I'm just trying\n19 to genuinely let you know what my\n20 confusion is. And my confusion is, I get\n21 that you analyzed the analysis period, and\n22 I get why you did it. I don't understand\n23 how you can go and say, okay, the same is\n24 exactly true -- what's exactly true of the\n25 analysis period is true of the class\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 47 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 46\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 period. Otherwise, why would you need to\n3 expand it?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A So again, the focus is on the\n6 class period, and the class period is\n7 contained within the analysis period. And\n8 to the extent that this is confusing, this\n9 is in regards to one factor. So all other\n10 factors that are analyzed were restricted\n11 to the class period. Because of the power\n12 issue for this particular factor, I had to\n13 extend the analysis.\n14 Q And what factor is this when you\n15 say, this factor?\n16 A The Cammer 5 factor.\n17 Q That's a pretty important\n18 factor; right?\n19 A It is a factor among many that\n20 the courts consider.\n21 Q Would you ever submit an\n22 academic article to a peer-reviewed\n23 journal where you said you found market\n24 efficiency without satisfying Cammer 5?\n25 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 48 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 47\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I'm sorry. Repeat the question?\n3 Q Would you ever submit to a\n4 peer-reviewed academic journal a market\n5 efficiency analysis where you concluded\n6 there was an efficient market without\n7 demonstrating Cammer 5?\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 A I've never had to go down that\n10 path. And so I would have to understand\n11 the facts and circumstances of whatever's\n12 going on in this article. I mean, it's\n13 wildly hypothetical. I don't fully\n14 understand the nature of the question in\n15 terms of what the content of the article\n16 is and what -- to do.\n17 Q I figured. Okay. So I'll just\n18 ask it more simply. Your testimony is\n19 that you can find market efficiency absent\n20 Cammer 5?\n21 A My testimony is that the market\n22 is efficient on the basis of all of the\n23 factors that I've considered.\n24 Q My question is different. Could\n25 you demonstrate market efficiency in this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 49 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 48\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 case without showing Cammer 5? If I were\n3 to rip out section E, the Cammer 5\n4 analysis, would your conclusion stay the\n5 same?\n6 A So I am here using the\n7 guidelines that the Cammer and Krogman\n8 courts gave us to objectively, to the best\n9 of my ability, opine on these factors\n10 without selecting or cherry picking\n11 certain factors.\n12 Q Right. I'm not asking you about\n13 that. I get your analysis has to be\n14 fulsome and you have to talk about it all.\n15 My question is you're testifying\n16 here that, well, I know that the analysis\n17 period for this is different and we're\n18 focused on the class period, but this is\n19 just one of many factors that you would\n20 look at as if it's not important. And I\n21 guess what I'm -- I've just never heard of\n22 a world where people say Cammer 5 is\n23 really unimportant. And in fact, cases\n24 that you cite say the opposite.\n25 But I guess my question is a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 50 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 49\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 little bit different. So to be clear, my\n3 question is -- I'll ask it a different\n4 way. In your expert opinion, how\n5 important was the Cammer 5 analysis that\n6 you performed in this report to your\n7 conclusion?\n8 A I do not --\n9 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n10 A I do not weight the factors\n11 differently. I opine on the factors and\n12 present the evidence that I find.\n13 Q Right. I'm asking you though;\n14 right, how important was it for you? You\n15 should know what's important to you in\n16 your report when you reach your\n17 conclusion. So when you're making these\n18 conclusions, what I'm trying to figure out\n19 is how important was the Cammer 5 factor?\n20 Was it like, oh, man, this is also\n21 great -- or I guess I'm just trying to\n22 understand how important this factor was\n23 to your analysis.\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 A And I believe I already\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 51 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 50\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 answered. And so, as I said before, I\n3 view all the factors equally. I opine on\n4 all of them to the best of my abilities\n5 and objectively as possible.\n6 Q Okay. So again my question\n7 is -- so if I'm understanding, then your\n8 answer is that Cammer 5 is equally\n9 important as every other factor, the three\n10 Krogman factors and the five Cammer\n11 factors?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 A Is that a question?\n14 Q Yes, I'm asking you, is my\n15 understanding of your testimony correct\n16 that as far as your expert analysis goes,\n17 each of the five Cammer factors and each\n18 of the three Krogman factors are of equal\n19 importance?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 A As I've already said, I view\n22 them on par with each other. I don't put\n23 a differential weight. My goal is to take\n24 what the courts give us and to apply it to\n25 the best of my ability and objectively as\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 52 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 51\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 possible.\n3 Q Okay. Can you go to page -- I\n4 think it's A-32. Can you go to page A-3\n5 of your report?\n6 A Yeah.\n7 Q In Exhibit 73. Yeah, A-3.\n8 A A-3.\n9 Q And just tell me when you've had\n10 a chance to look at paragraph 11.\n11 A 11, okay.\n12 Q It goes on to page A-4.\n13 A Okay.\n14 Q And how did the staff at\n15 Cleveland Analytics, LLC assist you in the\n16 preparation of this report?\n17 A So I may have directed certain\n18 analyses in regards to the creation of\n19 this report.\n20 Q May have or did?\n21 A I did. No, sorry. Sorry.\n22 Q And which analyses did you have\n23 staff perform?\n24 A There's no particular analysis\n25 that I had staff at Cleveland Analytics\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 53 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 52\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 perform. So it might have been in terms\n3 of the event study; it could have been\n4 other parts in terms of doing some\n5 calculations for other factors. There's\n6 not any one particular thing that I can\n7 single out.\n8 Q Have you ever compared the\n9 similarities of your report with any\n10 expert reports by Dr. Matthew Cain?\n11 A I have not done a comparison in\n12 terms of a textual analysis, if that's\n13 what you're referring to.\n14 Q I'm just saying, have you ever\n15 considered how similar your reports might\n16 be to some prepared by him?\n17 A No.\n18 MR. LINKH: Objection to form.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q Okay. And do you have any\n21 professional relationship with Dr. Cain?\n22 A I'm not sure what you mean by\n23 professional relationship, but we work\n24 together; we support each other.\n25 Q And you work together, can you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 54 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 53\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 explain that more?\n3 A So this is -- Cleveland\n4 Analytics is Matt Cain's LLC. So he is\n5 also an expert witness that creates\n6 reports and does depositions. And so I'll\n7 support him on cases and vice versa as\n8 needed.\n9 Q Did Dr. Cain assist you with the\n10 preparation of this report in any way?\n11 A So I have directed Dr. Cain in\n12 different capacities to assist me with\n13 this report.\n14 Q How? Can you explain?\n15 A So I could have said maybe\n16 insert some numbers in the draft for me,\n17 could have been maybe create this\n18 particular factor, whatever the case might\n19 have been.\n20 Q Okay. Well, I'm asking you\n21 about this report which you are here to\n22 defend. So I want to know specifically\n23 with respect to this report exactly what\n24 you asked Dr. Cain to do. I don't want to\n25 know what you could have done; I don't\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 55 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 54\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 want to know what you might have done. I\n3 want to know what you did in connection\n4 with this report that you're here\n5 defending.\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 A I don't have a taxonomy of every\n8 task that was requested, but I can tell\n9 you that he did assist with the analysis.\n10 I can tell you that he did assist in terms\n11 of potentially looking over the report for\n12 typos, maybe inserting some numbers as\n13 needed and so forth. But I don't create\n14 an exhaustive list to say, did you insert\n15 this particular number in this particular\n16 paragraph in this particular day?\n17 Q Okay. So I want to break that\n18 down a little bit more. Let's look at\n19 page 1 of the report, the table of\n20 contents, the report that you submitted in\n21 this case.\n22 A I am there.\n23 Q Okay. Did you ask for his input\n24 with respect to your opinions on market\n25 efficiency?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 56 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 55\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Did I ask for his input in\n3 regards to my opinions? No.\n4 Q Yeah.\n5 A My opinions are my own opinions.\n6 Q So the answer is no?\n7 A With regards to the opinions.\n8 The answers are my opinions, not his, and\n9 I have not asked for his input with\n10 respect to my opinions.\n11 Q Perfect.\n12 A His input would be directing\n13 different elements of helping with the\n14 report.\n15 Q Okay. Sure. You don't have to\n16 be defensive. I'm just asking you.\n17 Okay. So with regard to the\n18 evaluation of market efficiency factors\n19 for CleanSpark common stock, below that\n20 you have Cammer factor number 1, which is\n21 an analysis of the average weekly trading\n22 volume. Is that something you would have\n23 asked him to perform analysis and\n24 connection with?\n25 A To some extent, perhaps, because\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 57 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 56\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I did ask him to retrieve some data. So\n3 he would have had a hand in most all of\n4 these components because there's a data\n5 component; right? These -- specifics,\n6 right, but in terms of different elements,\n7 I can say I did ask him to pull data, for\n8 example.\n9 Q Okay. So the input data for\n10 these, to collect data for these. Okay.\n11 How about under Section 6, where\n12 it says \"Ability to calculate damages on a\n13 class-wide basis\"? Would you have asked\n14 him for any input with regard to those\n15 sections?\n16 A No.\n17 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n18 Q No? Okay.\n19 A I mean, only to the extent he\n20 would have reviewed the draft.\n21 Potentially that would be it. So but not\n22 in terms of opinions or input.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: I'm going to introduce\n24 what's going to be Exhibit 75, which I'll\n25 send in a second.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 58 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 57\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: David, if we're switching\n3 topics here, is now a good time to take a\n4 bathroom break?\n5 MR. PARTIDA: Oh, absolutely. We\n6 could do that. We aren't necessarily\n7 switching topics, but certainly we can do\n8 that. We've been going an hour. I\n9 appreciate you asking.\n10 So why don't we just go off the\n11 record?\n12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay.\n13 We're now going off the record at\n14 approximately 11:02 a.m.\n15 (Off the record.)\n16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n17 beginning of media number 2. We're going\n18 back on the record at approximately 11:16\n19 a.m.\n20 Go ahead, sir.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q All right. Welcome back, Dr.\n23 Bozanic. Did you speak with anyone during\n24 the break?\n25 A I did.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 59 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 58\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Who?\n3 A Greg Linkh.\n4 Q All right. Did you look at any\n5 documents?\n6 A I'm sorry.\n7 Q Did you look at any documents?\n8 A I did not.\n9 Q Anyone else? Did you speak with\n10 anyone else?\n11 A I did not.\n12 Q I want to go back to Exhibit 74,\n13 which is the Teleperformance report. And\n14 in this report the analysis period was\n15 identical to the class period. Is that\n16 correct?\n17 A Which paragraph are you\n18 referring to, please?\n19 Q Sure. So we could go back up to\n20 paragraph 1.\n21 A Mm-hmm. I see it.\n22 Q Sufficient during -- yeah. So\n23 that's the class period; right? And for\n24 your event study for this report there was\n25 no different analysis period. It was the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 60 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 59\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 same as the class period. There was no\n3 difference.\n4 A To confirm that, can you point\n5 out the other paragraph that would --\n6 Q Well, I guess it's paragraph 63.\n7 A Okay. One second.\n8 Q And I'm not -- I'm honestly not\n9 trying to ask a trick question. I'm just\n10 trying to make sure.\n11 A Okay. But I'd like to refresh\n12 myself with the document. It's been\n13 sometimes.\n14 Q Of course. Of course. So yeah.\n15 Paragraph 63 of that.\n16 A Okay. Thank you.\n17 Q So is that accurate, that the\n18 event study analysis period is identical\n19 to the class period in this case?\n20 A In the Teleperformance case?\n21 Q In the Teleperformance case.\n22 A The report that I submitted?\n23 Yes, that's correct.\n24 Q Okay. All right.\n25 Now, I also had another\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 61 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 60\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 question. So you said, I want to confirm,\n3 Cleveland Analytics LLC is owned by Dr.\n4 Matt Cain?\n5 A This is Matt Cain's LLC,\n6 correct.\n7 Q Okay. And what is your title at\n8 Cleveland Analytics LLC?\n9 A What is my title at Cleveland\n10 Analytics LLC? I don't have a title at\n11 Cleveland Analytics LLC.\n12 Q Okay. Are you familiar with the\n13 case San Antonio Fire and Police Pension\n14 Fund vs. Dentsply Sirona?\n15 A I am familiar with this case.\n16 Q Did you work on it?\n17 A I believe that that case is\n18 protected, the work product is protected\n19 in privilege, so.\n20 Q Okay. Well, I can refer you to\n21 a public filing if you'd like. But before\n22 we get there, I just want to -- so you\n23 worked on that case; you're familiar with\n24 it?\n25 A I'm aware of this case.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 62 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 61\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n4 Q Okay. And did you perform work\n5 in connection with it?\n6 A Again, it's -- if you can point\n7 me to the public document, that would be\n8 fantastic.\n9 Q I'm asking your memory right\n10 now. Do you remember performing work on\n11 this case?\n12 A Again, I believe that this work\n13 product is protected in privilege, and so\n14 it's unclear to me to what extent --\n15 Q I'm not asking you to disclose\n16 any privileged information. I'm just\n17 asking, did you do work on it or not, and\n18 you haven't been instructed not to answer.\n19 So I'm just going to ask you,\n20 did you perform work on the case? It's a\n21 simple yes or no. I don't understand your\n22 evasiveness. It's making me worried,\n23 frankly.\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 A I am familiar with the case.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 63 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 62\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And did you perform work for\n3 that case?\n4 A I have assisted Matt on that\n5 case.\n6 Q Okay. Thank you. Now, I'm\n7 going to send Exhibit 75.\n8 Well, let me ask you this, did\n9 you take any language from the expert\n10 report that was publicly filed in that\n11 case and use it in the report you filed\n12 here?\n13 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n14 A Again, the answer that I gave\n15 before is this particular report is my\n16 report; I have reviewed it; I have edited\n17 it; I have drafted that report; I have\n18 signed my name to it, and I stand behind\n19 the opinions of that report. I don't have\n20 that report in front of me for you to show\n21 me the differences.\n22 Q Right. I'm just asking you if\n23 you recall ever taking text from a\n24 previous report and putting it in this\n25 report?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 64 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 63\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Again, this is --\n3 Q However much, however little or\n4 much.\n5 A These are the same questions\n6 that we started the day with in terms of\n7 how much, and the how much is what I had\n8 issue with earlier on in the day and the\n9 same would hold here. So in terms of how\n10 much, as I've said, across cases, there\n11 are similarities. And as I said before,\n12 with respect to the Krogman and Cammer\n13 factors, there are similarities.\n14 MR. PARTIDA: All right. I'm going\n15 to send Exhibit 75. Exhibit 75, I will\n16 introduce the expert report of Matthew\n17 Cain dated November 15, 2024.\n18 (Exhibit 75 was marked for\n19 identification.)\n20 So you can tell me when you receive\n21 that document. Please ignore the cover\n22 page that says Exhibit 15. That's just\n23 the way the court filing comes.\n24 Do you have it?\n25 THE WITNESS: Not yet. Coming up.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 65 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 64\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Hold on.\n3 Okay. I have it open.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Can you go to page 2 of that\n6 document? Which is the --\n7 A Yes, I'm on page 2 of the\n8 document.\n9 Q And you see that expert report\n10 of Matthew Cain, November 15, 2024?\n11 A At the title bit -- I'm going to\n12 go back up. Yes, I do see it.\n13 Q And then you see that that case\n14 is, to the left-hand side, down the top,\n15 San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund\n16 et al., Plaintiffs vs. Dentsply Sirona,\n17 Inc.?\n18 A I do.\n19 Q Okay. Does this refresh your\n20 recollection as to whether or not you\n21 performed work in connection with this\n22 case?\n23 A Again, I believe I have assisted\n24 Matt on this case, but it's been some\n25 time.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 66 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 65\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Are you aware that there are a\n3 series of paragraphs in this report that\n4 are verbatim in the report that you just\n5 filed in this report? I mean verbatim,\n6 and we can go look at them. I just want\n7 to ask if you're aware of it first before\n8 we look at them.\n9 A I'm sorry, aware of what?\n10 Q Are you aware that there are a\n11 series of paragraphs in this Exhibit 75,\n12 this Dentsply expert report by Matthew\n13 Cain, that are verbatim to the paragraphs\n14 that exist in the report that you filed in\n15 this matter? Verbatim.\n16 And we can go look at those.\n17 I'm just asking you right now, my question\n18 is, I'll make it simple, are you, sitting\n19 here right now, aware that there are\n20 paragraphs in your expert report that you\n21 filed in this matter that are verbatim\n22 identical to paragraphs in Exhibit 75?\n23 Are you aware of that?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 A So yes, I would appreciate you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 67 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 66\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 pointing out specific paragraphs, but to\n3 the extent that they exist, it would be\n4 unsurprising to me given that I help Matt\n5 and support him on cases and vice versa.\n6 Q Okay. And so then why wasn't it\n7 disclosed that you had performed work in\n8 other securities class actions, or that\n9 you had assisted with preparing these\n10 expert reports on your CV?\n11 A It's my understanding as a lead\n12 versus support expert, there are different\n13 requirements in terms of disclosing which\n14 cases they work on.\n15 Q I'm asking why you chose not to\n16 disclose it.\n17 A And I'll repeat, as a lead\n18 expert, I know that I'm required to\n19 disclose the cases I work on.\n20 Q Right. And you just testified\n21 that you worked on this case and you\n22 assisted with this case, and in fact it\n23 wouldn't surprise you that there were\n24 wholesale sections of this that are in\n25 your report. And I'm asking why you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 68 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 67\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 wouldn't think that that should be\n3 disclosed.\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A I'll repeat again. As lead\n6 expert, I understand when I put my name on\n7 a report and publicly disseminate that,\n8 that needs to be disclosed. As a support\n9 expert, that does not need to be\n10 disclosed.\n11 Q Okay. I understand. Yeah.\n12 And so I guess just to give you\n13 one of the examples, you could look at\n14 paragraph 61, be an example. So I'll let\n15 you look at, you know, 62 be an example,\n16 63, other than the name Dentsply versus\n17 CleanSpark.\n18 But I think you've answered my\n19 questions about this Exhibit. What I'd\n20 like to go back to is Exhibit 74 -- or,\n21 sorry, 73. I'd like to go back to your\n22 expert report\n23 A Okay.\n24 Q -- asked mostly. Okay. So I\n25 want to flip to page -- I kind of want to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 69 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 68\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 go through this in a little bit more\n3 detail now. So I'd like to go to page,\n4 back to page 1, A-1.\n5 A I am at page A-1 of my report.\n6 Q And can you look at the opinion\n7 you express in 3C?\n8 A Yes.\n9 Q And go ahead and tell me when\n10 you've read that.\n11 A I've read it.\n12 Q I want to focus in on that first\n13 clause there, which is, I'm not sure if\n14 you've read it, which says, \"Though not\n15 necessary for a finding of market\n16 efficiency, the cause and effect\n17 relationship between new company\n18 disclosures and resulting common stock\n19 price movements, which I analyze under the\n20 fifth Cammer factor, further shows that\n21 CleanSpark's common stock traded in an\n22 efficient market through the class\n23 period.\"\n24 And I want to focus on the first\n25 part of that, which says \"though not\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 70 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 69\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 necessary for a finding of market\n3 efficiency.\" And I specifically would\n4 like you to explain to me the basis for\n5 that statement, though not necessary for\n6 finding a market efficiency.\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 A Absolutely. It's my\n9 understanding that different --\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Sorry. Can we pause\n11 for a second?\n12 What was the -- what about the form\n13 of the question?\n14 MR. LINKH: It's essentially asking\n15 for a legal conclusion.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Well, he's an expert,\n17 and this is his opinion in this report.\n18 So either it's a legal conclusion that's\n19 not his expert opinion, or it's his\n20 opinion, and I'm entitled to an answer as\n21 to his basis for it. So I want to\n22 understand the objection clearly.\n23 MR. LINKH: Yes. Yes, he is, you\n24 know, I don't think that he necessarily\n25 needs to be an expert as to the legal\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 71 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 70\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 ramifications of Cammer 5.\n3 MR. PARTIDA: So then it's not part\n4 of his opinion. I'm asking -- so, okay.\n5 Objection noted. I disagree with it, but\n6 I'll just ask to be clear on the record,\n7 and that's what I thought I did when I\n8 asked you to look at 3C.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Is 3C your opinion? Is that\n11 your expert opinion? Because it\n12 says -- read it, paragraph three, \"Based\n13 on my analysis to date and the evaluation\n14 of the factors described throughout this\n15 report, I have formed the following\n16 opinions.\"\n17 Do you read that?\n18 A I have read it.\n19 Q All right. And do you agree\n20 with that statement?\n21 A I'm waiting for you to let me\n22 answer it, and I can go ahead and proceed.\n23 Q No, I got to do this because\n24 there's been an objection, and I get it.\n25 I get you can give me an answer, but I got\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 72 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 71\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to clarify this because I can't have an\n3 objection pending; right? So what I want\n4 to clarify then is that you here sitting\n5 here today adopt that sentence of\n6 paragraph 3? That's your opinion and you\n7 stand by it?\n8 A Again, you both are debating\n9 about a legal conclusion.\n10 Q I'm not asking you about my\n11 debate. And we have short time here.\n12 Like I said, these can go long. So I\n13 prefer an answer to my question.\n14 My question is very simple. Do\n15 you stand behind the first sentence of\n16 paragraph 3 of this expert report or not?\n17 A If I could respond without\n18 getting cutting off, I'd like to give you\n19 my answer.\n20 Q I'm asking for a yes or no. Do\n21 you stand behind that statement or not?\n22 Are these your opinions or not?\n23 A This statement goes back to a\n24 discussion we had earlier about my weight\n25 that I apply in the factors. It's my\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 73 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 72\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 understanding that certain experts weigh\n3 these factors differentially, and some\n4 feel that only Cammer 5 is the most\n5 essential factor and it can stand alone.\n6 My view consistent with that clause that\n7 you've identified is these are on par in\n8 terms of I'm not viewing them\n9 differentially.\n10 So this is giving a nod to that\n11 particular issue in terms of experts\n12 reliance on one factor versus the others.\n13 That's the entire meaning of the clause,\n14 not a legal opinion or legal conclusion.\n15 Q So thank you for all of that.\n16 And I'll just go back and keep asking the\n17 same question until I get an answer. Do\n18 you, sitting here today, stand behind and\n19 adopt the first sentence of paragraph 3 of\n20 your report that says \"Based on my\n21 analysis to date and the evaluation of the\n22 factors described throughout this report,\n23 I have formed the following opinions.\"\n24 Is that a statement that you\n25 stand behind?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 74 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 73\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I stand behind the statements in\n3 this --\n4 Q Thank you. All right. 3-A,\n5 \"The market for CleanSpark's Common Stock\n6 was efficient throughout the Class\n7 Period.\"\n8 Is that your opinion?\n9 A It is.\n10 Q Do you stand behind it today?\n11 A I do.\n12 Q B, \"The Cammer and Krogman\n13 factors accepted and applied by courts to\n14 assess market efficiency corroborate that\n15 CleanSpark's Common Stock traded in an\n16 efficient market.\"\n17 Is that your opinion?\n18 A It is.\n19 Q Do you stand behind that\n20 opinion?\n21 A I do.\n22 Q C, \"Though not necessary for a\n23 finding of market efficiency, the\n24 cause-and effect relationship between new\n25 Company disclosures and resulting Common\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 75 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 74\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Stock price movements (which I analyze\n3 under the fifth Cammer factor) further\n4 shows that CleanSpark's Common Stock\n5 traded in an efficient market throughout\n6 the Class Period.\"\n7 Is that your opinion?\n8 A It is.\n9 Q Do you stand behind it?\n10 A I do.\n11 Q What is the basis in your expert\n12 opinion for your expert opinion that it's\n13 not necessary for a finding of market\n14 efficiency? What is the basis in your\n15 expert opinion for the first statement of\n16 C, \"Though not necessary for finding a\n17 market efficiency.\"\n18 A May I respond?\n19 Q Please.\n20 A I've already answered it, but\n21 let me further my answer. So presume that\n22 Cammer 5 does not show a statistically\n23 significant cause and effect relationship.\n24 I'm still going to report this factor.\n25 I'm still going to report the analysis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 76 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 75\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that I've done. And I'm just reporting as\n3 objectively as possible what I find in all\n4 of the factors. And so it could be the\n5 case that that factor does not come\n6 through, and the other factors are all\n7 weighing in favor of market efficiency.\n8 And so I'm just presenting the evidence.\n9 But again, this harkens back to\n10 the debate that I understand that some\n11 experts feel that that's the only factor\n12 that needs to be weighed, and they ignore\n13 the other factors. I am here to say,\n14 looking at all the factors today, that the\n15 predominance of the evidence indicates\n16 that the market was efficient for this\n17 stock.\n18 Q That was pretty top notch, I\n19 have to say. My question is a lot\n20 simpler. My question is a lot simpler;\n21 right? My question is, you've stated that\n22 you're an expert and this is your opinion,\n23 you personally as the expert, that though\n24 not necessary for finding a market\n25 efficiency -- I get everything else you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 77 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 76\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 said; I don't need it explained again. My\n3 question is, what is your basis, what\n4 textbook, what expert opinion have you\n5 formed, what in your training allows you\n6 to say this is my expert opinion? I\n7 standing here, I'm telling you it's not\n8 necessary to find market efficiency,\n9 Cammer 5 isn't. What's your basis for\n10 saying it?\n11 A Frankly, with all due respect, I\n12 would appreciate the absence of tone; it\n13 would help me with the questions in terms\n14 of answering your questions. And so I've\n15 already answered this particular question.\n16 So I see that you've restated it. But\n17 again, on the basis of my education and my\n18 experience, this is my understanding of\n19 how the profession views these factors.\n20 And so I have tipped my hat with this\n21 phrase in terms of saying, I am viewing\n22 these factors on par, but I also\n23 understand that, unlike others, I am not\n24 touting one factor as the factor that we\n25 can base our decisions upon.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 78 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 77\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I am looking at the composite\n3 factors as a set and I'm weighing on those\n4 factors and providing evidence as\n5 objectively as possible. And then the\n6 court and the jury can decide what they\n7 want to do with the individual factors.\n8 And if they find that one factor is the\n9 factor they want to focus on, that's their\n10 choice, not mine.\n11 Q Right, but that's not what this\n12 report says. This report says\n13 specifically the fifth Cammer factor.\n14 This doesn't say who cares about any\n15 factors? It specifically says it about\n16 this.\n17 So I guess what I'm really\n18 trying to understand, and I guess what I'm\n19 just not getting is, where did you get the\n20 understanding?\n21 A I'll repeat --\n22 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n23 A -- but this is a function of my\n24 expertise in terms of the education that\n25 I've acquired and in terms of the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 79 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 78\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 experience that I've acquired. And so\n3 just like with any profession, you can\n4 learn from a book, you can learn by doing.\n5 You learn by being engaged.\n6 Q So what's the experience?\n7 A Well -- the state in terms of my\n8 understanding of the debate, and that's\n9 why you see the sentence there today.\n10 Q So basically this sentence is,\n11 if I'm understanding you correctly, is\n12 just -- maybe it would help if I\n13 understood who's they, who's the industry?\n14 Who are you talking about when you say\n15 it's important? It's kind of vague. I'm\n16 trying to understand.\n17 You say you have an\n18 understanding based on your experience.\n19 And I guess if I were to tell you, okay, I\n20 have an understanding about this certain\n21 type of case, I could tell you, okay,\n22 well, here's my experience with this type\n23 of case. So I guess I'm just trying to\n24 understand where the understanding came\n25 from.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 80 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 79\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n4 Q So I guess I'll just ask again.\n5 It says, \"Though not necessary for finding\n6 of market efficiency.\" That's your\n7 opinion? That's your expert opinion?\n8 A As you see the opinions listed\n9 and written on that page, I do stand by\n10 those opinions.\n11 Q But -- and I'll just -- the\n12 basis for that statement is your general\n13 experience and background?\n14 A As I've said repeatedly, yes.\n15 My education and experience had led me to\n16 that perspective. That's correct.\n17 Q Okay. All right. Then you have\n18 D, \"Damages in this matter can be\n19 calculated on a class-wide basis subject\n20 to a standard, common methodology for\n21 Plaintiffs pending claims. In particular,\n22 the out-of-pocket damages methodology,\n23 which is used in virtually all Section\n24 10(b) class action securities cases, is\n25 appropriate and applicable here.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 81 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 80\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And that's your opinion and you\n3 stand behind it?\n4 A Yes, I do.\n5 Q I want to go down to paragraph\n6 13.\n7 A Of my report?\n8 Q Yes, of your report, 73.\n9 A I'm there. Let me refresh my\n10 memory.\n11 Q Yeah, and while you're doing\n12 that, you could look, basically, you could\n13 kind of scan just 13 through 17. I'm\n14 going to ask you about that general\n15 background.\n16 A You said through 17?\n17 Q Yeah.\n18 A I have reviewed the paragraphs\n19 indicated.\n20 Q Okay. So do you understand\n21 how -- sorry, we can do this, I guess,\n22 clearly.\n23 Paragraphs 13 through 17 of the\n24 report lay out what you're understanding\n25 is of the allegations in the complaint\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 82 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 81\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 generally; that's the intent of that\n3 section. Is that fair?\n4 A I believe so, yes. I\n5 was -- didn't know if you were making a\n6 statement or asking a question.\n7 Q Yeah, yeah. I was trying to\n8 understand because I don't want to have\n9 to, like, walk line by line through it.\n10 But generally, it says, this is my\n11 understanding about, you know, the\n12 allegations in the case. And so I just\n13 wanted to ask you kind of some general\n14 questions about, do you understand, like,\n15 how a Bitcoin mining company generates\n16 value?\n17 A Yes, I do.\n18 Q And how is that?\n19 A So this is in terms of trying to\n20 unlock Bitcoin on that distributive ledger\n21 to solve these complex algorithms. And so\n22 the predominant costs are the machinery,\n23 right, to solve the algorithms and then\n24 energy. And so the cheaper the machinery,\n25 the lower the energy costs, the greater\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 83 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 82\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the value that you maximize for the\n3 shareholder.\n4 Q Got it. And is it possible,\n5 say, for example, you mentioned two of the\n6 inputs, power and machines, and by\n7 machines we mean Bitcoin mining machines?\n8 A ASICs, GPUs and the sort, yes.\n9 Q Yeah, okay. And so you have\n10 those two inputs. Now, could CleanSpark\n11 increase its Bitcoin mining capacity if it\n12 had a whole bunch of additional power but\n13 no machines?\n14 A So my understanding is it\n15 depends upon the capacity that you're\n16 already at; right? So are all particular\n17 machines that are deployed being used?\n18 And so you could conceivably have machines\n19 on site that aren't powered.\n20 Q Right. I guess my question\n21 is -- I'll ask it a little clearer. Say\n22 you're a Bitcoin mining company and you\n23 have tons of power. Can you increase your\n24 Bitcoin mining capacity if you have no\n25 machines?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 84 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 83\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 A So if you have unlimited power\n4 but no computers to do the computations,\n5 then yes, you would not be able to\n6 increase your capacity. I mean, it's not\n7 as simple as that. I listed the main\n8 items; right? But then you've got land,\n9 you've got infrastructure, you've got\n10 human resources and so forth.\n11 Q Yeah, you're absolutely right\n12 about that. I just meant as a, you know,\n13 conceptually between the two main inputs\n14 you had been describing, energy and mining\n15 machines, you could have a ton of energy,\n16 but if you had no mining machines, you\n17 couldn't increase your capacity. I\n18 understand there are other.\n19 Okay. Did you ever calculate\n20 how much a one-month delay in power\n21 expansion impacted CleanSpark's future\n22 cash flows?\n23 A So I have not been retained nor\n24 have I been asked to do any sort of DCF\n25 type of analysis. No evaluation analysis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 85 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 84\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 in this particular report at all.\n3 Q Okay.\n4 A However, you can still refer to\n5 traditional DCF analysis in terms of the\n6 inputs to those models to show how the\n7 value of the firm will be lower depending\n8 upon how the cost of those inputs change,\n9 depending upon the timing of how the cash\n10 flows were realized. The longer you go in\n11 the future by delaying that project, the\n12 lower the value of the firm will be, the\n13 higher the cost of energy, the lower the\n14 value of the firm will be and so forth.\n15 In addition, the higher the\n16 riskiness in terms of the uncertainty of\n17 the outcome, the lower the firm -- the\n18 value of the firm would be. So despite\n19 not having on that test conceptually\n20 speaking from a DCF framework, the inputs\n21 are very clear and what the impact on\n22 valuation is also very clear.\n23 Q Okay. But if I understand you\n24 were not retained to do any sort of\n25 analysis, DCF analysis, at all.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 86 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 85\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Correct, it doesn't undermine\n3 the hypothetical, however.\n4 Q Okay. So just to be clear, DCF\n5 means discounted cash flow analysis?\n6 A Apologies, yes, that's correct.\n7 Q And so but you were not retained\n8 and there's no opinions about that\n9 expressed in your report?\n10 A I have not formed an opinion on\n11 how the valuation has changed. I can\n12 speak in terms of conceptually speaking\n13 how a DCF model would work and how the\n14 inputs would impact value.\n15 Q I'm just trying to ask what are\n16 the parameters kind of of your report, and\n17 I understand that the valuation is outside\n18 of it. So easy enough.\n19 Okay. So I want to talk about\n20 your event study, but before I do that, I\n21 actually want to go to -- do a little bit\n22 more in order. If you go to page A-11 of\n23 your report, and you can tell me when\n24 you're there.\n25 A I'm there.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 87 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 86\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And I'm going to ask you to take\n3 as much time as you need to --\n4 A The whole page or just a\n5 paragraph?\n6 Q I'm sorry?\n7 A Take as much time as I need for\n8 the page or the paragraph? Where are we\n9 focusing?\n10 Q Oh, sorry, sorry. So page A-11\n11 is where it starts. What I'm going to be\n12 asking you about is the Cammer 2 factor.\n13 A Okay.\n14 Q The analyst coverage. So if you\n15 want to review that section, which looks\n16 to be like 32 through 38, you can kind of,\n17 you know, familiarize yourself with that.\n18 A Thank you. I've reviewed the\n19 indicated paragraphs.\n20 Q Okay. So then I want to go to,\n21 if you could, you see there that you refer\n22 to exhibit 3 in that section?\n23 A Yep.\n24 Q Okay. And I would ask you\n25 kindly to turn to exhibit 3.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 88 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 87\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I'm there.\n3 Q Okay. So I see here that there\n4 was there's a list of 41 reports issued.\n5 Is that accurate?\n6 A That is accurate.\n7 Q Okay. Did you review each of\n8 these 41 reports?\n9 A I Did not review the content\n10 individually of each of the 41 reports.\n11 And putting together the reports that were\n12 available for review, any reports that\n13 would not fit the standard research report\n14 in terms of maybe it was a commentary for\n15 all sorts of other firms that had nothing\n16 to do with this firm. So there is a\n17 filter to look at the reports to make sure\n18 that these reports would be focused on the\n19 company in question.\n20 Q Got it. Okay. Any other\n21 filters?\n22 A No other filters. No, I mean,\n23 I've reviewed the reports but there's not\n24 a need to look at the individual content\n25 at this time.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 89 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 88\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. Okay. Are you aware\n3 that, for example, Water Tower Research\n4 was hired by CleanSpark to write reports\n5 about the company?\n6 A I'm unaware of any conflicts of\n7 interest between the company and these\n8 particular brokerage firms.\n9 Q I didn't ask you about conflicts\n10 of interest. I'm not sure why your mind\n11 is on them. But my question was simply,\n12 are you aware that Water Tower Research\n13 was hired by CleanSpark? I mean,\n14 CleanSpark's my client, so I'm not worried\n15 about them hiring them. I just was\n16 wondering if you were aware.\n17 A So I am well familiar with\n18 analyst and credit research, and I'm also\n19 well aware of potential conflicts of\n20 interest in either industry. And so with\n21 respect to your particular question, I was\n22 unaware that there was a relationship\n23 between CleanSpark and this particular\n24 firm.\n25 Q Okay. That's really all I was\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 90 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 89\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 asking. Like I said, I'm not really\n3 understanding the conflict of interest.\n4 But in any event, now you\n5 mentioned that there's some sort of\n6 filtering you do to identify that these 41\n7 reports contain coverage about the company\n8 in question, CleanSpark. I'm wondering if\n9 you could tell me, you know, what are the\n10 types of information you would expect to\n11 see in the analyst reports you're looking\n12 for?\n13 A You might see a variety of\n14 information, and it depends upon the\n15 information that is also being analyzed by\n16 the analyst. And so how salient the event\n17 is, how regular this report is. So if\n18 it's a regular recurring report, or if\n19 it's a kind of a special interim report,\n20 then what -- the information that's\n21 revealed by the analyst could change.\n22 But typically, they're talking\n23 about earnings estimates, target price\n24 estimates, talking about what's feeding\n25 into their models in terms of the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 91 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 90\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 strategy, in terms of the metrics that are\n3 being observed on the basis of the\n4 financials the firm's providing.\n5 Q Okay. So for example, if we\n6 were to go to paragraph 32 of your\n7 report -- sorry; I have slow scrolling\n8 fingers. Okay. So if we go to 32 of your\n9 report, that second sentence of paragraph\n10 32, it says \"Analysts typically publish\n11 reports in which they assess recent\n12 company business developments, review\n13 historical financial performance, and\n14 provide forecasts of future operating\n15 performance, or make investment\n16 recommendations such as whether investors\n17 should buy, sell, or hold the company's\n18 stock.\"\n19 Is that accurate? That's the\n20 type of information that's important for\n21 these analyst reports?\n22 A I think the sentence is a very\n23 reasonable characterization of the process\n24 in by which analysts create these reports\n25 and what can they contain.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 92 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 91\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Cool. So if a report didn't\n3 have that information, it really wouldn't\n4 be useful to us. If an analyst report or\n5 a report didn't contain those things, we\n6 really wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be\n7 useful.\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 A I'm not quite sure I would say\n10 that. So again, as I alluded to before,\n11 there are a variety of types of analyst\n12 reports that are revealed to the market,\n13 depending upon the type of information\n14 that's being received. And so the content\n15 of the report would likely vary. It's not\n16 as if there's a cookie-cutter rubber stamp\n17 where they must check the box for these\n18 elements.\n19 Each analyst and each broker has\n20 their own license and their freedom to\n21 include what they want in that report.\n22 And depending upon the information that's\n23 arriving, they might focus on different\n24 elements in a given report versus a prior\n25 report. But those are common elements\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 93 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 92\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that we might see. It's not as if they\n3 are all elements we will always see.\n4 Q Fair enough. But I\n5 guess -- understood and makes sense.\n6 I guess my question is a little\n7 bit the opposite. If you saw a report\n8 that had none of these, it wouldn't be\n9 useful, is I guess what I'm saying? I\n10 understand that you might have one analyst\n11 that focuses really heavily on one and not\n12 on one thing at all. But if you had a\n13 report that didn't do any of it.\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 A So the hypothetical, in my view,\n16 is ill-posed. To create a report, you\n17 have to have some information in that\n18 report to disseminate whether or not it\n19 has all of the characteristics that are\n20 elucidated in that particular sentence.\n21 The mere fact of disseminating a report is\n22 also important, regardless of the\n23 information contained therein. The fact\n24 that you disseminate that report puts\n25 additional emphasis and visibility on that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 94 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 93\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 firm.\n3 Q Got it. And so if I were to go\n4 back to exhibit 3 then and understand this\n5 correctly, what exhibit 3 says is these 41\n6 analysts reports were essentially to\n7 identify every possible report that would\n8 meet your parameters that would be talking\n9 about this company?\n10 A Right. And --\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 A Sorry. I apologize. I'm\n13 responding too quickly.\n14 So again, in terms of the\n15 filter, remember, we're relying on\n16 databases. Databases that could be\n17 subject to error in terms of what we\n18 receive from these databases. And so\n19 sometimes there might be a report that is\n20 double downloaded by the vendor where it's\n21 the same exact report; right? You'd kick\n22 that out.\n23 You might see some reports that\n24 are a little bit bizarre. Again,\n25 something with the data vendor. And so\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 95 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 94\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that's really what I'm looking for. Okay?\n3 Now, these reports, yes, we're saying\n4 there are 41 reports from 10 brokers that\n5 contributed to the overall information\n6 environment for this particular firm,\n7 which helps with market efficiency, not\n8 just only in terms of the information\n9 that's being generated and conveyed, but\n10 also the mere fact of disseminating this\n11 information is very helpful for investors.\n12 Q Got it. So I understand now\n13 that basically, you know, this is intended\n14 to give us a sense of the analyst coverage\n15 that you saw, which is important for two\n16 reasons. One, for its specific content as\n17 kind of you described in 32. And two, by\n18 mere existence, both are important.\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 A I think you mischaracterized my\n21 response. I did not say by mere\n22 existence. What I used, the word that I\n23 used specifically was dissemination of\n24 these reports is very important for those\n25 in the market to receive this report, the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 96 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 95\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report becomes more salient. There's more\n3 attention on the firm. That attention\n4 begets more attention across other capital\n5 market providers.\n6 Q Understood. So do you\n7 know -- withdraw that.\n8 Did you review any of these\n9 reports?\n10 A I believe I already answered the\n11 question. Insofar as the actual content\n12 of the report, I don't go through; I take\n13 a skim of it to make sure it looks like a\n14 reasonable report to include in this\n15 particular exhibit where that particular\n16 report is available. But I'm not diving\n17 into the details and looking for other\n18 elements to extract to opine on. I'm\n19 looking at the availability and the\n20 dissemination of information in the market\n21 for this particular stock.\n22 MR. PARTIDA: So let we put -- we're\n23 on Exhibit 76; correct?\n24 THE REPORTER: Correct. Well, 76\n25 would be the next.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 97 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 96\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Yes. Okay. Thank you\n3 so much.\n4 Okay. I'm going to send Exhibit 76.\n5 And you can just tell me, everyone, when\n6 you've received it.\n7 THE WITNESS: I have received it.\n8 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. And so this\n9 report is May 11, 2021, report by Water\n10 Towers Research. And this was one of the\n11 reports that was identified in exhibit 3,\n12 one of the eight.\n13 (Exhibit 76 was marked for\n14 identification.)\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Now, I want you to go to the\n17 last page of that research report, and I\n18 want you to read under Disclosures the\n19 second paragraph, if you wouldn't mind,\n20 aloud, with the caveat that WTR stands for\n21 Water Tower Research. So whenever you're\n22 ready, please read that aloud.\n23 A Oh, read it aloud. Okay.\n24 Sorry --\n25 Q Yes, read it aloud. Read it\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 98 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 97\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 aloud, the second paragraph starting WTR.\n3 A Got it.\n4 Q And I was just caveating that\n5 that means Water Tower Research.\n6 A \"WTR is not a registered\n7 investment adviser or a broker/dealer nor\n8 does WTR provide investment banking\n9 services. WTR operates as an exempt\n10 investment adviser under the so-called\n11 'publisher's exemption.' WTR does not\n12 provide investment\n13 ratings/recommendations, price targets, or\n14 earnings estimates on the companies it\n15 reports on. Readers are advised that the\n16 research reports are published and\n17 provided solely for informational purposes\n18 and should not be construed as an offer to\n19 sell or the solicitation of an offer to\n20 buy securities or the rendering of\n21 investment advice. All users and readers\n22 of WTR's reports are cautioned to consult\n23 their own independent financial, tax, and\n24 legal advisors prior to purchasing or\n25 selling securities.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 99 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 98\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And were you previously\n3 aware of that disclosure?\n4 A As I mentioned, I've skimmed\n5 these, so that particular disclosure I had\n6 not read.\n7 Q Okay. Now, I want to go back to\n8 exhibit 3. Sorry, I want to go back to\n9 your report, Exhibit 73, and I want to go\n10 back to exhibit 3 to that report.\n11 Now, do you know whether any of\n12 these ten contributors, whether the\n13 reports from them simply have AI-produced\n14 technical reports of stock price?\n15 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n16 A So a screen such as looking to\n17 see whether AI was used in the creation of\n18 a report is not a screen that I have\n19 looked at. To the extent that AI could be\n20 used in a report, that would be\n21 unsurprising given the ubiquity with which\n22 AI is being used throughout academia,\n23 throughout the corporate world, and so\n24 forth. And so if an analyst were to\n25 choose to use some component of AI,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 100 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 99\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 whatever component that might be, that\n3 wouldn't be surprising to me.\n4 Q Sure. But my question was a\n5 little bit different. I guess my question\n6 is, do you know if any of these ten are\n7 just AI-generated reports of stock\n8 movement? And I'll give you an example\n9 from a different context, and I can go\n10 re-ask the question, because I'm sure Greg\n11 will object.\n12 But there are analysts' written\n13 sports articles, right, where maybe they\n14 use AI to screen a bunch of data as\n15 they're writing an article. And then\n16 there's the little thing you get on ESPN,\n17 which says Detroit Lions beat the Chicago\n18 Bears 21-20, and then it gives you stats\n19 of three players, and it's just an\n20 auto-generated AI engine by ESPN that just\n21 spits that out. There's no analyst\n22 coverage, nothing; it just spits out that\n23 data.\n24 And I guess with that background\n25 in mind, my question is, are you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 101 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 100\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 aware -- and I'll ask it this way, do you\n3 know if BuySellSignals research, if those\n4 seven reports comment on information about\n5 the company or they're just technical\n6 reports of stock price movement?\n7 A So your phrase technical reports\n8 of stock price movement, I'm not quite\n9 sure what you mean by that. But as I said\n10 already, I have not done a screen to see\n11 if AI was used in any of these reports.\n12 But to further your example,\n13 even in the media, AI is used to generate\n14 media news articles in tandem with the\n15 creation of those articles. And so the\n16 general point with regards to this exhibit\n17 remains intact, which is even if AI were\n18 to be used, there is information that is\n19 being put on a report; there is\n20 information that is being distributed to\n21 the capital markets. The greater the\n22 amount of information dissemination, the\n23 greater the salience of that information,\n24 the greater it reaches investors'\n25 attention and potentially is information\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 102 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 101\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that is actionable and tradable upon.\n3 Q So maybe I'm just not doing a\n4 good job. I appreciate all of that. I'm\n5 not really so much interested in, you\n6 know, you restating kind of the general\n7 analyst coverage issue. I guess I'm\n8 trying to -- I'm not asking you to defend\n9 this; I'm asking you to explain it to me.\n10 Because I'm just trying to understand when\n11 I look at this, okay, when I look at this\n12 exhibit 3 and I see Water Tower Research,\n13 does that mean, you know, okay, I look\n14 through all eight of these; they have\n15 value-relevant information?\n16 Did you do the same with\n17 BuySellSignals, H. C. Wainwright, BTIG,\n18 Validea, ValueEngine? And so I'm just\n19 trying to understand what this is. So,\n20 for example, if I were to pull up a\n21 Validea article, would I see just\n22 CleanSpark's price moved X and nothing\n23 more, or would I see coverage? And the\n24 reason I'm asking all of this is because\n25 when I asked for the backup of these\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 103 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 102\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 resources that you say you scanned through\n3 all of, I was told you only looked at 19\n4 of the 41.\n5 And so I'm trying to understand,\n6 okay, how do I know what's in the other\n7 41? I get that you're telling me that\n8 there's 41 things that you identified.\n9 I've been told you only looked at 19 of\n10 them. How the hell do I know or how the\n11 heck do I know what's in the other 22?\n12 Has anyone looked at them? That's what\n13 I'm trying to figure out. So I'm just\n14 trying to understand what this exhibit\n15 tells me. So maybe this would go easier\n16 if you would try and help me understand.\n17 I'm not attacking it. I don't know what\n18 it says. So I'm trying to help understand\n19 what it says.\n20 So with that, what I'm trying to\n21 understand is, do you have a way of\n22 knowing, or do you know, whether or not\n23 some of these reports merely have simple\n24 information such as the price moved X\n25 amount or whether or not they have more\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 104 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 103\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 detailed analyst coverage? That's what\n3 I'm wondering. And at first you had said,\n4 well, I scanned them all. But then your\n5 counsel said, well, you only looked at 19.\n6 So I'm just trying to understand how we\n7 know what's in the rest is what I'm trying\n8 to figure out.\n9 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n10 A Okay.\n11 Q I don't know how we want to do\n12 it.\n13 A Should I answer or no? I'm not\n14 sure.\n15 Q I guess I'm genuinely trying to\n16 understand how you know what's in these\n17 reports. Because you said an analyst\n18 report should have certain information.\n19 And then you say, well, I did searches\n20 through databases to find reports that\n21 have this information. Okay. I'm just\n22 trying to figure out how you know that if\n23 nobody's looked at them. And fine if\n24 maybe you just said, here are the searches\n25 I ran and that's okay. I'm just trying to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 105 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 104\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 get how we got here.\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 A So I'll repeat what I've said,\n5 because I've already answered this\n6 question a few times. And so I did say\n7 that I reviewed the reports where\n8 available; right? So I've said that\n9 certain reports were able to download and\n10 review and provide to you, and there are\n11 other reports in terms of the listing of\n12 reports that we acquired from different\n13 data vendor; right? So this is the LSEG\n14 Refinitiv database.\n15 And so where possible, I\n16 reviewed those reports; right? But I did\n17 already say that there are reports that\n18 were retrieved from a listing from a\n19 database vendor. But as I've already said\n20 already as well, in regards to those\n21 reports, the number of the reports is also\n22 essential. An analyst, a broker, is not\n23 going to put out a white sheet of paper;\n24 right? They're not going to be in\n25 business anymore if all they put out is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 106 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 105\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 nothing.\n3 And so on the presumption that\n4 if they're going to put a report, there's\n5 some information in there, even if it's\n6 duplicate of information generated from\n7 AI. The dissemination of that\n8 information, lots of academic studies show\n9 the importance of the dissemination of\n10 information, even if it's being\n11 repetitive.\n12 Q So yeah, I'm still at a loss\n13 because --\n14 A I'm happy to help clarify. I've\n15 done my best to answer those questions --\n16 Q Yeah. So --\n17 A -- I've answered them, I think,\n18 three times now.\n19 Q Yeah. Let's just go back to\n20 paragraph 32.\n21 A I'm there.\n22 Q So there you say, if I'm\n23 understanding, you're telling us what\n24 analyst coverage is, paragraph 32.\n25 A 32 is representing the typical\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 107 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 106\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 functions of an analyst, the typical\n3 employers that they are employed by, the\n4 typical reports that they may publish, and\n5 the typical information that might be\n6 conveyed.\n7 Q Okay. And I guess my question\n8 is, quite simply, to confirm that you\n9 don't specifically know which, if\n10 any -- withdraw that.\n11 Can you identify any report of\n12 these 41 that provides that type of\n13 coverage? Of the 19 you looked at, can\n14 you point me to one?\n15 A If we were --\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 A -- allowing me the time to\n18 review all of those reports in this\n19 deposition, then I can take a look at\n20 those reports and I can point you to the\n21 information that you requested.\n22 Q So it's your expert report.\n23 You're supposed to come prepared to defend\n24 it. And you wrote it, so it's surprising.\n25 But I guess what I'm just trying to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 108 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 107\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 understand is how we know that any of\n3 these reports by these ten contributors\n4 contain any of this information. I'm just\n5 trying to figure out how do we know that\n6 those contain it.\n7 A I apologize --\n8 Q I understand the side point\n9 about, if they just by fact of their\n10 existence, or however you want to describe\n11 it, more analyst coverage, the volume of\n12 it, all of these reports, the volume of\n13 it. That's fine. I get that side point.\n14 I'm trying to understand, with respect to\n15 this part on 32 that you went out to\n16 highlight, how I could go about\n17 understanding which of these reports, if\n18 any, you identified this type of coverage\n19 in.\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q Because I don't have certain of\n23 them. So let me go back this way. Let me\n24 break it down this way.\n25 A May I respond? Because you've\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 109 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 108\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 said quite a bit there, and you've asked\n3 quite a bit, and you've mischaracterized\n4 my testimony to date, but I've not been\n5 allowed to respond.\n6 Q Sure. Respond. Absolutely.\n7 Please respond. Because again, I'm just\n8 trying to understand.\n9 A You started this line of\n10 questioning asking me to point you to a\n11 report that would have elements of\n12 information as summarized in paragraph 32.\n13 My response was, please, I am happy to\n14 review those reports; I am happy to\n15 highlight said information. Your response\n16 was that I'm not defending my report. I\n17 am here to opine on market efficiency at\n18 the class certification stage. I am not\n19 here to opine on the content of those\n20 particular analyst reports. However, if\n21 you would like me to review them and put\n22 them in front of you, I would gladly do\n23 so.\n24 Q So what I'm trying to understand\n25 is in this report in paragraph 32, it says\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 110 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 109\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that's important. That's why it says\n3 analyst coverage is important, so that's\n4 what I'm failing to grasp. And I guess\n5 maybe we just --\n6 A Perhaps I'll make two points.\n7 Q My understanding, if one were to\n8 say, Cammer factor two, analyst coverage,\n9 and then it says, this is why it's\n10 important and what it does, and here's all\n11 the analyst coverage I looked at from\n12 these ten contributors in exhibit 3, but I\n13 can't tell you because I haven't looked at\n14 some of them that they do actually have\n15 that information; that that's -- and I\n16 don't have to. I guess what I'm\n17 understanding you're saying is like, yeah,\n18 I don't know, and I -- it doesn't matter.\n19 A That's not what I said. And if\n20 we fully look at the adjacent paragraphs,\n21 the next paragraph does talk about\n22 dissemination. And that's part of the\n23 importance of these reports. Creation\n24 and --\n25 Q Sure. And I understand\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 111 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 110\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 dissemination is important. I understand\n3 dissemination is important. I'm asking\n4 about the other half of it, not\n5 dissemination.\n6 A And as I've responded already, a\n7 brokerage firm will quickly be out of\n8 business, or any entity that's creating\n9 these reports will quickly be out of\n10 business, if they're producing blank\n11 sheets of paper. The presumption is that\n12 they're distributing a report because it\n13 has some content, even if duplicative.\n14 Q So okay, we might have to just\n15 let the record speak on it because I\n16 still, you know, I don't\n17 understand -- I'll just leave it at that.\n18 MR. PARTIDA: And you know what?\n19 It's getting to be 12:15; we've been going\n20 an hour. I could use a comfort break\n21 myself. So do we want to take a few\n22 minutes?\n23 THE WITNESS: Are we taking lunch or\n24 are we taking just a break?\n25 MR. PARTIDA: It's up to you guys.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 112 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 111\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I'm happy to keep going. It's whatever\n3 you want.\n4 THE WITNESS: Greg, what are you\n5 thinking? This is my normal lunchtime, so\n6 I wouldn't mind taking lunch. But if you\n7 guys want to go a little longer and then\n8 we could have lunch at 12:45 or 1:00, I'm\n9 fine either way. I can go another half\n10 hour or so, but at some point, it'd be\n11 good to have lunch.\n12 MR. LINKH: I'm thinking it might\n13 work to have lunch now. And should we\n14 come back like maybe 12:45 or so? Is half\n15 an hour enough for everybody?\n16 MR. PARTIDA: It's enough for me.\n17 I'll really defer to Dr. Bozanic, however\n18 much you need to be comfortable, 30\n19 minutes, 45, it's up to you. But\n20 certainly we can take lunch now.\n21 THE WITNESS: Sure. I think 30\n22 minutes --\n23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Let's go off the\n24 record and discuss it further.\n25 We're now going off the record at\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 113 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 112\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 approximately 12:15 p.m.\n3 (Off the record.)\n4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going on\n5 the record at approximately 12:50 p.m.,\n6 this is the beginning of media unit number\n7 3.\n8 Go ahead, Counsel.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Okay. Welcome back, Dr.\n11 Bozanic. Did you talk to anyone while you\n12 were on this break?\n13 A I did.\n14 Q Who?\n15 A Greg and Chris.\n16 Q Chris who?\n17 A Chris Fallon.\n18 Q Okay. So your attorneys?\n19 A Yes.\n20 Q Or the plaintiff's attorneys.\n21 Okay.\n22 Did you look at any documents?\n23 A I did not.\n24 Q All right. I just have a couple\n25 of more questions about these analyst\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 114 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 113\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 reports. So if you want to go back to\n3 exhibit 3 of your report, which is Exhibit\n4 73 in this deposition, but the page E-3 on\n5 the bottom.\n6 A I'm there.\n7 Q Okay. Are you able to tell me\n8 which, if any, of the reports from these\n9 contributors you would expect to be able\n10 to find on the database IDIS?\n11 A Repeat the question?\n12 Q Are you familiar with the\n13 database IDIS?\n14 A I am.\n15 Q I-D-I-S?\n16 Okay. And can you tell me what\n17 the IDIS database is?\n18 A Sure. There are actually\n19 multiple versions of this database\n20 depending upon the type of subscriber you\n21 are. So if you're an academic subscriber,\n22 the subscription and the privileges would\n23 be a little bit different from an\n24 institutional subscriber. And so\n25 typically this is housing and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 115 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 114\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 disseminating analyst estimates primarily\n3 with regards to earnings, though analysts\n4 can provide other estimates that are\n5 included in that database.\n6 Q Perfect. So my question is, of\n7 these ten contributors, which of them\n8 would you expect to find their reports in\n9 the IDIS database? So, for example, I'll\n10 just do it this way, would you expect to\n11 find Water Tower Research reports in the\n12 IDIS database?\n13 A So this is not a task that I've\n14 been charged to undertake to look at\n15 coverage across databases. You've listed\n16 one database. There are more databases\n17 than the IDIS database out there that are\n18 used by the capital markets. And so\n19 depending upon the database, certain\n20 reports would exist. IDIS does not\n21 publish reports. Okay?\n22 So Thompson One, for example,\n23 they do publish and they do provide these\n24 types of reports. But again, even that's\n25 limited because of the database privileges\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 116 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 115\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and restrictions. And so there are all\n3 sorts of exclusions and restrictions\n4 across these databases with which they're\n5 allowed to offer different elements,\n6 whether it be a full report or an analyst\n7 estimate. But IDIS primarily focuses on\n8 earnings estimates, not reports.\n9 MR. PARTIDA: So Greg, when you asked\n10 how long we'll be here, and I told you it\n11 depends on the answers, there's an\n12 example.\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q My question is very, very\n15 simple, and I appreciate all of the\n16 education about all of the different\n17 databases and all of those things, none of\n18 which I asked about. So I'll go ahead and\n19 ask you again, which is maybe a better way\n20 of phrasing it.\n21 So you know, even under your\n22 example of IDIS providing estimates, not\n23 reports, my question is quite simply,\n24 which estimates or which contributors\n25 would you expect to find their reports\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 117 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 116\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 listed in IDIS -- their estimates listed\n3 in IDIS, not the reports -- excuse me.\n4 From which contributors would you expect\n5 their estimates to be reported in that\n6 database, that database.\n7 A Unfortunately, David, you've\n8 asked a more complex question than you\n9 perhaps insinuated, but the actualities of\n10 how this works in the analyst investment\n11 world are more complex than you indicate.\n12 And so in a lot of cases, you can have\n13 estimates provided to IDIS, in fact, most\n14 cases, without an accompanying report. So\n15 analysts often provide an estimate to the\n16 database provider to be part of the\n17 consensus without providing a report.\n18 And so as I've said, typically\n19 on IDIS, you don't see the estimates from\n20 these reports; you certainly don't see the\n21 reports. Now, that estimate could have\n22 been in a report. It might be generated\n23 independently of a report.\n24 Q Got it. That answers my\n25 question. Thank you.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 118 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 117\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Okay. So the next question then\n3 I have about the reports just goes back to\n4 the initial. You mentioned that when you\n5 identified the 41 reports, there were 19\n6 that you had and the others were\n7 unavailable. Is that --\n8 A So what I referred to before is\n9 there were reports that were provided to\n10 me by counsel. And then in addition to\n11 the reports provided to counsel, I looked\n12 for additional reports in databases. I\n13 did not download and review those\n14 additional reports. That's correct.\n15 Q Okay. And had you wanted to,\n16 could you have? Like, could you have\n17 purchased the reports? Could you have\n18 asked counsel to provide them to you? I\n19 guess my point is, was there a way for you\n20 to access those reports if you had wanted\n21 to?\n22 A Conceivably. I would imagine\n23 given the existence of the report in the\n24 database that for a fee it would be\n25 accessible. But as I've answered before,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 119 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 118\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the second part of the question as in\n3 regards to not just the generation of the\n4 information, but the dissemination of the\n5 information. So this particular table is\n6 speaking to both.\n7 Q Yes. Understood. I'm just\n8 trying to just clarify, you know, how the\n9 decision was made on which 19 to review\n10 and whether or not the other additional\n11 reports could have been available to you\n12 should you have wanted them.\n13 Okay. So the next thing I would\n14 like to move then is going back up to your\n15 report. We're going to get back to -- or\n16 move ahead to, I should say, page A-16.\n17 And specifically, the heading E-5, A-16.\n18 A Okay. I'm there on page A-16.\n19 Q Okay. And so, if we go back or\n20 go forward to 47, can you just take a\n21 minute to read that? And then I just have\n22 a couple of questions I want to --\n23 A Paragraph 47 on page 17. Okay.\n24 Q Yes.\n25 A Okay. I have read it.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 120 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 119\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And so if we go forward\n3 to -- or if you look there, I just want to\n4 understand that so for 47, basically, what\n5 I understand you said, \"I summarize my\n6 empirical analysis below, which finds that\n7 CleanSpark's Common Stock exhibited the\n8 type of cause-and-effect relationship\n9 between company-specific information flow\n10 and price movement described in Cammer.\"\n11 And so if I understand that\n12 sentence correctly, for the Cammer 5\n13 analysis you're undertaking an empirical\n14 analysis to measure the cause and effect\n15 relationship between the company\n16 information and stock prices. That's the\n17 purpose of this exercise?\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 A I believe you just read from\n20 paragraph 47 to some extent verbatim, and\n21 so that's what the words on the page were.\n22 Q Right. Right. Exactly. Well,\n23 but my question is, I'm just trying to\n24 understand, the Cammer 5 factor analysis\n25 it's an empirical analysis that you're\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 121 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 120\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 undertaking through an event study. Is\n3 that accurate?\n4 A That is accurate.\n5 Q And that event study is an\n6 empirical analysis of the cause and effect\n7 behavior of CleanSpark's common stock\n8 price and news about the company, that's\n9 what this is measuring?\n10 A I believe that is accurate.\n11 Yes.\n12 Q Okay. Perfect. I just wanted\n13 to make that that's what I understood.\n14 So in -- there's a footnote, if\n15 you go down to footnote 79 --\n16 A What page is this on?\n17 Q 79 is on page A-29. It's a\n18 little -- it's on the very bottom there at\n19 A --\n20 A A-29?\n21 Q Mm-hmm. A-29. Just a few pages\n22 ahead. And then we'll be flipping back,\n23 so I guess you could keep your thumb.\n24 So if you look at footnote 79\n25 and then you look at the accompanying\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 122 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 121\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 text; right?\n3 A I can look at the footnote and\n4 the paragraph that is adjacent to.\n5 Q Right.\n6 A Yes, I've read it.\n7 Q Okay. So I guess what I\n8 was -- I was confused about this footnote\n9 because it says \"In this report I\n10 conducted an event study to assist with\n11 the evaluation of market efficiency.\" And\n12 then it says \"My event study in this\n13 report was not intended to quantify\n14 artificial inflation.\"\n15 So I guess I'm trying to\n16 understand why would the response of the\n17 company's common stock price to the\n18 announcements of company specific news be\n19 different if you're assessing market\n20 efficiency than if you're calculating\n21 artificial inflation.\n22 A They might be different; they\n23 might not be different. It depends upon\n24 the information that's produced in\n25 discovery after the class certification\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 123 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 122\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 stage. And so at this point the burden\n3 here is not to establish price impact;\n4 it's not to establish artificial\n5 inflation, that comes later.\n6 Q But I -- so that's fine. I\n7 guess I'm just trying to understand, you\n8 said there could be differences. What\n9 would be examples of those? What would be\n10 an example of where it would be different\n11 if you were assessing market efficiency\n12 than if you were calculating artificial\n13 inflation? I'm trying to understand what\n14 would be the inputs that would make it\n15 different.\n16 A So as I said --\n17 Q What would come out after class\n18 certification that would allow you then to\n19 select?\n20 A So there could be confounding\n21 information that is produced in discovery.\n22 And so on the basis of that confounding\n23 information, I'd have to start to adjust\n24 the model for that confounding\n25 information.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 124 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 123\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And are you aware of confounding\n3 information in this case?\n4 A Again, this is not the charge;\n5 this is not the point in the case, so that\n6 usually comes out after discovery.\n7 Q Are you aware of any information\n8 that you would characterize as such?\n9 A I am not presently aware of\n10 confounding information as I'm not\n11 privileged to discovery.\n12 Q Okay. And can you give me an\n13 example just so we can have it clear for\n14 the record? And I understand it might not\n15 be -- you don't have the information in\n16 this case, but could you give me an\n17 example of what you mean when you say\n18 confounding information?\n19 A Did the stock price move\n20 responsive to the corrective disclosure,\n21 for example, or did it move due to some\n22 other factor, which is known as a\n23 confound?\n24 Q Perfect. Thank you very much\n25 for that.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 125 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 124\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And so just so I understand, if\n3 you were to be asked, and I understand\n4 that you weren't here, but if you were to\n5 be asked to calculate artificial\n6 inflation, you would have to make changes\n7 to this model to account particularly for\n8 potential confounding information, if\n9 there were to be some? That's what you\n10 would have to be required to deal with?\n11 A Again, this is all premature\n12 because I don't have the facts and\n13 circumstances in front of me.\n14 Q Right.\n15 A But as a hypothetical, what I'm\n16 saying is if additional information\n17 applies, then I might update my opinions.\n18 That's correct.\n19 Q Yeah, absolutely. So and that's\n20 what I'm trying to understand is that, if\n21 I'm understanding this report correctly,\n22 it's saying, look, I've completed this\n23 empirical analysis, this event study,\n24 based on that my opinions are such;\n25 they're stated in the report about market\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 126 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 125\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 efficiency. That said, it's not a measure\n3 of artificial inflation necessarily\n4 because I don't have access to that\n5 information, which would be later. Is\n6 that accurate?\n7 A I think that's a reasonable\n8 portrayal. That's correct.\n9 Q Perfect. Okay.\n10 And then my question after that\n11 was simply, if you were to be asked to\n12 calculate artificial inflation, not that\n13 you have been, and I understand that you\n14 would have no basis or reason to be able\n15 to do so now, but if you were to be asked\n16 to do so, one of the things you might have\n17 to update that model to do is account for\n18 the existence of confounding information;\n19 that's one way your model might have to\n20 change. Is that correct?\n21 A Yes, that's correct.\n22 Q Okay. Now, is there anything\n23 else that you might have to change about\n24 your model other than to account for\n25 confounding information?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 127 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 126\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A As with the confounding\n3 information, I'm not presently aware of\n4 other elements of information. And so\n5 right now I have no basis, no opinion in\n6 terms of how the model might change.\n7 Q Right. I guess, sorry, my\n8 question is, is there any other input\n9 aside from confounding information that\n10 might have to be calculated or accounted\n11 for when you're quantifying artificial\n12 inflation?\n13 A Again, I have no opinions on\n14 artificial inflation. I have not been\n15 tasked with that at this point in the\n16 case, and so I have no opinion either way.\n17 Q Right. So I guess I'll leave it\n18 at that. My question was just quite\n19 simply, if there's anything other you\n20 said, in order to calculate artificial\n21 inflation, I would have to potentially, if\n22 there existed, confounding information,\n23 account for that.\n24 And my only question would be,\n25 is there other sort of information aside\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 128 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 127\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 from confounding information that you\n3 might become aware of that you would also\n4 have to account for to calculate\n5 artificial inflation? If you were asked\n6 to do so, I know that you haven't been.\n7 A Once I've had the benefit of\n8 discovery, then I can opine on that.\n9 Q Okay. And now if we go back up\n10 then to the event study, which is back on\n11 page A -- well, it starts on A-15 -- or\n12 A-16, I'm sorry, but the actual event\n13 study model is referred to on page 20,\n14 which is exhibit 5. So if you want to\n15 look there, because I want to go to\n16 exhibit 5 ultimately, but I just want to\n17 understand paragraph 56, which refers to\n18 exhibit 5 a little bit before -- or I'm\n19 sorry, Exhibit 4 first is what I want to\n20 start with.\n21 So to clarify, let's go to\n22 bottom of page A --\n23 A Where did you wanted me to go?\n24 I apologize.\n25 Q Yeah, I did that in a bad way.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 129 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 128\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So forget everything I said. I'm sorry\n3 about that.\n4 Go to the bottom of page A-19,\n5 paragraph 54. There are two exhibits\n6 about the event study I'm going to want to\n7 look at, exhibit 4 and exhibit 5. So what\n8 I want to look at is first you just take a\n9 minute to look at paragraph 54.\n10 A 54, okay.\n11 Q And then we'll go to exhibit 4.\n12 Okay. So are you ready to go to\n13 exhibit 4?\n14 A I have it. I need to review the\n15 paragraph. Sorry. I have exhibit 4 and I\n16 have the paragraph. Give me a second to\n17 review it, please.\n18 Q Sure. Yeah, yeah.\n19 A Wonderful. I reviewed it.\n20 Thank you.\n21 Q Okay. And what I'm\n22 understanding without getting into like\n23 too much granular detail on this is\n24 essentially what exhibit 4 is basically a\n25 visual representation of how you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 130 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 129\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 controlled for, I guess, various other\n3 impacts that could impact CleanSpark's\n4 common stock price.\n5 So to put a finer point on it,\n6 for example, if I'm looking at the S&P\n7 software and service industry coefficient,\n8 and I look at that associated blue line,\n9 what essentially this analysis is trying\n10 to do is to say, if we would isolate\n11 CleanSpark only, it's only information\n12 relevant to it that was making it move,\n13 not more general movements in the market,\n14 these are how I would measure those\n15 general impacts.\n16 A Are you asking the question?\n17 Q My question is, is that what I'm\n18 looking at here? A visual representation\n19 of how you measured those impacts?\n20 A Yeah, so what you're looking at\n21 are how the coefficients evolved through\n22 time on these particular factors that are\n23 being controlled for. And what you said\n24 is correct insofar as you're trying to\n25 partial out information about the market\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 131 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 130\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 in general and the industry specifically\n3 so that you can have a focus on the stock\n4 in question with this particular event\n5 setting. And so this is showing the trend\n6 through time how the coefficients evolve\n7 throughout the period of analysis.\n8 Q Got it. And the purpose of\n9 that, of those coefficients, are to\n10 control these outside factors you really\n11 isolate in on the company specifically?\n12 A I'll say the purpose of those\n13 factors or variables controls the\n14 coefficients more appropriately, which are\n15 generated from the regression.\n16 Q Okay. Fair enough.\n17 A They're used in other\n18 computations; right? But -- just to be\n19 precise.\n20 Q Yeah, no, I appreciate it. I\n21 value precision.\n22 Okay. So now I want to move\n23 forward then to paragraph 56 with exhibit\n24 5. So if you want to take a minute to\n25 familiarize yourself with both the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 132 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 131\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 paragraph and exhibit and tell me when\n3 you're ready to talk about it, that would\n4 be great.\n5 A Okay.\n6 Q Okay. So if I'm looking at this\n7 chart, it's Rolling Event Study\n8 Regression, can you tell me what it's\n9 showing me?\n10 A In exhibit five in regards to\n11 paragraph 56, so this is plotting the\n12 errors coming out of the event study\n13 regression.\n14 Q Right. And what does that mean?\n15 A So this is looking at the\n16 volatility in those errors through time.\n17 So this gets to how well the model is\n18 doing; right? And so this is showing that\n19 you have greater errors over certain\n20 periods of time consistent with\n21 expectations then you do other periods of\n22 time.\n23 Q Okay. And I want to then move\n24 forward to paragraph 61 with exhibit 6.\n25 And if you review those and tell me when\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 133 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 132\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you're ready to discuss them.\n3 A Okay. I've review paragraph 61\n4 and their associated exhibit.\n5 Q Okay. Now, I want to start by\n6 talking a little bit just so I can\n7 understand what all of this means on this\n8 beautiful chart here on E-6. And so if\n9 I'm understanding this correctly, that\n10 these 1 through 12 on the left-hand\n11 column, the far left-hand column, each\n12 correspond to what you have identified as\n13 a news day. Is that correct?\n14 A So in exhibit 6, these are\n15 identifying earnings releases and yes, the\n16 earnings releases, these earnings\n17 announcement, are what I'm considering to\n18 be a news day. That's correct. Yeah.\n19 Q Okay. Is there anything else\n20 aside from an earnings release that in\n21 your model is considered to be a news day?\n22 A So here in terms of true news\n23 days, we have these earnings announcements\n24 that I analyzed, these 12.\n25 Q Right. And my only point is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 134 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 133\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that, or my question is, you don't deem\n3 any other day to be a news day?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A So in terms of the setup of the\n6 model with regards to the objectivity of\n7 the analysis, what I have done is looked\n8 for a routine regularly occurring event\n9 that investors expect to convey news. And\n10 so I'm looking ex ante to say there could\n11 be other potential quote unquote news days\n12 from a colloquial sense. But in terms of\n13 the news days with a capital N that I'm\n14 reviewing for this analysis, the attention\n15 was focused on earnings announcements.\n16 Q Period. There's nothing else\n17 but earnings announcements?\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 A Again, in terms of the ex ante\n20 objectivity that I applied to say, I don't\n21 know what is going to turn out to be a\n22 news day until I actually run the\n23 analysis. But in terms of a potential\n24 news day that could convey information and\n25 could move market prices, a very commonly\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 135 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 134\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 occurring and analyzed corporate event are\n3 quarterly earnings releases.\n4 Q Right. I'm just quite simply\n5 trying to understand, in your model you've\n6 identified 12 news events and you've\n7 identified those as earnings releases.\n8 Those are the news events and that's what\n9 your model is limited to? I'm not asking\n10 about the reasons; I'm not asking about\n11 any of that. I'm just asking you, if I'm\n12 looking at this chart, reading the\n13 information, your model says as the input\n14 for news day, there's 12 and there are\n15 these earnings releases. Is that\n16 accurate?\n17 A So the phrase is limited to is\n18 what was concerning to me. So what I'm\n19 saying is my focus ex ante in terms of the\n20 criteria that I set forth to estimate this\n21 model, I'm focusing on those 12 news days.\n22 That's correct.\n23 Q Is there any other piece of news\n24 calculated for in this model than these\n25 12?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 136 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 135\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A What do you mean by any other\n3 piece of news? I don't understand the\n4 question.\n5 Q Great. Your model measures as\n6 news days only these 12 earnings releases.\n7 That's what it says.\n8 A I take issue --\n9 Q Or where does it say otherwise?\n10 Where does it say --\n11 A Where are we looking? I'm\n12 sorry. Can you point me to a paragraph?\n13 Q Okay. What I'm trying to look\n14 for is -- let me ask it this way. Other\n15 than the 12 earnings releases identified,\n16 is there any other input for a news day in\n17 this event study model? These are the\n18 only 12 inputs?\n19 A I have selected 12 earnings\n20 releases ex ante as potential news days to\n21 include in the model.\n22 Q Right. Exactly. And that's\n23 what this model is limited to, those are\n24 the only ones that you selected for this\n25 model? It's pretty simple yes or no, and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 137 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 136\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I think the answer is yes. I'm struggling\n3 to understand why it's a hard question for\n4 you to answer.\n5 A Well --\n6 Q I'm not worried about the\n7 caveats of listen, I get the I selectively\n8 made these and chose earnings releases.\n9 I'm just quite simply trying to understand\n10 the model. The model has 12 news days;\n11 correct? And no more than that. Is that\n12 correct?\n13 A May I respond?\n14 Q Yes.\n15 A Okay.\n16 Q It's a yes or no question. This\n17 model has 12 news days. Is that correct?\n18 Yes or no?\n19 A So this goes back to the\n20 conversation about precision where you use\n21 words that I would not necessarily use to\n22 describe what was done here. And so I\n23 have to be careful here when you use a\n24 word that I would not use to appropriately\n25 and accurately describe the modeling that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 138 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 137\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 was done here. And so we have some issues\n3 with regards to ex ante ex post in terms\n4 of what is done before the model is run\n5 versus what is interpreted after the model\n6 is run. And so there is no interpretation\n7 of output ex ante.\n8 So what I'm doing is ex ante is\n9 saying here is a regularly occurring\n10 routine event that could have the\n11 potential to convey news. And so those 12\n12 that you see on the page are those that\n13 were selected to include in the model.\n14 Q Okay. So that's my last point.\n15 These are the only 12 that were included\n16 in that model?\n17 A Again, it goes back to what you\n18 mean by that. So ex ante, yes, these are\n19 the --\n20 Q Okay. Can we just -- I'm just\n21 going to go ahead and stop you there\n22 because this is an intentional, as far as\n23 I'm concerned, waste of time at this\n24 point. I can have the court report or\n25 read back the last sentence of your answer\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 139 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 138\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 where you stated that these were the 12\n3 events selected for this model. And my\n4 question is very simple and\n5 straightforward. It is these 12 events\n6 and only these 12 events that were\n7 selected for this model. Isn't that the\n8 truth?\n9 A So I'll refer you back to the\n10 prior answer. We can have the court\n11 report or read it if you wish, but I'll\n12 say the same thing.\n13 MR. PARTIDA: Please do. Please read\n14 the last sentence of his last answer, or\n15 three answers prior, I guess now, since\n16 there's probably been a back and forth.\n17 THE REPORTER: Okay. Give me one\n18 moment.\n19 (The reporter repeated the\n20 record as requested.)\n21 THE REPORTER: Go ahead.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q So you selected those 12 events.\n24 Did you select any others for inclusion in\n25 this model, yes or no?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 140 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 139\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A As noted in paragraph 61, I say\n3 there are 12 earnings announcements; I\n4 classified each day on which such earnings\n5 release was first issued as a news day. I\n6 feel I've answered this question several\n7 times.\n8 Q Great. And my answer --\n9 A -- is noted ex ante.\n10 Q I understand the difference\n11 between ex post and ex ante. You don't\n12 understand my question, clearly, or you're\n13 just evading answering it. I'm just quite\n14 simply trying to understand that the data\n15 in this model is limited to these 12 news\n16 days. You've identified them, defined\n17 them as the 12 news days, this model is\n18 limited to that. And if it's not, where\n19 is the data that was included in addition?\n20 A So now with the question, you've\n21 misspoke in terms of saying the\n22 data -- this is only the data that was\n23 included in this model. There's lots of\n24 data included to estimate these models.\n25 And so again, for the sake of precision, I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 141 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 140\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 can't answer the simple question. You\n3 said something that's factually incorrect.\n4 Q Okay. Listen, we could play the\n5 word games all you want. I understand\n6 that you don't want to say that you\n7 selected only these 12 news days. I get\n8 it. And I get that there's tons of other\n9 data. I can be absolutely precise.\n10 There are 12 news days; correct?\n11 In this chart on E-6, there are 12 news\n12 days?\n13 A On exhibit 6 there are 12\n14 earnings releases that are being studied\n15 as possible news days, correct.\n16 Q And where in your report does it\n17 say that they're possible news days?\n18 Where is that word, possible?\n19 A Again, I have to go back to the\n20 same response. I am looking for a pattern\n21 ex ante. I don't know ex post.\n22 Q I'm talking about how you\n23 defined it in your -- so let's go to this.\n24 Let's look at page A-22 of your report.\n25 All right. So you said, first\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 142 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 141\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 sentence, \"As shown in Exhibit 6,\n3 CleanSpark issued 12 earnings\n4 announcements during the Analysis Period.\n5 I classified each day on which such\n6 earnings release was first issued as a\n7 'News Day'.\"\n8 Is that correct?\n9 A That is correct. I already\n10 referred to the same sentence.\n11 Q So as defined in this model,\n12 there are 12 news days?\n13 A Ex ante, there are 12 news days\n14 that are defined by this model.\n15 Q Perfect. And those 12 news days\n16 that you defined as news days ex ante are\n17 the 12 that are listed in E-6?\n18 A That is correct.\n19 Q Perfect. Okay. Now, if we look\n20 at what this shows here, when you were\n21 conducting your event study analysis you\n22 calculated, I'm understanding it, the\n23 residual and abnormal returns on these 12\n24 days. Is that accurate?\n25 A So if we're looking at exhibit\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 143 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 142\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 6, you can see that there is an abnormal\n3 term percent and an abnormal term dollar\n4 amount listed. That's correct.\n5 Q Okay. And you conduct, when you\n6 run this analysis, you conduct a\n7 statistical test to determine whether or\n8 not that abnormal return is statistically\n9 significant. Is that correct?\n10 A That's correct.\n11 Q And a way to determine if you\n12 have an abnormal return that's\n13 statistically significant is you look at\n14 the p-value. Is that correct?\n15 A You may look at the p-value.\n16 Q Okay. And what is the p-value?\n17 A So this is a level of\n18 statistical significance. So it's showing\n19 whether or not this is happening, this\n20 occurrence, this phenomenon that we're\n21 documenting is by random chance or not.\n22 And so it's the ability to reject that\n23 this is occurring by random chance. That\n24 this is a pattern that's observable in the\n25 data statistically speaking that is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 144 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 143\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 different than random chance. So the\n3 lower the p-value, the greater the\n4 statistical significance and the strength\n5 of the relationship.\n6 Q Got it. Now, what is the cutoff\n7 for what would be deemed statistically\n8 significant? If I understood it, you said\n9 the lower the p-value, the more\n10 statistically significant. What's the\n11 highest the p-value could be?\n12 A P-value in terms of -- it's\n13 actually the lowest, the highest, it can\n14 go up to one; right? So the lowest would\n15 be zero.\n16 Q Right. So you could have one or\n17 zero, and that's where I guess I'm trying\n18 to understand for statistical significance\n19 purposes, you said lower is better, but\n20 where's the cutoff between something\n21 that's statistically significant or not?\n22 You as an expert, you would say, look, you\n23 get a p-value of 5 percent; you get a\n24 p-value of .05, that's statistically\n25 significant. What is your cutoff or\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 145 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 144\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what's statistically significant?\n3 A A reasonable and conventionally\n4 used statistical cutoff when we're talking\n5 about p-values is .05.\n6 Q Okay. That's what I understand.\n7 And you mentioned that that's\n8 one of the things that you could do to\n9 determine whether or not -- well, one of\n10 the things you could look at, p-value, to\n11 determine whether or not there's -- the\n12 abnormal return is statistically\n13 significant. So that's one of the things\n14 you could look at. Is that correct?\n15 A That's correct.\n16 Q What else could you look at?\n17 A The adjacent column to the\n18 p-value on the left is reporting the\n19 t-statistic. So these are two sides of\n20 the same coin. So you can assess\n21 statistical significance using either a\n22 t-statistic or a p-value in this\n23 particular case.\n24 Q Is there someone else in the\n25 room with you?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 146 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 145\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A No, there's a window there.\n3 Q Oh, perfect. Probably outside\n4 where I'd rather be.\n5 A My driveway, so I can see cars\n6 coming up.\n7 Q Nice. I was deposing someone\n8 once, and they were in a secure facility,\n9 and all of a sudden the alarms went off.\n10 A Yikes.\n11 Q I'd never had that happen\n12 before, but -- okay.\n13 Anyways, so we have the\n14 t-statistic, which is the adjacent column,\n15 and the p-value, and those are two\n16 different ways, as you said, different\n17 sides of the same coin that you could use\n18 to measure statistical significance?\n19 A Correct.\n20 Q Okay. What are the -- I'm\n21 trying to ask this in a way that's -- why\n22 do you use both? Why do you use both?\n23 What does one tell you that the other\n24 doesn't, or why are they both useful?\n25 A It's simply convention.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 147 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 146\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 It's -- it's always convention in terms of\n3 just reporting. So even in my academic\n4 papers, we report both very commonly.\n5 Q Okay. I understand. So they're\n6 just two different ways of looking at it.\n7 Okay.\n8 And then just so I understand\n9 you said that the lower, you know, the\n10 number for a p-value, but typically 0.05\n11 is a reasonable cutoff for statistical\n12 significance. I'd ask you for the same\n13 kind of analysis of the t-statistic.\n14 What's a reasonable number I should be\n15 looking for for statistical significance?\n16 A So again, the exact number is\n17 eluding me, but I believe it's around 1.65\n18 is the convergence in terms of the\n19 equivalence of a p-value of 0.05. But\n20 higher is better for t-statistics,\n21 absolute value.\n22 Q Okay. So the absolute value of\n23 the t-statistic, because it can -- we want\n24 it to be higher, and for the p-value we\n25 want it to be lower.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 148 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 147\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: So now I want to\n3 introduce -- we're on Exhibit 77. Is that\n4 correct?\n5 MR. LINKH: I think we've -- you've\n6 introduced up to 76.\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. Okay. So\n8 this --\n9 THE REPORTER: This will be 77.\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Yes. Okay. Okay.\n11 Thank you. So I'm going to send this in a\n12 sec.\n13 Okay. Tell me when you get this\n14 file. And Exhibit 77, I'll tell you what\n15 it is, it's an Excel file that we received\n16 as part of the backup for your report.\n17 (Exhibit 77 was marked for\n18 identification.)\n19 THE WITNESS: Let me download this.\n20 Hold on.\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah.\n22 THE WITNESS: Okay. I have it open.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q Okay. And can you tell me what\n25 this is?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 149 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 148\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A This is the output from the\n3 event study. So when we were looking at\n4 some of those prior exhibits, and you're\n5 wondering what they were in terms of the\n6 evolution through time, this is reporting\n7 some of those elements. So, for example,\n8 you see the coefficients here that were\n9 generated from that event study.\n10 Q Okay. And if I go to the far\n11 right, or to the column U; correct?\n12 A Mm-hmm.\n13 Q These are different earnings\n14 releases. And so when I see, for example,\n15 in U7, I believe it is, that's an earnings\n16 release. So I'm looking at this output,\n17 that's essentially what you were talking\n18 about in the earlier exhibits, one of the\n19 earnings releases you identified?\n20 A Mm-hmm.\n21 Q Okay. Now, can you tell me what\n22 is the p-value that you calculated for\n23 December 10, 2020?\n24 A Give me a second. Hold on. Get\n25 closer to my computer. Okay. You said\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 150 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 149\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what now?\n3 Q Can you tell me what the p-value\n4 is that you calculated for December 10,\n5 2020?\n6 A So I'm not seeing this in this\n7 particular output, this date. You said\n8 December -- 12/10/2020?\n9 Q Mm-hmm. Well, I'll point you to\n10 the cells I want you to look for.\n11 A Okay.\n12 Q Go down to row 255, and look at\n13 Q255.\n14 A Oh, we might have to share this\n15 on the screen. Q -- where are we? -- I\n16 see row 255, December 17, 2020. Are you\n17 looking at the same?\n18 Q Well, when I'm -- so here, I can\n19 share my screen.\n20 A Yeah, maybe. I'm sorry.\n21 Q So, I'm looking at this. I'm\n22 looking at sheet 1. Is that correct?\n23 A Yes.\n24 Q So what I see in sheet 1 is I\n25 see on row 255.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 151 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 150\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Mm-hmm.\n3 Q Go down there. I see 12/10/2020\n4 in column A --\n5 A Something -- let me share my\n6 screen with you -- or maybe you can share\n7 yours. I apologize, David.\n8 Q Yeah, no problem. That's why we\n9 ask these questions. Let me see -- I'm\n10 going to switch my computers here. So why\n11 is it not letting me share? Oh, share.\n12 Great. Okay.\n13 Can you see my screen now?\n14 A It's, I think, rendering. Yeah,\n15 there we go. If you could make the font a\n16 little larger, the bottom right, like 130,\n17 that would be wonderful.\n18 Q Yes, I can. Okay.\n19 A Okay.\n20 Q All right. I know I'm\n21 controlling it now, so tell me if you need\n22 to slow it down. I see that some of these\n23 have not rendered yet, but it has, like,\n24 the hash values there, but.\n25 A You know, honestly, David, the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 152 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 151\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 issue there is the column. You have to\n3 adjust the length of the column. So, if\n4 you highlight the column A, yeah, and do\n5 that. You got it. You got it. Now we're\n6 fine.\n7 Q Okay. Perfect. See, there we\n8 go. Good. Okay. So would I go down to\n9 row 255, here.\n10 A There we go. Okay.\n11 Q I see 12/10/2020; right? And\n12 when I go over to Q.\n13 A Q.\n14 Q Or -- sorry. Right. Do you see\n15 under Q where I've clicked on right there?\n16 A I do. What's the header label\n17 for column Q?\n18 Q Column Q, yeah, let me go up to\n19 the top. P-value.\n20 A Okay.\n21 Q That's what I'm trying to ask.\n22 So can you tell me -- I think I\n23 understand, but can you confirm that zero\n24 is statistically significant and one is\n25 not? Or what do the ones and zeros mean?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 153 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 152\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A So, David, again, apologies.\n3 There's some formatting mask here, changes\n4 that you could elect that would allow us\n5 to better --\n6 Q Sure.\n7 A -- opine on this particular\n8 column. So if you can right click that\n9 column. So highlight Q.\n10 Q Yep.\n11 A Right click.\n12 Q Yep.\n13 A Format cells.\n14 Q Yep.\n15 A Okay. Then go to number.\n16 Q Mm-hmm.\n17 A And just click okay.\n18 Q Mm.\n19 A Okay. So now which row are we\n20 talking, 255?\n21 Q Yeah.\n22 A Okay. So the p-value here is\n23 0.1. But we need to go -- well, go back\n24 up, sorry. Yeah. Okay.\n25 Q 0.1. Right. And so if we go\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 154 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 153\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 over back here then on row 255,\n3 12/10/2020, this is the event study model.\n4 And then if we go over here to Q for\n5 12/10/2020, if we go here to Q, which I've\n6 highlighted, that's 0.1 for the p-value.\n7 That's correct?\n8 A Yes. And some change, but\n9 that's correct.\n10 Q And so that's not statistically\n11 significant?\n12 A We would want that p-value to be\n13 below that 0.1 to be significant at the 10\n14 percent level.\n15 Q But I guess I've just -- earlier\n16 you had told me that a reasonable cut off\n17 of what would be a statistically\n18 significant p-value is 0.05, and so this\n19 is 0.1 and so I guess this is not\n20 statistically significant, is what I'm\n21 trying to understand.\n22 A Yes, you are correct. So in\n23 this particular row that is not\n24 statistically significant.\n25 Q Okay. And then if we go here,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 155 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 154\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 right, we see in column U, which says\n3 misreps; right?\n4 A Mm-hmm.\n5 Q And let's see. We'll go up to\n6 the very top of what U is. Sorry, it's\n7 going to take forever unless there's a\n8 faster way people know of getting there.\n9 And it's event; right?\n10 A Mm-hmm.\n11 Q And so do you know what event\n12 occurred on December 10, 2020, that's the\n13 beginning of the class period?\n14 A Off the top of my head, I'd have\n15 to go back and look at the complaint, but\n16 what the sheet is saying is that that\n17 particular day reviewing the complaint was\n18 classified as a misrepresentation\n19 identified in the complaint on that date.\n20 Q Right. And so my point, I guess\n21 then my question is that, just to confirm\n22 then, on December 10, 2020, a date that\n23 was identified in the complaint as having\n24 two misrepresentations and a date that's\n25 the beginning of the class period --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 156 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 155\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Mm-hmm.\n3 Q -- is there's no statistical\n4 significant p-value.\n5 MR. LINKH: David, is there a\n6 question?\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Yes.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q I'm saying, is that accurate?\n10 That's accurate that there was no\n11 statistical significance on that day?\n12 A Apologies. I wasn't sure if\n13 that was a statement or a question. I\n14 thought I already asked this one where I\n15 said this is not statistically\n16 significant.\n17 Q Okay. Perfect. And I just had\n18 to ask the information because I had to\n19 get out that it was December 10, 2020,\n20 that that was a date identified as a\n21 complaint, or a misrepresentation in the\n22 complaint. So I understand it might not\n23 be important for you, but it is for me, so\n24 I appreciate your indulgence.\n25 Okay. Now, I want to go do the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 157 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 156\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 same thing if we go down just a few days\n3 and I'd like to look at January 14, 2021.\n4 Which is -- here, let me go up a little\n5 more. Sorry, I forgot that other people\n6 are looking at this. And I can make it\n7 even maybe a little bigger if it's\n8 helpful.\n9 All right. So you see where we\n10 are here?\n11 A I do.\n12 Q And A is the event date or the\n13 date, January 14, 2021. And we go over\n14 here, just over a little more to our handy\n15 dandy column number 12; right? And there\n16 we see that the p-value, if I understand,\n17 I know it says 0.12. I think that's again\n18 the column size, but more accurately, if\n19 we look up here, do you see where I've\n20 highlighted?\n21 A I do.\n22 Q The p-value, if I understand, is\n23 11.61 percent, 0.0116. And so we see\n24 here, if we go to the right, again, to U,\n25 that it's a corrective disclosure. Is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 158 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 157\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that accurate?\n3 A I'm sorry. Is what accurate?\n4 Q Is it accurate that January 14,\n5 2021, was a corrective disclosure date\n6 identified in column U?\n7 A That is accurate.\n8 Q Okay. And it's accurate that\n9 there's not a statistically significant\n10 p-value there. Is that correct?\n11 A That is also correct.\n12 Q Okay. I want to do the same\n13 thing for the next day, January 15, 2021;\n14 right? And I want to go over here to the\n15 p-value, and it says 0.019. But again, if\n16 we look here at the top, actually, that's\n17 really high, I guess, but 18.79 is the\n18 p-value there. So that's not\n19 statistically significant. Is that\n20 correct?\n21 A That is correct.\n22 Q Okay. And then I want to go\n23 down to February 12, 2021. Go to 98, I\n24 want to go over here to Q. And if we look\n25 here, can you confirm that the p-value is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 159 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 158\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 42.78 percent?\n3 A Yes, I confirm the same.\n4 Q And so that's not statistically\n5 significant. Is that correct?\n6 A That is correct.\n7 Q Now, is it also correct that you\n8 flagged in this report nine dates as\n9 alleged misrepresentation dates? And so I\n10 can maybe help you be able to answer that\n11 question in a fair way, I was going to\n12 propose sorting the U column.\n13 A Sure. I could do so on my end.\n14 Q Yeah. So we could look at it\n15 like that.\n16 A Sure.\n17 Q So let's just do it.\n18 A Okay. So I've sorted U as well.\n19 Q Oh, you sorted U?\n20 A I just did it now, because I\n21 was -- yeah.\n22 Q Oh, you can do it on your end\n23 now.\n24 A I have it on my end now, yeah.\n25 Q Okay. Got it. Okay. So can\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 160 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 159\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you confirm -- and so as I have them that\n3 these nine rows, and I guess we could just\n4 walk through them really quick because I\n5 have them listed here. The first one\n6 is --\n7 A Yeah, feel free to walk through\n8 because we're looking at different sorts.\n9 Q Yeah. So the first one is row\n10 255. That's that December 10, 2020, date.\n11 And if we go to column U for that, we see\n12 that there's a misrepresentation date?\n13 A Yes, I see the same.\n14 Q Right? Okay. And if we go down\n15 to 269, if we go down -- I'm just going to\n16 stay on the U column here -- but if we go\n17 down to row 269, we'll see again that\n18 that's the second misrep day.\n19 A Yes, I agree.\n20 Q And then if we go down to 271,\n21 right, we see the third misrep day. Is\n22 that correct?\n23 A Yes, that's correct.\n24 Q Okay. Then we go down to 298,\n25 and that's an earnings and a misrep day.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 161 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 160\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Is that correct?\n3 A That is correct. And I believe\n4 there's more in that cell.\n5 Q Let's see. Earnings, misrep,\n6 corrective disclosure, the trifecta.\n7 Right. Yeah. All three of those are that\n8 day.\n9 And let's go with 298. That's\n10 February 12, 2021. Okay. I'll stay on\n11 the U column now. And so then we go right\n12 down just slightly to cell 301, which\n13 again is a misrepresentation day. And\n14 then we go down to 309, which is the\n15 sixth. And then we go down to 327, which\n16 is the seventh. And then we go down to\n17 the 340, which is the eighth. And then\n18 we're going to go down to 356, which is\n19 the final one. And we could look through\n20 it, but I'll represent to you that there's\n21 nine, and those are the nine that we just\n22 identified.\n23 And so now I want you to take a\n24 minute. I guess we could go back and I\n25 can list each one of them. We can go look\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 162 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 161\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 through the p-values for all of them. And\n3 I can tell you the numbers. But I guess\n4 what I want to confirm is that of those\n5 nine days, those nine misrepresentations,\n6 there's only one misrepresentation day\n7 with a statistically significant residual\n8 return. And that's February 18, 2021. So\n9 I'll go up there.\n10 And I just want to show it to\n11 you. We can go through each of them\n12 however you're comfortable, but for\n13 example, we look on cell 301; right?\n14 That's February 18, 2021; correct?\n15 A I'm sorry. What's the question?\n16 I apologize.\n17 Q So row 301; correct?\n18 A Yes.\n19 Q That is the date February 18,\n20 2021. Is that correct?\n21 A That is correct. Yes.\n22 Q Okay. And then we go over to\n23 row U, and that's a misrepresentation day\n24 that I flagged; correct?\n25 A That's correct.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 163 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 162\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And then we go back to\n3 the p-value here; correct?\n4 A Yes.\n5 Q And we see what I think, if I\n6 understand, 0.0000 -- pretty statistically\n7 significant; right?\n8 A It is statistically significant.\n9 Yes.\n10 Q Okay. But if we look at the\n11 other eight, which I'll go to now, I guess\n12 we'll just look at it in a row. And we\n13 understand that these are all the rows\n14 that are misrepresentation dates, but\n15 we'll cover that. I'm going to go back to\n16 the first one; right? Which is row 255\n17 here, and that's a two misrepresentation\n18 day; right? Correct, under U?\n19 A It's a misrep day, but you said\n20 something before that. I'm sorry. I\n21 missed that two --\n22 Q Oh, I'm sorry. I said two\n23 because I just said -- I misspoke. It's a\n24 misrepresentation day. We're not sure how\n25 many. It's just flagged as a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 164 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 163\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 misrepresentation day.\n3 A Yes, that's correct.\n4 Q And that is not statistically\n5 significant. It's 10.3 percent. Is that\n6 correct?\n7 A Yes. I believe we've\n8 established.\n9 Q Yeah, exactly. So that's all I\n10 was trying to understand. And I'm trying\n11 to ask you the question in a fair way.\n12 Having reviewed this Excel file\n13 and looked through it, there were nine\n14 misrepresentation dates identified. Those\n15 are on rows 255, 269, 271, 298, 301, 309,\n16 327, 340, and 356. Those are the nine.\n17 And my review of this showed that of those\n18 nine alleged misrepresentation dates,\n19 there was only one which was identified to\n20 be statistically significant. And that\n21 one was February 18, 2021, which is\n22 reflected in row 301.\n23 So I get that that's a huge\n24 mouthful, but the reason I'm explaining it\n25 that way is quite simply I want to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 165 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 164\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 understand. Am I correct in my reading of\n3 this Excel spreadsheet that nine days were\n4 identified as misrepresentation days. And\n5 of those nine, only one, which was\n6 February 18th, had a statistically\n7 significant p-value.\n8 A What are you asking again?\n9 Q I'm trying to ask you if that's\n10 accurate. And the reason I said it in the\n11 long fashion is because it's your\n12 testimony; right? So if you're going to\n13 say it's accurate, I assumed you wanted me\n14 to walk you through it.\n15 But my point is what I'm trying\n16 to, again, ask you is, is it accurate to\n17 say that in this event study\n18 mode; -- let's just break it down piece by\n19 piece. Is it accurate to say that in this\n20 event study model there were nine days\n21 identified as misrepresentation days?\n22 A Yes, that's correct. And I do\n23 appreciate you walking me through. I was\n24 just wondering if it was a statement or a\n25 question that you just ended up with.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 166 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 165\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Yeah, no, I'm trying to -- I\n3 can't use my own statements in court;\n4 right? I can only use your answers to\n5 questions. And sometimes -- I guess\n6 different witnesses, different days,\n7 sometimes I try and do the witnesses a\n8 favor so they can understand a fair\n9 question, what I'm trying to ask, and\n10 other times it doesn't work so well. So I\n11 appreciate you trying to be precise. But\n12 before I asked you that giant mouthful, I\n13 wanted you to understand what we were\n14 talking about.\n15 So in any event, the simple\n16 question is we've confirmed that there\n17 were nine misrepresentations days\n18 identified. And then my second question\n19 is that of those nine misrepresentation\n20 days, there was only one for which there\n21 was a statistically significant p value.\n22 Is that accurate?\n23 A Yes, that is accurate.\n24 Q And that one is found in row\n25 301, which is February 18, 2021. And\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 167 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 166\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that --\n3 A I believe so. You have to show\n4 me.\n5 Q Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. If we look\n6 at the top here, 0.00002. Statistically\n7 significant. Okay.\n8 THE WITNESS: And David, only because\n9 the coffee is now going through me, when\n10 we're done with this line of questioning,\n11 I would appreciate taking a five-minute\n12 restroom break.\n13 MR. PARTIDA: We're finally getting\n14 on the same page because I was just about\n15 to suggest a break. So I appreciate you\n16 letting me know.\n17 Why don't we come back, if it's\n18 enough time for everyone, at two o'clock?\n19 THE WITNESS: That would be\n20 wonderful. Thank you.\n21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going\n22 off the record at approximately 1:53 p.m.\n23 (Off the record.)\n24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going\n25 back on the record at approximately 2:04\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 168 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 167\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 p.m. This is the beginning of media unit\n3 number 4.\n4 Go ahead, Counsel.\n5 MR. PARTIDA: All right.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Welcome back, Dr. Bozanic. I\n8 want to turn your attention briefly,\n9 briefly, but back to your report, Exhibit\n10 73. And I want to direct you back to\n11 paragraph 51.\n12 A 5-1?\n13 Q 5-1, correct. Mm-hmm.\n14 A Thank you.\n15 Q And I just want to -- okay.\n16 Sorry. Are you ready for me to ask you a\n17 question?\n18 A Oh, let me read it. I'm sorry.\n19 I just got there.\n20 Q Oh, got it. Okay. I'm sorry.\n21 A I'm up to speed. Thank you.\n22 Q Okay. Perfect. So I just want\n23 to confirm my understanding of the event\n24 study regression analysis. And as I\n25 understand it, that the purpose of the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 169 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 168\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 event study analysis, as stated in\n3 paragraph 51 is to \"Isolate the impact of\n4 company-specific news on CleanSpark's\n5 Common Stock prices during the Class\n6 Period\" and to \"measure the response of\n7 the Company's common stock to\n8 announcements of company specific news.\"\n9 And so my question is, that's\n10 what your events study model is designed\n11 to do?\n12 A So I assume that's a question.\n13 So in paragraph --\n14 Q My question is, is that what\n15 your event study is designed to do? To\n16 \"Isolate the impact of company-specific\n17 news on CleanSpark's Common Stock prices\n18 during the Class Period\" and to \"measure\n19 the response of the Company's common stock\n20 to announcements of company specific\n21 news\"?\n22 A Right. Yeah. So this paragraph\n23 here is talking about specifically, as you\n24 mentioned, this is controlling for other\n25 factors to isolate that company specific\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 170 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 169\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 news. That's correct.\n3 Q Perfect. Okay. I just wanted\n4 to make sure I understood that correctly.\n5 Just so you're --\n6 A It's isolating the impact of\n7 that news on price.\n8 Q Yeah. Okay. I understand.\n9 Okay.\n10 Now, I want to move to kind of\n11 talk about -- so I understand now that the\n12 event study, what it's designed to do, to\n13 isolate that company specific information,\n14 your event study was designed to do that.\n15 And I guess my question is, so with regard\n16 to a company on a given day there could be\n17 a lot of different news about it. There\n18 could be a lot of different types of news\n19 that come out about it on the same day.\n20 Is that correct? Is that your\n21 understanding? A lot of news could come\n22 out, different types of news.\n23 A I would agree with the general\n24 sentiment that in a given day for a given\n25 firm there's a variety of news that could\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 171 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 170\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 be disseminated. That's correct.\n3 Q Right. So I'll give you an\n4 example, or we could take an example from\n5 here. One of the CleanSpark's earning\n6 releases has a variety of different pieces\n7 of information about different aspects of\n8 the company on it. Is that accurate?\n9 A I would say so. Yes.\n10 Q Yeah. Okay.\n11 A For any given average earnings\n12 announcement, I would say so. I'm not\n13 singling out that one particular, making\n14 any statements on that particular one.\n15 But in any average earnings announcement,\n16 you would have that. Yeah.\n17 Q Right. Which is all I'm asking\n18 is there's just whatever mix of\n19 information. And where my question is, an\n20 event study, it takes into account\n21 specific mix of company\n22 information -- well, withdraw that.\n23 Can an event study, is an event\n24 study capable of isolating the impact of\n25 various different types of news about that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 172 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 171\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 company? And I'll give the earnings\n3 release as an example. Would you be able\n4 to tell me in an event study or with your\n5 event study if a certain piece of news in\n6 that earnings report had a larger or\n7 smaller impact, or just you know that the\n8 report itself had an impact, or release\n9 had an impact?\n10 A So let me just go back. So in\n11 terms of what the event study is trying to\n12 show is how when information arrives, the\n13 evolution of that information as it\n14 arrives, how does it impact stock price;\n15 right? So I understood your question to\n16 be if you have a single -- like at first\n17 you started to say if I have multiple news\n18 events \u2013--\n19 Q Right.\n20 A -- throughout the day versus if\n21 I have a single disclosure which contains\n22 multiple pieces of information, which one\n23 were you referring to?\n24 Q Oh, that's actually -- I didn't\n25 even understand that I had asked it two\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 173 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 172\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 specific ways, I guess, or two different\n3 ways. So thank you for clarifying that.\n4 What I'm trying to understand\n5 is -- I guess I'll ask it this way. If I\n6 understand an event study correctly that\n7 can tell me that, look, the total mix of\n8 available news, company specific, about\n9 this company, had an impact on the stock\n10 price or didn't. But I don't understand\n11 that an event study is capable of breaking\n12 it down further than that, by saying this\n13 particular piece of information about the\n14 company had this impact, and this piece of\n15 information had that impact. Is an event\n16 study capable of parsing it out on that\n17 level of detail?\n18 And the reason I asked about\n19 multiple news events, and I didn't think\n20 about, you know, if you have them\n21 successively, you know, one after the\n22 other, or in, you know, a single release,\n23 but the more general question is, is an\n24 event study capable of distinguishing\n25 between the impacts of various specific\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 174 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 173\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 pieces of information about a company that\n3 were all released on the same day, same\n4 event day?\n5 A Right. So the confusion still\n6 remains that I have in my head, because\n7 the way that you just described that\n8 question could involve either scenario.\n9 And so let me answer with regards to the\n10 first scenario, or the second scenario\n11 that I've mentioned, which is the arrival\n12 of information throughout the day; right?\n13 So here, for the event study analysis, I'm\n14 looking at a day by day basis. You are\n15 correct. Okay?\n16 And you're also correct that for\n17 a given firm, information could arrive at\n18 different intervals throughout the day.\n19 Now, this is a daily return based upon\n20 closing stock market prices being used in\n21 this analysis. If you start to have\n22 information that comes out throughout the\n23 market at different points in the day,\n24 this is where you start to use intraday\n25 data; right?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 175 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 174\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So this is one potential\n3 approach in terms of saying which piece of\n4 information within the day. So if it\n5 arrived at different points of time, the\n6 availability of intraday pricing data\n7 would be helpful to form a response to the\n8 particular question that you've raised.\n9 Q Got it. And that's all helpful\n10 because I guess I think it helps me\n11 understand the answer to my question, is\n12 that the event study you did for this\n13 report doesn't do any of that?\n14 A So what -- I'm not looking at\n15 intraday data for this event. That's\n16 correct. So this is using daily data at\n17 this point in time. It's not\n18 distinguishing between individual elements\n19 of information that arrive throughout the\n20 day. That's correct.\n21 Q Perfect. That confirms my\n22 understanding. I think I understand now.\n23 If you were able to go about\n24 disentangling the information, trying to\n25 separate it out, as you just mentioned,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 176 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 175\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you said it would be helpful to have\n3 intraday data; correct?\n4 A That's correct.\n5 Q And explain to me a little bit\n6 why.\n7 A So the idea here, and as I've\n8 said, I've not done this here, but this is\n9 one potential approach to the scenario\n10 that you mentioned is to say, how is the\n11 stock price moving through the day; right?\n12 And so instead of saying, how did it\n13 perform throughout the entire day and\n14 using a summary return for that day, you\n15 can start to look at how the price moves\n16 throughout the day.\n17 And so as the arrival of\n18 information occurs, you look at the\n19 timestamp of the arrival of the\n20 information, then you can look at shorter\n21 intervals. So all we're doing here is\n22 decreasing the interval. Currently, the\n23 interval being used for this analysis is\n24 daily returns; right? Then you can start\n25 to see -- look at the price movement\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 177 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 176\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 throughout the evolution of the trading\n3 day as information arrives to the market\n4 to see how the price responds.\n5 Q Got it. And how short of an\n6 intraday window would you use for an\n7 intraday event study like that? So if,\n8 for example -- well, I'll stick with that.\n9 How short of an intraday window would you\n10 use?\n11 A I'd have to look at the specific\n12 facts and circumstances of the case. If\n13 we look to academic literature, I believe\n14 there's a variety of windows used\n15 depending upon what they're testing for.\n16 Q So the answer is you don't know\n17 as of this point in time, you don't know\n18 how short of an intraday window you would\n19 use?\n20 A The answer is I haven't formed\n21 an opinion because I haven't reviewed the\n22 facts and circumstances of -- case that's\n23 before me.\n24 Q Okay. So I understand. So that\n25 solves the scenario where you say, you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 178 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 177\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 know, there's a whole bunch of successive\n3 releases. I want to talk about the\n4 scenario where you don't. It's all in the\n5 same document.\n6 As far as I understand, the\n7 intraday data and the intraday event study\n8 wouldn't be useful for that project; would\n9 it?\n10 A Correct. So in this particular\n11 case, this is the other scenario that we\n12 talked about, the first scenario where you\n13 have different elements of information\n14 coming out at the same time; right? And\n15 then disentangle the different elements,\n16 that becomes trickier.\n17 Q And how so?\n18 A So from a statistical\n19 perspective, it's difficult to disentangle\n20 whether information, element A versus B\n21 versus C, say that came out at 10:00 a.m.,\n22 which, if the stock price did move, which\n23 was the element of information that was\n24 relied upon such that the price did move.\n25 Q So I want to go to then -- how\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 179 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 178\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 would you do it if you had to do it, if\n3 you had to try?\n4 A So as I said, it's tricky. And\n5 so from a statistical perspective, very\n6 difficult; right? However, what you have\n7 to do at this point -- this is beyond what\n8 we're doing here in terms of class\n9 certification stage -- but down the road,\n10 if I were to look at price impact, this is\n11 where we start to rely on the users in the\n12 market of said information to see what\n13 they relied upon.\n14 From a statistical perspective,\n15 that is very difficult. What you could do\n16 is say, they were, in my hypothetical,\n17 three elements of information. And we saw\n18 at some interval that the price moved as a\n19 response to that disclosure with those\n20 three elements of information. Now, the\n21 question becomes who paid attention to\n22 which information to support the view that\n23 element A, B versus C were the elements\n24 that were relied upon by whatever investor\n25 analyst.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 180 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 179\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q So that would not be done with\n3 an event study?\n4 A This would be very tricky to\n5 disentangle with an event study. You\n6 would have to support -- you'd have to\n7 show the result to say that the price\n8 moved; you would have to also concede that\n9 there were multiple elements of\n10 information arriving at the market at the\n11 same time. And then beyond that, the\n12 event study does not tell you which piece\n13 of information was moving the market.\n14 You'd have to look for corroborating\n15 evidence.\n16 Q Okay. And but that you would\n17 have to look at the actual analyst\n18 reports, which is not something you were\n19 asked to do here?\n20 A That is correct.\n21 Q Okay. We're going to play a fun\n22 game in a minute. Before we get to that,\n23 what I want to do is go back to -- bear\n24 with me a moment.\n25 So are you aware of -- sorry,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 181 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 180\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I'm trying to find the page number, but\n3 I'm looking through the wrong document.\n4 So that's probably why I can't find it.\n5 Exhibit 3, this is the news reports. Are\n6 you back there?\n7 A I am, so exhibit 3 now of my\n8 report. Yes.\n9 Q Okay. And are you aware of the\n10 dates of those reports?\n11 A I have not committed to memory\n12 the individual dates of any of these\n13 reports. No.\n14 Q Well, I'm going to represent to\n15 you and, you know, counsel can double\n16 check me later, but I'm going to represent\n17 to you that -- well, let me ask you this.\n18 Do you know if any of those\n19 reports were issued within, say, three\n20 days of any of the news days that you\n21 identified on Exhibit 6, I believe? I\n22 guess the answer is no. Am I\n23 understanding that, because you don't know\n24 the dates of them?\n25 A So typically it's the case when\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 182 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 181\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 there is an earnings announcement by the\n3 firm that this is new information out in\n4 the market, and then analysts would cover\n5 that particular information release and\n6 then update their existing reports or\n7 potentially create a new report or maybe\n8 even a temporary report until they can\n9 opine more fully.\n10 Q Got it. So do you know if any\n11 of these reports were issued within, say,\n12 three days of the earnings release?\n13 A I apologize. I don't recall.\n14 No.\n15 Q Okay. Okay. So now we get to\n16 then go look at, let's see, one of these\n17 earnings reports, which you'll find the\n18 exhibit. And this report, which I'll be\n19 sending you in a second, is one of the\n20 reports we received from you. And believe\n21 it -- okay.\n22 I'm going to send you what I\n23 said was Exhibit 78. So you can tell me\n24 when you received it.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 183 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 182\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 (Exhibit 78 was marked for\n3 identification.)\n4 A Will do. This must be a large\n5 document.\n6 Q It's a six-page analyst report.\n7 I mean, I could --\n8 A It's coming. I got it. I got\n9 it.\n10 Q Okay. I can also share my\n11 screen too.\n12 A Thank you. Okay. Should I look\n13 at it? I haven't opened it. Would you\n14 like me to review it or not yet?\n15 Q Yeah, well, I can tell you if\n16 you would like a little bit what it is,\n17 and then you can look at it --\n18 A Please --\n19 Q -- and I'll have a few specific\n20 questions about it. But H. C. Wainwright,\n21 this report is one of the reports that was\n22 produced by your counsel as one of the\n23 backup reports that were in your\n24 possession that you looked at.\n25 And I'll represent here, and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 184 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 183\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 again, your counsel can check for the\n3 record, but I'll represent that of all the\n4 reports that were produced by your counsel\n5 as having been in your possession, this is\n6 the only report that was issued shortly\n7 after any of the news days that we've\n8 talked about, or the particular\n9 misrepresentation or corrective disclosure\n10 days.\n11 So that's kind of -- that's what\n12 this document is. This is the only report\n13 that you produced or was produced for you\n14 in your possession that was close in time\n15 to those. And this one is December 11,\n16 2020. Do you see that at the top\n17 right-hand side?\n18 A One second. I do.\n19 Q Yeah. So it's December 11,\n20 2020. And I'll just, as we recall, the\n21 class period starts December 10, 2020;\n22 that was the first announcement. This is\n23 the day after. And this is that report.\n24 So if you want to take a minute to look at\n25 it, you can kind of look through it. I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 185 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 184\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 mean, you don't have to read it word for\n3 word, but I will ask you some questions\n4 about it.\n5 A Sure. Sure. I'll skim it. And\n6 then if the question is too detailed, I'll\n7 read it with more detail.\n8 Okay. I skimmed it.\n9 Q Okay. Great. So I just to make\n10 clear what I represented about this. This\n11 December 11, 2020, report is the only of\n12 the 41 reports, the only one in your\n13 possession that we were given that is\n14 after, directly after the December 10\n15 announcement. So I just wanted to make\n16 sure that that was clear what that\n17 representation was.\n18 So if you look here, you'll see\n19 under the section on the right hand side\n20 of it where it says \"Bitcoin mining to be\n21 scaled immediately.\" Do you see that big\n22 heading there on the right hand?\n23 A I do see it.\n24 Q So if you look at the top, it\n25 says \"Bitcoin mining acquisition drives\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 186 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 185\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 estimates higher,\" the title of the\n3 document. Then on the left side, there's\n4 a chart with stock data, on the right it\n5 says -- first like five words are\n6 \"Increasing price target to $24.\" And\n7 then below that paragraph, you'll see\n8 another paragraph that begins \"Bitcoin\n9 mining to be scaled immediately.\" You see\n10 that?\n11 A I do see that.\n12 Q Now do you see -- if you look at\n13 the chart on the left where it says\n14 \"Revenue ($M)\". And then if you see where\n15 it says 1Q, I'm just trying to direct you\n16 to a specific line in the text on the\n17 right hand side.\n18 A I see it.\n19 Q If you kind of draw your finger\n20 along and go over, starts with a line that\n21 says \"during the next several quarters.\"\n22 A Oh gosh, hold on. I thought you\n23 were looking at the chart.\n24 Q Yeah, yeah. Well, if you -- I\n25 was looking at the chart. If you look at\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 187 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 186\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the chart where it says \"Revenue ($M)\" and\n3 you see where it says --\n4 A I am looking there. Yes.\n5 Revenue million --\n6 Q Yes. If you see where it\n7 says --\n8 A Yes.\n9 Q Yeah, and then if you see where\n10 it says 1Q and kind of draw your finger\n11 across the page, you'll run into a\n12 sentence that says \"During the next\n13 several quarters, the company\" --\n14 A Okay. Yes, I see it.\n15 Q Sorry. I guess that was a bad\n16 way of pointing you to it, but can you\n17 just read that sentence out loud?\n18 A I can. If this is the one I\n19 think you have mind. This report says\n20 \"During the next several quarters, the\n21 company is planning to increase the\n22 capacity from the current 9.6MVV,\n23 operating at approximately\n24 190PH/s\" -- this is the line, anything\n25 else?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 188 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 187\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Yes. And can you read the next\n3 sentence as well?\n4 A I can. \"In line with this,\n5 during FY2022, we are projecting capacity\n6 to reach 49.5MVV, operating at\n7 approximately 985PH/s and generating 6.61\n8 bitcoins per day.\"\n9 Q Great. Other than it's 6.16,\n10 but I would have done the same thing. So\n11 I just want to make it clear for --\n12 A Sorry. It's 0.16.\n13 Q Yeah. I just want to make it\n14 clear for the record. Sorry. Okay. So\n15 if I'm understanding this, this particular\n16 analyst report, and I get that other than\n17 when you looked at it previously, you're\n18 just kind of looking at it now, but I read\n19 those two sentences, and would you agree\n20 that the analyst is talking about\n21 expansion of power over multiple quarters\n22 and throughout the FY2022?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 A Let me re-read the sentences now\n25 that you've asked your question, please.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 189 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 188\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So I'm reading this without the benefit of\n3 the rest of the report. It seems the two\n4 sentences are indicating an expansion of\n5 capacity with respect to the power that\n6 could be utilized to run the different\n7 GPUs and ASICs.\n8 Q Right. And again, this is\n9 just -- I'm not asking you to be\n10 responsible for what this analyst said or\n11 how he came up with it. I'm just -- this\n12 analyst, though, gives a timeline; he\n13 discusses the timeline -- or she, I\n14 don't -- I think it's a he -- but\n15 discusses a timeline for the expansion of\n16 that power; correct?\n17 A Let me revisit. Yeah. So at\n18 the top it says \" Bitcoin mining to be\n19 scaled immediately,\" as you've already\n20 indicated. And then let me see. And then\n21 it says during the next several quarters,\n22 the company's planning to increase\n23 capacity.\n24 Q Right. And it's during the next\n25 several quarters; right? That's the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 190 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 189\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 timeline.\n3 A Correct. During fiscal year 22,\n4 and this is relative to December 2020. So\n5 yeah. Okay.\n6 Q Right. So my question is based\n7 on this analyst report as of December 11,\n8 2020, would you agree that this analyst is\n9 talking about an expansion timeline that\n10 involves the next several quarters? And\n11 just to be clear, that's over a year;\n12 right? Or I guess it doesn't have to be,\n13 but each quarter would be quarter of a\n14 year. So during the next several\n15 quarters, and then gives a more specific\n16 projection of during FY2022. So two years\n17 later, or the \u2013\n18 A Right, but above, I mean,\n19 it's --\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 A It's confusing to me because\n22 above, if you go back to the major\n23 heading, \"Bitcoin mining to be scaled\n24 immediately,\" you see the parenthetical\n25 where it says the expansion from 20 to 50\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 191 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 190\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 megawatts is trying to be completed by\n3 April 2021. So it's -- I see that there's\n4 some discussion regarding a timeline, and\n5 I appreciate the confusion and also maybe\n6 the confusion with what -- what this\n7 analyst is considering the fiscal year to\n8 be. I'm not quite sure, but it seems like\n9 there's some sentences that might\n10 contradict each other for this particular\n11 analyst.\n12 Q Okay. Got it. And I believe\n13 it's in -- go back in your -- actually,\n14 let's just go back to your report.\n15 Because there's a place in your report\n16 where you talk about, and I believe it's\n17 in paragraph 14. Paragraph 14. So if you\n18 go to page A-5 of your report. So just\n19 tell me when you're there and when you --\n20 A I'm on page A-5. Thank you.\n21 Q Yeah. And when you have a\n22 chance to look at paragraph 14.\n23 A Fourteen, one second, please. I\n24 read it. Thank you.\n25 Q Okay. So I want you to go to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 192 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 191\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the next page, and this is kind of\n3 just -- and read -- sorry -- if you could\n4 go back to Exhibit 78 now.\n5 A What's Exhibit 78? I'll go back\n6 to my email.\n7 Q Oh, Exhibit 78 is the most\n8 recent exhibit, the one that has the H. C.\n9 Wainwright report from December 11th.\n10 A Oh, thank you, thank you. Yes.\n11 Q So if you go there at the top\n12 where it says Key Takeaways.\n13 A Of the report?\n14 Q The top of page 2 of\n15 December -- that report. So go down --\n16 A Yes, I see it. I have not read\n17 it, but I see it.\n18 Q Okay. So can you read the first\n19 sentence?\n20 A I can. \"Key Takeaways. We do\n21 not view this acquisition as a pivot away\n22 from the company's core efforts to expand\n23 its energy analytics and software\n24 offerings.\"\n25 Q Okay. And can you read the next\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 193 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 192\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 sentence?\n3 A I can. \"Part of the rationale\n4 offered for this acquisition was to\n5 demonstrate and validate the suite of\n6 energy solutions the company can offer to\n7 manage a high energy intensity\n8 application, where keeping power\n9 consumption costs low can impact\n10 profitability in a significant manner.\"\n11 Q Okay. And so I guess, you know,\n12 why I asked you to read paragraph 14 of\n13 your report and then look at this totally\n14 separate analyst report, and this analyst\n15 opinion, is to highlight, I guess, that\n16 different folks, different analysts,\n17 different experts could look at the same\n18 piece of news; right? The December 10\n19 announcement that you've looked at, that\n20 the plaintiffs have looked at, you've\n21 looked at through the complaint, the\n22 plaintiffs have looked at, this analyst\n23 looked at.\n24 And in A-5, the conclusion is\n25 A-5, meaning in your report, the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 194 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 193\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 conclusion was CleanSpark started pivoting\n3 towards Bitcoin mining with the\n4 announcement of the acquisition of ATL.\n5 And this guy, H. C. Wainwright, this, you\n6 know, Mr. Dayal and Mr. Joshi came to the\n7 opposite view.\n8 Now, leaving aside whose view is\n9 right or wrong, I'm kind of agnostic in\n10 that sense, my question is, how would we\n11 go about measuring the impact of then the\n12 pieces of information? So here, the\n13 underlying piece of information that we're\n14 talking about is the ATL data center\n15 acquisition and power expansion. That's\n16 the underlying announcement from\n17 CleanSpark.\n18 And I guess, how do we parse\n19 out -- how would we go about doing that\n20 project to say, once we've now figured out\n21 by reviewing this analyst's report, which\n22 you said we would have to do to sort of\n23 disentangle this information, what process\n24 then would I go about to account and\n25 control for these different impacts to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 195 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 194\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 different users, what really mattered to\n3 them?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q So how would I measure that? Do\n7 you see what I'm saying?\n8 A I honestly don't -- I was going\n9 to say I apologize, I don't understand the\n10 question. If you could rephrase it more\n11 simply, I would greatly appreciate it.\n12 Q Yeah. So the point is, look,\n13 earlier we testified or you testified\n14 that, you know, statistically to try and\n15 disentangle different information that\n16 came out at the same time, for example, in\n17 the December 10 announcement about the ATL\n18 acquisition, if it all comes out at the\n19 same time, with an event study it's\n20 extremely difficult as a statistical\n21 way -- or tricky, I think was the word you\n22 used -- to disentangle that information.\n23 And then what I understood you\n24 told me that we would have to do is we\n25 would have to look at specific analyst\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 196 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 195\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 reports to see what they were talking\n3 about, to see what the users of this\n4 information were focusing on. And what\n5 I'm saying is that in this report, this\n6 analyst report that you looked at as part\n7 of your report, it was released the day\n8 after the December 10 news day. And this\n9 user, this particular analyst came to the\n10 opposite conclusion that you did in your\n11 report in paragraph 14.\n12 And the opposite conclusion I'm\n13 referring to is your report says\n14 \"CleanSpark's pivot toward Bitcoin mining\n15 began with its announcement of the\n16 acquisition of ATL data centers.\" This\n17 analyst looking at the same news release\n18 says the exact opposite. I'm not\n19 interested in who's right or wrong with\n20 that. What I'm interested in is, how do\n21 you measure? How do we look at when we\n22 have two users who received the same\n23 information value it completely different,\n24 how do we measure for that? How do we go\n25 about disentangling that impact when we go\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 197 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 196\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to measure and parse it out?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q So I'm trying to understand --\n6 A Can you rephrase the question?\n7 Are you asking a question now?\n8 Q That is the question. How do we\n9 measure the difference when two people\n10 look at the same piece of information and\n11 reach opposite conclusions? How would we\n12 go about disentangling that?\n13 A Sure.\n14 Q The project that you said we\n15 would have to do by looking at the\n16 reports. We've looked at the report now.\n17 Now what do we do with it?\n18 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n19 A Shall I answer?\n20 Q Yep.\n21 A Okay. So I think I've already\n22 answered this question insofar as I did\n23 say, you characterized my testimony\n24 correctly, and I did say that it would be\n25 tricky to do so. And I said there are\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 198 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 197\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 ways that we could beyond the model. The\n3 key is the model only goes so far in terms\n4 of what it can precisely measure; right?\n5 And so after we say that the\n6 model can't speak to the arrival of\n7 information in terms of it all occurs at\n8 the same time, which piece investors\n9 reacted to, there's a problem with the\n10 model at that point. It can't speak to\n11 it. This is why you have to say, as I\n12 said before, if we have a statistically\n13 significant return, then we say, okay,\n14 there was a reaction. The next question\n15 becomes, what was reacted to? This is\n16 more suitable for a price impact analysis,\n17 which I've not done, I've not been asked\n18 to do. This would be down the road after\n19 we've had the benefit of discovery.\n20 And furthermore, you have the\n21 benefit potentially of having read that\n22 entire report verbatim. I don't have the\n23 benefit of reading that entire report.\n24 I'd like to understand the information\n25 environment better, the firm, in terms of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 199 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 198\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what all of these reports are saying.\n3 Okay?\n4 But then also, I think we're\n5 mincing on this word called pivot. So the\n6 analyst, his or herself is saying, at this\n7 point in time, they don't view the\n8 acquisition as a pivot away from the\n9 company's core efforts. Whether it's a\n10 pivot or not, I think this is colloquial.\n11 It's a pivot in terms of they're changing.\n12 This is what I'm saying here in my report.\n13 They've decided to change how they are\n14 generating revenues to some extent. Now,\n15 the magnitude of the extent of that change\n16 remains to be seen at that point in time\n17 at which the analyst wrote the report.\n18 I have the benefit of hindsight\n19 insofar as saying, it's very clear. You\n20 see on the first few pages of my report,\n21 where on the company's website, in the\n22 company's end report, they come out very\n23 clearly to say that we are now a Bitcoin\n24 mining firm as of this point in time. So\n25 I agree at that point in time, maybe the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 200 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 199\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 pivot away from core wasn't as clear. I\n3 don't say pivot away from core. All I say\n4 is pivot.\n5 But through the benefit of\n6 hindsight, you can see that CleanSpark\n7 does say on their website they are\n8 America's Bitcoin miner. And the CEO even\n9 states in the 10-K, CleanSpark is a\n10 Bitcoin miner. So at some point they did\n11 make a pivot away from core. I'm not\n12 alleging that. That's what the analyst is\n13 saying. And they're entitled to their\n14 opinion.\n15 Q Wow. All right. That's a lot\n16 of information I didn't ask for, and I'm\n17 not much interested in, but I do thank you\n18 for sharing it. Like I said several\n19 times, I'm not much interested in who's\n20 right or wrong. I'm not much interested\n21 in whether you're right that they did\n22 pivot or they didn't. And I agree with\n23 you. They did pivot. They are a Bitcoin\n24 mining company, so I appreciate you for\n25 trying to convince me of what I'm sure of,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 201 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 200\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 but that's okay.\n3 My question was really much more\n4 simple. And my question was simply, you\n5 said that the model loses its ability to\n6 disentangle information once you have\n7 people receiving it at the same time and\n8 forming different opinions, and that you\n9 would have to do a different sort of\n10 analysis to study it. And my only\n11 question, all I was trying to understand\n12 is, what analysis would you do? Because\n13 you say in your report that you're\n14 absolutely certain that this analysis\n15 could be done and you could do it. And in\n16 order for that to be your opinion, you\n17 must have at some level considered it.\n18 So what I'm trying to ask you is\n19 now, if we do need to go into the project\n20 of disentangling this information, because\n21 as you've testified we can't find any\n22 statistical significance for a lot of\n23 these information dates, what I'm trying\n24 to understand then is, okay, you said we\n25 have to go look at the reports. I'm\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 202 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 201\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 looking at the report, the information,\n3 which I will note, by the way, you said\n4 you haven't had the benefit of reading\n5 this. I got it from you.\n6 So I mean, I can't say whether\n7 or not you read documents that you provide\n8 as backup for your report. You'll have to\n9 do that. But that's where the basis of\n10 that was from. This isn't like it's some\n11 document I sprung on you as a surprise.\n12 You gave me this document. So my question\n13 is --\n14 A I'm just going to put for the\n15 record that I feel you've mischaracterized\n16 my testimony there in terms of this\n17 absolute certainty that you refer to. And\n18 while yes, I do have the benefit of the\n19 document, you give me the opportunity to\n20 skim it. And as I've also said, I've not\n21 been retained for price impact analysis at\n22 this point, which is what you're asking\n23 about.\n24 Q I'm just saying, I assume that\n25 you read the document you gave me. This\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 203 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 202\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 isn't some surprise new document that I\n3 gave you.\n4 But leaving that aside, it\n5 doesn't matter. We're looking at it now.\n6 And my question is, and we'll go to the\n7 paragraph -- go to paragraph -- so I'm\n8 going to go to paragraph 80 of your\n9 report, 73, Exhibit 73. So if you can\n10 tell me when you've gotten to paragraph 80\n11 and had a chance to look at it.\n12 A Thank you. One second. 8-0;\n13 right?\n14 Q Right.\n15 A Okay.\n16 Q Okay. So in paragraph 80, you\n17 state that \"To the extent that reliable\n18 evidence is introduced to show that a\n19 significant portion of the difference in\n20 artificial inflation between the purchase\n21 and sale of securities may be attributed\n22 to non-fraud related factors, the impact\n23 of such 'confounding information' on the\n24 price of CleanSpark's securities can be\n25 determined on a common, class-wide basis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 204 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 203\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 using various accepted methodologies.\"\n3 Do you see where you say that?\n4 A I do.\n5 Q Based on your understanding of\n6 this case and your work on other\n7 securities matters, who do you think is\n8 responsible for introducing this type of\n9 evidence?\n10 A I don't have an opinion on who\n11 is responsible. It's my understanding\n12 that in discovery information can come out\n13 that could be reviewed that would be\n14 perceived as potentially confounding\n15 information that ought to be, if reviewed\n16 and agreed to, ought to be included in the\n17 market because it has the potential to\n18 move the price as well that would distort\n19 the artificial inflation calculations.\n20 Q Correct. But I guess my -- so\n21 just to confirm, you don't have an\n22 understanding as to which party, the\n23 defendants or the plaintiffs, is\n24 responsible for introducing that type of\n25 evidence?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 205 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 204\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Well, again, it's usually coming\n3 from the defendants in the case, but I\n4 don't have an opinion as to where it\n5 arrives. It could arrive from anywhere.\n6 Q Now, in paragraph 80 of your\n7 report, on that same paragraph, you also\n8 state that \"The value of any confounding\n9 information can then be subtracted from\n10 the price impact of corrective disclosures\n11 in calculating inflation.\"\n12 Can you show me anywhere in your\n13 report where you describe such a\n14 methodology to assess the value of that\n15 confounding information?\n16 A So again, the same answer as\n17 before, this is analysis that's usually\n18 done at a later stage. And so I've not\n19 been retained to do this type of analysis.\n20 Q So, no?\n21 A At this point, no, I've not been\n22 retained to do this type of analysis that\n23 you suggest.\n24 Q Now, is it your understanding\n25 that the plaintiff's primary allegation in\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 206 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 205\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this case relate to the acquisition of ATL\n3 and the power expansion there?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A So it's my understanding that\n6 the ATL acquisition had certain omissions\n7 and misrepresentations that could be\n8 potentially relevant for an investor in\n9 terms of the history of those particular\n10 assets that were conveyed. And there are\n11 other elements that I think are at issue\n12 as well.\n13 Q Okay. So you mentioned -- can\n14 you give me an example of what would be\n15 confounding information in this case?\n16 A I'll give you an example of\n17 confounding information, whether or not\n18 it's relevant to this case remains to be\n19 seen. But so let's say that you have some\n20 information where the relevant truth is\n21 revealed through some disclosure, but then\n22 something else happens. There's a natural\n23 disaster that struck a plant where there\n24 is a facility that was producing\n25 something; right? And so the market's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 207 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 206\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 going to be responding to both the arrival\n3 of the corrective information as well as\n4 potentially this natural disaster.\n5 Q Got it. And so would news about\n6 a company that had nothing to do with the\n7 allegations in the complaint be\n8 confounding information?\n9 MR. LINKH: Objection.\n10 A Again, without the full benefit\n11 of the information in regards to the\n12 scenario that we're talking about, it's\n13 difficult to make an opinion one way or\n14 the other.\n15 Q Okay. Just sent you an exhibit,\n16 which is exhibit 79, and while you're\n17 waiting to get it, I'll ask you a couple\n18 of questions.\n19 (Exhibit 79 was marked for\n20 identification.)\n21 Have you heard of a document\n22 called the Culper Report?\n23 A I have, but I'll pause looking\n24 for the exhibit then. So, yes, I have\n25 heard of the document called the Culper\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 208 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 207\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Report.\n3 Q Okay. Did you review it? Were\n4 you given it? It's not listed on your\n5 documents considered, so I just didn't\n6 know.\n7 A I don't believe that I received\n8 this document. No.\n9 Q So when you were given the\n10 complaint, because it does say you were\n11 given the class action complaint, did that\n12 complaint have the exhibits attached to\n13 it?\n14 A I mean, I don't recollect. I\n15 believe I received a copy of the\n16 complaint. I don't think there were\n17 exhibits, to the best of my memory.\n18 Q Okay. But you don't --\n19 A I would have to double check,\n20 honestly.\n21 Q Okay. So now you can look for\n22 the exhibit, Exhibit 79.\n23 A It's still waiting to come\n24 through.\n25 Q No problem. It's kind of --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 209 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 208\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A There we go. Okay.\n3 Q So are you, I guess you could\n4 take a quick look through it. I'll\n5 represent it's the Culper Report, but you\n6 should be able to tell pretty easy if\n7 you're familiar with it.\n8 A Yeah.\n9 Q The first question, I guess, is\n10 are you familiar with this document? Do\n11 you recognize it at all? I just want to\n12 know what I'm starting with.\n13 A Yeah. So I have not received\n14 this document. I have not reviewed this\n15 document.\n16 Q Okay. So I'll give you a chance\n17 to review this more thoroughly if you\n18 would like to, but I didn't know if you\n19 were aware that, you know, for example,\n20 this document and -- well, looking at this\n21 document and taking as much time as you\n22 need to kind of look through it, would you\n23 say that it contains confounding\n24 information?\n25 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 210 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 209\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I would say that's difficult to\n3 assess at the present moment without the\n4 benefit of reading the entirety of the\n5 report -- virtual connectivity\n6 interruption -- or information environment\n7 of the firm. So that's a conclusion that\n8 I have not reached today. It's an opinion\n9 I do not have today, nor do I offer in my\n10 report.\n11 Q Okay. So can you please go to\n12 the second paragraph under where it says\n13 \"Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash\n14 Can\"?\n15 A Sorry. Yeah. One second.\n16 Q This is on page 2.\n17 A Yeah. Sorry. It's rendering.\n18 One second.\n19 Okay. So I see the title\n20 CleanSpark Back to the Trash Can. I am\n21 there.\n22 Q Yep. Okay. Do you see the\n23 second paragraph under that?\n24 A I do.\n25 Q All right. And that talks about\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 211 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 210\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the Bitcoin, ATL, all of that stuff;\n3 correct?\n4 A I haven't read it. Would you\n5 like me to read it?\n6 Q Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Read that\n7 to yourself. I don't know if you have to\n8 read it word for word. But I mean, you\n9 can look at the bolded language.\n10 A I mean, it's a long report. So\n11 I just skimmed it. So if we're going to\n12 focus in on a single paragraph, I should\n13 probably read it before you ask questions.\n14 Okay. I've read it. Thank you.\n15 Q Okay. So it talks about the ATL\n16 acquisition; right? It has complaints\n17 about that.\n18 A Yeah.\n19 Q Okay. And then if you look at\n20 the next paragraph, right, and if you read\n21 that, the beginning of that paragraph, it\n22 has two pictures and then finishes up on\n23 the next page. So if you could just look\n24 at that.\n25 A Starting with E, I can read\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 212 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 211\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that. Okay.\n3 Q Yeah.\n4 A I have read the said paragraph.\n5 Thank you.\n6 Q Yeah. And that, to me, seems to\n7 be, right, moving on to a second\n8 complaint? I knew about this Valle Divino\n9 Mexico project. So that's another\n10 complaint it has. But that's, as I read\n11 this, appears to be a different complaint;\n12 correct?\n13 A I don't have an opinion on it.\n14 I would suppose that -- let me just look.\n15 Q It seems to be a different\n16 topic.\n17 A It does. I don't -- I don't\n18 recall this being in the complaint.\n19 Q Yeah. And if we go to the next\n20 paragraph, right, where it says\n21 \"Similarly, in January 2020,\" If you'd\n22 take a minute to read that.\n23 A Thank you. I've read it. Thank\n24 you.\n25 Q Okay. So that I don't -- I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 213 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 212\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 never -- I mean, except for reading it in\n3 this report, I'm not familiar with\n4 anything about this in the complaint or\n5 anything like that. It appears to be\n6 different. Is that what you're kind of\n7 reading it here, which seems to be\n8 different?\n9 A I would tend to agree. These\n10 elements seem to be different than what\n11 I'm familiar with from the complaint.\n12 Q Right.\n13 And so my question then is kind\n14 of, if we were to see -- look at this,\n15 those pieces of information based on what\n16 we could see now would seem to be what\n17 you're referring to when you're talking\n18 about confounding information. Those\n19 would potentially be examples of that?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 A Potentially. But I haven't done\n22 a full review of the information\n23 environment by the firm for the case that\n24 you're specifying in terms of the analysis\n25 you want me to opine on. And I just\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 214 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 213\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 haven't done it. And so I can't opine on\n3 something I haven't done.\n4 Q Well, I know you can't opine on\n5 it. I'm just asking you just as you're\n6 reading this document here without saying,\n7 yes, 100 percent it is or isn't\n8 confounding information, just based on\n9 what you're seeing, it looks like it would\n10 be a candidate for confounding\n11 information.\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 Is there a question?\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q My question is, isn't that the\n16 case that these could be candidates for\n17 confounding information?\n18 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q You can answer.\n21 A Oh, okay. So I have no opinion\n22 one way or the other as of today. Right?\n23 So I don't have the full benefit of\n24 reviewing the information environment.\n25 And so could they be confounding\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 215 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 214\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 information? Maybe. Could they not be?\n3 I don't know just yet. I have not formed\n4 an opinion either way.\n5 Q So I just want to confirm,\n6 though, they could be confounding\n7 information, according to your testimony\n8 just now. Could they be confounding\n9 information? Maybe. That's what you just\n10 testified; correct?\n11 A I have no opinion either way.\n12 They could not be, they might be. I don't\n13 know, I haven't done the review. I have\n14 not --\n15 Q But they might be? But they\n16 might be?\n17 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n18 A Any piece of information could\n19 potentially be a confound depending upon\n20 the information environment we see it in.\n21 Q And I'm asking you about this\n22 specific information. So for example, the\n23 paragraph that says \"Similarly, in January\n24 2020, CleanSpark signed a Memorandum of\n25 Understanding (MOU) with Shoreline Schools\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 216 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 215\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 which analysts claim could lead to $2\n3 million to $3 million in revenues.\"\n4 Could that be confounding\n5 information?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 A I'll refer you to my prior\n8 answer. I have -- I have no opinion\n9 either way as of today.\n10 Q But could it be? I'm not asking\n11 you for your opinion. I'm asking --\n12 A That's what I'm telling\n13 you -- but I haven't done a full analysis\n14 yet to be able to opine on that.\n15 Q So it could be, though. I\n16 understand that you're not sure. You've\n17 made it very clear that you're not sure\n18 whether or not it actually is. My\n19 question is different. My question is,\n20 could it be? And I think you've\n21 testified, I just want to be clear,\n22 several times, it could be, it couldn't\n23 be, I don't know, but it could be. And\n24 I'm just trying to clarify, it could be.\n25 A Any piece of information has to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 217 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 216\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 be evaluated. So any piece of information\n3 could be a confound; right? Until I\n4 review, I can't opine one way or the\n5 other.\n6 Q So it could be confounding\n7 information, including, for example, this\n8 statement, \"Similarly, in January 2020,\n9 CleanSpark signed a Memorandum of\n10 Understanding (MOU) with Shoreline Schools\n11 which analysts claim could lead to $2\n12 million to $3 million in revenues.\"\n13 That could be a piece of\n14 confounding information?\n15 A With respect to the particular\n16 information, given that I've not done a\n17 full review of the information\n18 environment, again I'll refer to my prior\n19 answer. Maybe it will be. Maybe it\n20 won't. But until I've reviewed the\n21 entirety of the information that I have at\n22 my disposal and look at each element of\n23 information in isolation in the context of\n24 the other information in the environment\n25 for the firm, then I can opine. But\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 218 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 217\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 again, I just can't opine --\n3 Q But it could be -- I'm not\n4 asking. Again, I'm not asking for you to\n5 render opinion. I'm asking you, could it\n6 be? An expert should be able to tell me\n7 whether a piece of information could or\n8 couldn't be confounding information. And\n9 I'm asking you if this specific piece of\n10 information that I've read to you now\n11 three times in this report could be\n12 confounding information.\n13 A With respect to that particular\n14 piece of information, I don't know, as I\n15 testify here today. However, what I said\n16 is any piece of information could be a\n17 potential confound, depending upon the\n18 setting and the circumstances.\n19 Q Including that piece?\n20 A Potentially, I don't know.\n21 Q Okay. But potentially.\n22 That's --\n23 A That's what I'm trying to say.\n24 Q Now, I understand that as\n25 you've, I believe, testified repeatedly.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 219 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 218\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But you haven't actually done any of that\n3 analysis; right?\n4 A That is correct.\n5 Q But if I understand paragraph 80\n6 of your report, you're certain it could be\n7 done?\n8 A What I'm saying is that the\n9 methodology for calculation -- calculating\n10 damages is flexible enough to incorporate\n11 confounding information. And so when\n12 confounding information arrives that I can\n13 analyze and try to understand the nature\n14 of information, then I can start to opine\n15 and decide about how the model should\n16 accommodate that information.\n17 Q And how do you analyze -- how do\n18 you render that analysis? How would you\n19 do it here when it comes to something like\n20 the Culper Report that has a whole bunch\n21 of information in it that comes out at one\n22 time, leaving aside whether it's\n23 confounding, not confounding? When you go\n24 to look at this piece of information\n25 that -- this document that has a lot of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 220 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 219\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 information in it, how would you go about\n3 doing that analysis?\n4 A Again, I form no opinion. I\n5 speculated earlier in terms of when you\n6 talked about confounds, you asked for an\n7 example of respect to a confound. Beyond\n8 that, I have no opinion today because I've\n9 not been retained. The charge today is to\n10 look at the market efficiency for the\n11 stock, not to calculate price impact or\n12 damages.\n13 Q Right. But I'm asking you, you\n14 do have as an opinion, as a specific\n15 opinion, unless you want to recant it, you\n16 do have an opinion in here that says you\n17 can do it. You're certain of that. And\n18 I'm asking if you're certain that you can\n19 do that analysis, how would you perform\n20 it? I know you have --\n21 A Can you help me understand why\n22 you use the phrase certain?\n23 Q Okay. So that's fine, that we\n24 can clarify. So you're not certain you\n25 could do that analysis? If you don't\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 221 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 220\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 know --\n3 A I think you're putting words in\n4 my mouth at this point. Okay. What I've\n5 said is --\n6 Q That's what I'm asking.\n7 A -- the word that you keep\n8 repeating that I've used. What I've said\n9 is it's possible. What I've said is\n10 calculations are possible depending upon\n11 the information that arrives, and I will\n12 evaluate that information at that time,\n13 and then to see with my experience and\n14 education how I can best approach the\n15 analysis.\n16 Q So it's possible, but you don't\n17 know if it's possible here?\n18 A I have not been retained to do\n19 this analysis, therefore I have no\n20 opinions either way at the present moment.\n21 MR. LINKH: We've been going a little\n22 over an hour. Is now a good time to take\n23 a break, or David, do you have a few more\n24 questions on this topic?\n25 MR. PARTIDA: I have a few more\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 222 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 221\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 questions.\n3 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n4 Q So I want to point you back to\n5 paragraph 80. So you say here, \"To the\n6 extent that reliable evidence is\n7 introduced to show that a significant\n8 portion of the difference in artificial\n9 inflation between the purchase and sale of\n10 securities may be attributed to non-fraud\n11 related factors, the impact of such\n12 \"confounding information\" on the price of\n13 CleanSpark's securities can be determined\n14 on a common, class-wide basis using\n15 various accepted methodologies.\"\n16 And my question is, what is your\n17 basis for that opinion if you haven't done\n18 the analysis? So I'm trying to\n19 understand, again, what is the basis for\n20 the opinion? Because you've just spent a\n21 whole bunch of time telling me how you've\n22 not done the analysis, it's completely\n23 outside of this report, but you say it can\n24 be done. So I'm just trying to understand\n25 what the basis of that is.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 223 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 222\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A What I have said is to the\n3 extent there exists confounding\n4 information at the appropriate time in the\n5 evolution of the case, if I am so\n6 retained, I would evaluate the information\n7 that I have at my disposal and see how I\n8 could best at that point in time determine\n9 how to model and how to control for the\n10 arrival of confounding information.\n11 But absent the specific facts\n12 and circumstances, it's difficult to opine\n13 at this moment because I've not done that\n14 analysis.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: All right. We can take\n16 a break. Do you want to come back at\n17 3:15?\n18 THE WITNESS: Sounds great.\n19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going\n20 off the record at approximately 3:06 p.m.\n21 (Off the record.)\n22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going\n23 on the record at approximately 3:19 p.m.,\n24 beginning of media unit number 5.\n25 Go ahead, Counsel.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 224 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 223\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n3 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n4 Q So Dr. Bozanic, when we left off\n5 we were talking about confounding\n6 information, what may or may not be\n7 confounding information. And I just want\n8 to confirm that you have not undertaken an\n9 analysis for purposes of this report of\n10 whether or not there's confounding\n11 information. Is that accurate?\n12 A So in terms of the potential for\n13 confounds in regards to price inflation,\n14 no, I have not taken any analysis.\n15 Q Now, when we spoke earlier, what\n16 I had understood is that the reason that\n17 that analysis couldn't be performed right\n18 now was that in order to do it, you would\n19 need additional information. Is that\n20 correct?\n21 A In part. I have not been asked\n22 to do it. So, in terms of in order to do\n23 it, what would enable me to do it would be\n24 asked by counsel, and I have not been\n25 asked at this point in the case.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 225 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 224\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Sure. So clarifying that, sure,\n3 obviously, you'd have to be asked to do\n4 it. I guess you could do it for fun.\n5 Some people practice. But I guess, you\n6 know, you'd have to be asked to do it, and\n7 then you would need more information;\n8 correct?\n9 A To the extent that more\n10 information is available in discovery,\n11 yes, I would review that.\n12 Q Okay. But you ultimately would\n13 decide what would qualify as confounding\n14 information or not because you would be\n15 the expert conducting the analysis;\n16 correct?\n17 A I would weigh in to look for the\n18 arrival of other information that could\n19 distort the effect that I am analyzing.\n20 That's correct.\n21 Q Right. But you decide,\n22 ultimately, how the model works; correct?\n23 A I'm deciding in terms of how to\n24 structure the model in terms of\n25 accommodating for the arrival of this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 226 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 225\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 confounding information. That's correct.\n3 Q Right. And I guess my question\n4 is, the defendants don't come and tell\n5 you, hey, this is all the confounding\n6 information. They might produce a bunch\n7 of other information, but ultimately, for\n8 purposes of your analysis that you do, you\n9 would decide what to treat as confounding\n10 versus not confounding information? You\n11 would make that determination?\n12 A Wherever the information comes\n13 from, that remains to be seen, but once\n14 the information arrives to me, then I can\n15 look at it and review it. Others might\n16 allege this is a confounder. And so I\n17 would look at that information, whether\n18 others have alleged it to be a confounder\n19 or not, because I'm going to review all of\n20 the information that is at my disposal in\n21 the context of the entire information\n22 environment of the firm to truly\n23 understand the nature of the information\n24 arriving, confound or not.\n25 Q Right. But then once you had\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 227 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 226\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 all of that information, you would make\n3 the final determination for purposes of\n4 your analysis?\n5 A I would try to make sure, to the\n6 best of my ability and the model's\n7 ability, to try to partial out the\n8 confound. Just like we talked about\n9 earlier with respect to market and the\n10 overall market and industry indices,\n11 trying to do what I can to parse out that\n12 information to appropriately and\n13 accurately gauge inflation.\n14 Q Right. And that's what I'm\n15 trying to understand. I just wanted to\n16 clarify that. That would be ultimately\n17 what you as the expert would be doing with\n18 all of the information if you were asked\n19 to do it and you were given some\n20 additional information, you would be doing\n21 the analysis to determine how to account\n22 for it all in the model that you build.\n23 Is that correct?\n24 A That's correct.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So I want to go\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 228 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 227\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to -- we're on Exhibit 80; correct?\n3 THE REPORTER: Yes, that's correct.\n4 (Exhibit 80 was marked for\n5 identification.)\n6 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Thank you.\n7 All right. I just sent it. And you\n8 can tell me -- and if you could tell me\n9 when you received this document.\n10 THE WITNESS: Will do.\n11 MR. PARTIDA: Have you received it or\n12 is it --\n13 THE WITNESS: Not yet. No. It must\n14 be another large file or the internet's\n15 slow.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Well, knowing my\n17 offices --\n18 THE WITNESS: Here we go.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: -- it's probably the\n20 latter.\n21 THE WITNESS: Coming in. Thank you.\n22 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Perfect.\n23 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 80 we're at?\n24 Yeah, Okay.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 229 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 228\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Yeah. Exhibit 80. And this is\n4 one of the files we got of your backup.\n5 Are you familiar with this document?\n6 A I am not familiar with this\n7 document. Let me review this. What is\n8 this?\n9 Q I was hoping you could tell me\n10 because it was part of the backup files\n11 that we got from your counsel for your\n12 report. It looks to me to be search\n13 results based on -- the bottom, it looks\n14 like it's from Thomson Reuters, and --\n15 A So this is I guess -- of Thomson\n16 Reuters. I'm not familiar with this\n17 document. I apologize.\n18 Q Okay. So I take it that you\n19 have -- do you know who highlighted these\n20 reports?\n21 A Again, since I've not seen it,\n22 I'm not sure where this document came\n23 from. I don't believe I turned this over.\n24 So this might have come directly from\n25 counsel? I don't believe this came from\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 230 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 229\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 me.\n3 Q Definitely came from counsel.\n4 So maybe I'll talk with Greg offline about\n5 what it is.\n6 But I guess, so my understanding\n7 is you don't know what it is; you don't\n8 know who highlighted this, and --\n9 A It looks like this is a listing\n10 from a search that was completed from a\n11 data vendor. But again, this document I'm\n12 unfamiliar with.\n13 Q So I will tell you that I did do\n14 a little bit of sleuthing when I got this\n15 because I too wanted to know. I'm usually\n16 interested in documents I get from my\n17 experts -- experts. So I looked through\n18 this, and it appears that these correspond\n19 to the different 19 articles that you were\n20 given to review that we were then\n21 subsequently produced. So I just didn't\n22 know, you know -- so since you don't know\n23 about this document, I'll go ahead and\n24 move off of it, other than to say, if you\n25 look at the column where it says date --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 231 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 230\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Okay. We're on the same Exhibit\n3 80; right?\n4 Q The same exhibit, yeah. If you\n5 go to the top, it says Selected TOC Title\n6 Collection Price Date.\n7 A I see it.\n8 Q And then you see like the first\n9 one, it says date 10 December 2021.\n10 A Yes.\n11 Q And we keep like scrolling down,\n12 and you could scroll through the whole\n13 thing, but I think it's in descending date\n14 order.\n15 A Okay.\n16 Q So the question, I guess I'm\n17 trying to understand is, if we go\n18 down -- bear with me one second here -- if\n19 we go down to August, so one of the\n20 corrective disclosure dates in this case\n21 is August 17, 2021. Isn't that correct?\n22 A I believe so. Yes. If serving\n23 my memory is correct, yes.\n24 Q So it's also, if we go back --\n25 A I apologize, David. Should I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 232 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 231\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 not be looking at this document again? I\n3 thought we were focusing there. I\n4 apologize.\n5 Q Oh, no, no, no. You are looking\n6 at this document. I'm pointing you to\n7 another document.\n8 A Thank you.\n9 Q So we're on this Exhibit 80.\n10 And what I'm trying to identify for you is\n11 to -- there was a corrective disclosure\n12 alleged in the complaint on August 17,\n13 2021. So I now want to refer you back to\n14 your report, and then I'm going to come\n15 back to this exhibit. I only want to\n16 refer you back to your report to exhibit\n17 6.\n18 A Okay.\n19 Q And do you see 8? Do you see\n20 number 8 there?\n21 A Yes.\n22 Q And that's August 17th; correct?\n23 A I do.\n24 Q And that's an earnings release;\n25 right?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 233 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 232\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A That is correct.\n3 Q And that earnings release\n4 certainly, would contain confounding\n5 information; correct? In addition to the\n6 corrective disclosure, that would be\n7 confounding information; correct?\n8 A Again, I'd have to look at the\n9 nature of the information and analyze that\n10 information, which I have not done yet so\n11 far in this case.\n12 Q But it could be. And I'm not\n13 asking a trick question. It could be if\n14 you were able to look at it?\n15 A We've had this debate, and so I\n16 have no opinion either way. So can any\n17 piece of information be a confound?\n18 Potentially, depending upon the review of\n19 the information environment.\n20 Q Okay. And in order to review\n21 that information, that can't be done using\n22 an event study of the one that we have\n23 here; your event study, this event study,\n24 couldn't do that?\n25 A Can you please restate the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 234 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 233\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 question? I'm sorry.\n3 Q If I understand your testimony\n4 from throughout the day or earlier, your\n5 event study, it would be tricky to use\n6 that event study to be able to analyze the\n7 confounding information if you were asked\n8 to analyze it?\n9 A So the conversation that we've\n10 had is when information all arrives at the\n11 same time.\n12 Q Right.\n13 A This is where the event study\n14 has some problems in terms of\n15 differentiating if all that information\n16 arrives at the same exact second, which\n17 information was being reacted to. And so\n18 this is analysis for later stages of the\n19 case, potentially, when we start to look\n20 at who in the market started to analyze\n21 information, what information do they glom\n22 onto, what were they citing in terms of\n23 the reasons to change their opinions.\n24 Q Perfect. Okay. That's my\n25 understanding.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 235 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 234\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So I want you to go back to\n3 Exhibit 80 now.\n4 A Exhibit 80. Okay. I'm going\n5 there. One second. I'm there.\n6 Q Okay. And if you look, there\n7 aren't any August analyst reports. So --\n8 A I'm sorry. Can you restate\n9 that?\n10 Q I'm looking between 15 and 16.\n11 A Okay. Hold on. I'm going\n12 there. Okay. I'm with you.\n13 Q Right. And then there's no\n14 August 17 report; right? If you keep\n15 going up and you start looking at the\n16 August reports that you'll see there.\n17 A I'll take your word for it that\n18 this is in chronological order, and so it\n19 would appear to be the case, I think.\n20 Yes. No, you're saying there are no\n21 reports in August of 2021, looking\n22 between --\n23 Q No, there are no reports on\n24 August 17. If I said August 2021, I\n25 misspoke. It's August 17 of 2021.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 236 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 235\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I'm going to take your word for\n3 it, but I believe it looks to be the case\n4 that this document doesn't refer, at least\n5 in those rows that I'm looking at, to\n6 anything in regards to August 17th, 2021.\n7 Q Right. So what I'm trying to\n8 understand then is -- I understand that\n9 you've not been asked to do it in this\n10 case right now. I understand that there\n11 would have to be additional information.\n12 I'm trying to understand process-wise. We\n13 have a whole bunch of news that was\n14 released all at the same time because it\n15 was in an earnings report, and that was\n16 released on August 17th. That report\n17 contains a ton of information in it,\n18 whatever the earnings release contains;\n19 right? Is that correct?\n20 A Well, a couple of points. So\n21 one, I just want to clarify. I scrolled\n22 back up on this document that we're\n23 looking at with regards to Exhibit 80, and\n24 so I'm looking at the dates. And so\n25 there's an August 16th report and an\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 237 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 236\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 August 18th report. But so in regards to\n3 the earnings release, a ton of information\n4 is concerning for me. So I don't know\n5 what a ton of information is. There's a\n6 lot of -- right?\n7 And so again, until I've\n8 analyzed that \"ton of information,\" I'm\n9 not quite sure what to do with it. And as\n10 I've said, I've not been retained. So I'm\n11 trying to do my best to detail the process\n12 for you. But also, I can't say today in\n13 terms of an opinion as to whether or not\n14 the questions you're asking, I formed an\n15 opinion on because that wasn't my charge\n16 from counsel today.\n17 And so at a later date, I'm\n18 happy to answer these questions to the\n19 extent that I've done that analysis as\n20 requested by counsel. I just haven't done\n21 it. And so I keep feeling like I'm saying\n22 the same thing to you, where you're asking\n23 questions of analysis I haven't done, and\n24 I wish I could speak to them, David, but I\n25 just can't.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 238 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 237\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Right. So I guess what you're\n3 not understanding is you do have an\n4 opinion in your report that says it can be\n5 done. And that's important. Because\n6 whether or not it can or can't be done is\n7 an issue that we have. I don't think it\n8 can be done. And I don't think that\n9 you've provided any statement in this\n10 deposition that shows it can be done. And\n11 what I'm trying to understand is the\n12 process that you would go about doing it.\n13 And so if you were to do the\n14 analysis -- so for example, we have a\n15 situation here where there's an earnings\n16 release, based on your testimony at the\n17 beginning of this deposition, earnings\n18 releases contain different pieces of\n19 information. Can we agree on that basic\n20 point?\n21 A We can agree.\n22 Q Okay. To the extent that you\n23 had to do an analysis as to whether or not\n24 any of the information in that earnings\n25 release was confounding; right, you would\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 239 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 238\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 have to look at analyst reports. That's\n3 what you've testified, because it all came\n4 out at the same time.\n5 A That is one element that I could\n6 look at. You could look --\n7 Q What else could you look at?\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 A Look at media articles as well.\n10 Q Okay. So you'd have to look at\n11 some sort of articles because you have to\n12 understand how the users are looking at\n13 the information?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 A David, once I'm presented with\n16 the information through discovery, once I\n17 am asked to do a full review of the\n18 information environment, then I can start\n19 to look to see what is the media saying?\n20 What are analysts saying?\n21 Q Right.\n22 A What information are they\n23 speaking about? And so again, I haven't\n24 been retained to do that yet. And so I\n25 apologize, but I just, I can't opine and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 240 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 239\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 answer a question where I've not done the\n3 analysis. And so I don't have the\n4 benefit. I appreciate your certainty. I\n5 don't have the benefit of that certainty\n6 just yet because I don't have the full\n7 information available to me. So if you're\n8 able to do that, that's fantastic. I\n9 can't yet today.\n10 Q Yeah, but you have stated with\n11 certainty that it's your opinion it can be\n12 done.\n13 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q That's not your opinion? So is\n16 that your opinion or is that not your\n17 opinion? You stated, and I read to you in\n18 paragraph 80, where you stated with\n19 certainty it can be done.\n20 MR. LINKH: Again, object to form.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q Great. Let's go read it. Let's\n23 go back to the report and let's read\n24 paragraph 80. We'll read the sentence\n25 again. Paragraph A-29. And you guys can\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 241 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 240\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 tell me if I've made a mistake.\n3 It says, paragraph 80, \"To the\n4 extent that reliable evidence is\n5 introduced to show that a significant\n6 portion of the difference in artificial\n7 inflation between the purchase and sale of\n8 securities may be attributed to non-fraud\n9 related factors, the impact of such\n10 \"confounding information\" on the price of\n11 CleanSpark's securities can be\n12 determined.\" You say it can if you're\n13 given that information; correct?\n14 A You are correct. So rather than\n15 use the word certainty, I do in paragraph\n16 80 use the word that can in the presence\n17 of information. So I can make an\n18 assessment once given the information as\n19 to what is possible.\n20 Q So can --\n21 A And so that would likely include\n22 analyst reports; it would likely include\n23 media stories. And so, you know, we've\n24 talked about an analyst report and what\n25 analyst reports are or not issued around\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 242 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 241\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this particular earnings release. We\n3 haven't reviewed the media, nor have I.\n4 And so I haven't taken an individual\n5 assessment as to what stories came out,\n6 what the what the journalists were\n7 reacting to from this story.\n8 Q So how do you do it when there\n9 are no analysts or media reports?\n10 A Again, once I have reviewed the\n11 specific facts and circumstances of a\n12 case, then I can make an opinion.\n13 Q I'm telling you the fact. I'm\n14 telling you to assume the fact. Assume\n15 the fact -- assume, as a fact, that there\n16 is not a single media report or not a\n17 single analyst report released about the\n18 company that day, the day of the earnings\n19 report.\n20 A I would appreciate being able to\n21 respond fully before being interrupted,\n22 but I didn't honestly hear your question\n23 because I was still trying to talk.\n24 Q Okay. So you could finish your\n25 previous answer. Go ahead.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 243 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 242\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I don't remember what I was\n3 talking about at that point time, so\n4 because of the interruption, I lost my\n5 train of thought. So if you could restate\n6 your question I'll re-answer the question.\n7 Q Got it. Well, I'll ask a\n8 different question because you really\n9 weren't answering my question. So my\n10 question is quite simply, look, if you\n11 have a date where there's information like\n12 an earnings release, and on that date\n13 there are no media reports, and no analyst\n14 reports, how would you go about measuring\n15 whether or not there is confounding\n16 information in that report, in that\n17 earnings release?\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q So I'm asking about -- I'll ask\n21 about a specifics earnings release.\n22 There's the earnings release on August\n23 17th, 2021. How would you determine\n24 whether or not there is confounding\n25 information in that specific report which\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 244 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 243\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you are familiar with?\n3 A I would have to undertake an\n4 analysis of the information environment of\n5 the firm as a whole. Look at all the\n6 arrival of information around the earnings\n7 release to understand. Now, in terms of\n8 measuring, we keep talking about measure,\n9 we've already talked about the limitations\n10 of event studies with what they can\n11 measure when you have the simultaneous\n12 arrival of different pieces of\n13 information. And then so therefore you\n14 have to look for corroborative evidence\n15 outside of the event study.\n16 So procedurally I've already\n17 asked -- I've already answered the\n18 question. In terms of the specific facts\n19 and circumstances, I'll repeat the prior\n20 answer where I don't have an opinion\n21 unless I'm given the information to review\n22 and I'm given the opportunity to analyze\n23 whereby I can make an assessment.\n24 Q So --\n25 A Hypothetical upon hypothetical\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 245 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 244\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 upon hypothetical, which makes answering\n3 the question very difficult.\n4 Q I mean, you're the one who gave\n5 the hypothetical in the report that says\n6 you can do it. So I'm just asking you to\n7 give me the support for your hypothetical.\n8 So I don't know what you want me to do\n9 about that. I didn't write your report.\n10 But I guess the question -- so\n11 basically what you're telling me, what I\n12 understand your testimony is, is that your\n13 opinion really is that it's theoretically\n14 possible to account for confounding\n15 information depending on facts and\n16 circumstances. Is that correct?\n17 A Depending upon the facts and\n18 circumstances, I will evaluate what I have\n19 at my disposal and then I'll make a\n20 determination.\n21 Q So it's theoretically possible?\n22 That's it.\n23 A It's not that that's it. There\n24 is a procedure. There is a process.\n25 There are best practices in terms of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 246 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 245\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 trying to provide corroborative evidence\n3 that I've not been asked to provide at\n4 this point in time.\n5 Q And how would that process -- so\n6 maybe I'll ask it this way. If there was\n7 no other information other than the\n8 earnings report, right, is it your\n9 position that there would be no\n10 confounding information in that earnings\n11 report?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 A Again, the nature of the\n14 question is difficult to answer because\n15 there's so many facts and circumstances\n16 being omitted where you're having this\n17 very much corner solution hypothetical to\n18 answer. And I don't know until I have\n19 seen the information at my disposal, then\n20 I can make an opinion.\n21 Q So then how are you certain you\n22 can do it?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q How can you say this sentence\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 247 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 246\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that I can do it? I don't understand.\n3 I'll be frank, it sounds like double\n4 speak. On the one hand, you say, listen,\n5 I can do this calculation. And then on\n6 the other hand, when I say, Okay. how?\n7 You say, I can't do the calculation, I\n8 don't have the facts and circumstances, I\n9 have no idea.\n10 So then I ask, okay, is your\n11 opinion that it's only theoretically\n12 possible that this could be done? You\n13 say, no, it's more than that. And I'm\n14 understanding how is it more than that?\n15 Because you've just told me that you\n16 didn't do any of the facts or research or\n17 analysis. So I'll go back to my same\n18 question. What is the basis for your\n19 opinion that it can be done?\n20 A The basis for my opinion is in\n21 the presence of information that I can\n22 review, where I've been asked to review\n23 the entire information environment of the\n24 firm, I can start to opine on what\n25 elements of information arrive when,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 248 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 247\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 whether they were simultaneous, whether\n3 they were not, and how market participants\n4 responded to those. And then I can make\n5 that determination at that point in time\n6 when I'm so asked. I have not made an\n7 opinion today, nor am I offering an\n8 opinion with regards to price impact. The\n9 focus of today and the focus of my report\n10 today is on market efficiency.\n11 Q Right. But I'm talking about a\n12 different part of your report. I'm\n13 talking about the part of the report where\n14 you say you can do more than that, where\n15 you say that you can calculate this, that\n16 it can be determined on a common\n17 class-wide basis using various accepted\n18 methodologies.\n19 And my point is either -- so my\n20 question is, if I'm understanding your\n21 testimony correctly, is it your testimony,\n22 your opinion is that it's only\n23 theoretically possible that CleanSpark's\n24 securities can be determined on a common\n25 class-wide basis? You don't mean that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 249 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 248\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 with any certainty --\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q -- you just mean it can be done?\n6 A So the word, the appropriate\n7 word is can be. So I've not said\n8 certainty. This is a word that you keep\n9 using. In other words --\n10 Q Right.\n11 A It's a word that you keep\n12 putting in my mouth. So what I'm saying\n13 there is that there is a process that can\n14 be applied to try to disentangle the\n15 arrival of different forms of information.\n16 And that's what I'm telling you. You ask\n17 for process. I've told you the process.\n18 And so absent additional information,\n19 there's not much more that I can say. I\n20 can't form an opinion on analysis that\n21 I've not done.\n22 Q It can be applied. Great. And\n23 again, I'm not asking you to, but you're\n24 saying that there is a process to do it.\n25 And you're saying that that process\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 250 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 249\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 involves looking at analyst reports and\n3 media reports. Isn't that correct?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 A In part. I need the benefit of\n6 discovery for any other information that\n7 might be protected that could come up.\n8 Q Great. In part. And so I'm\n9 asking you, what if there is no\n10 information that's available for that\n11 date?\n12 A I have no opinion at the present\n13 moment.\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q I'm asking you, how does the\n17 process work in that situation? How does\n18 the process work in a situation, okay,\n19 where you say this can be determined on a\n20 common class-wide basis. I would have to\n21 have a lot more information. And I'm\n22 saying in a world where there was no more\n23 information, in a world where there were\n24 no analyst reports, in a world where there\n25 were no media reports, like August 17th,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 251 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 250\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 okay? In a world like that, how would the\n3 process work? Does that process still\n4 work?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q When there's no other news to\n8 look at. If there's no other news and no\n9 media reports, what process would you use?\n10 A Once I had the benefit of\n11 discovery, I can answer that question. So\n12 the hypothetical is very removed from\n13 reality.\n14 Q So you're saying that there's no\n15 realistic situation where -- there's no\n16 situation in which you would be unable to\n17 calculate the impact of confounding\n18 information.\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q Is there any --\n22 A That was not what I said. I've\n23 not said that, and it's not written in my\n24 report.\n25 Q Okay. Is there a situation\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 252 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 251\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 then -- you said CleanSpark's securities\n3 can be. Which situation would it not be\n4 possible?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 A I have not formed an opinion\n7 either way.\n8 Q Well, you just formed the\n9 opinion that it's not certain that it only\n10 can be. So that's only possible. So if\n11 it's only possible, then you must have in\n12 your mind a situation where it's not\n13 possible. And I'm asking you, what's that\n14 situation?\n15 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n16 A I appreciate that. But again, I\n17 have not formed an opinion either way at\n18 this point in time.\n19 Q Okay. So then again, what is\n20 the basis for your opinion, therefore,\n21 that CleanSpark's securities can be\n22 determined on a common class-wide basis?\n23 A Again, there are common\n24 approaches and methodologies that can be\n25 applied to be able to quantify the level\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 253 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 252\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 of artificial inflation inclusive of the\n3 presence of confounding information. And\n4 to the extent I'm asked to do that\n5 analysis and I receive that information in\n6 discovery, then I can go ahead and proceed\n7 to do such analysis.\n8 Q But how is it possible that it\n9 can't -- I'm asking, is there any\n10 circumstance where it's possible that it\n11 wouldn't be able to be done after you had\n12 looked at all the facts and circumstances?\n13 A I have not formed an opinion\n14 today either way.\n15 Q You as an expert economist are\n16 sitting here telling me today that you\n17 don't have the ability to tell me whether\n18 or not, if you were to look at facts and\n19 circumstances of a case, you wouldn't be\n20 able to tell me whether or not you could\n21 measure the impact of the confounding\n22 information?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 A What I said is upon the ability\n25 to review said information, then I can\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 254 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 253\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 render an opinion. Because I have not had\n3 the ability to review said information, I\n4 have not rendered an opinion.\n5 Q And I'm telling -- and I'm\n6 asking you to assume there is no more\n7 information. Would you be able to do it\n8 if there was no more information?\n9 A And my response is I have no\n10 opinion on that particular question with\n11 the hypothetical that you so illustrated.\n12 Q So --\n13 A As formed in this report.\n14 Q So your opinion as stated in\n15 this report is that you are sure that, to\n16 the extent reliable evidence is introduced\n17 to show that there was confounding\n18 information, you would be able to\n19 determine it on a common class-wide basis.\n20 That's what paragraph 80 says; correct?\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 A To the extent you read it\n23 verbatim, yes. I didn't -- I didn't\n24 monitor to see whether you read it\n25 verbatim or not. I apologize.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 255 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 254\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q But you can't tell me how you\n3 would do it in this case because you\n4 haven't looked at the facts and\n5 circumstances?\n6 A I apologize. I feel like I'm\n7 repeating myself. But at the present\n8 moment, right. And when I have the rest\n9 of the information that could be at my\n10 disposal, then I can make the appropriate\n11 determination at the time.\n12 Q And I'm just saying, what are\n13 the scenarios in which that situation you\n14 would say, I can't figure out; I really\n15 cannot measure whether or not there's -- I\n16 can't untangle this.\n17 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n18 A When that scenario presents\n19 itself, then I would opine accordingly.\n20 If I find myself saying this analysis\n21 cannot be done for whatever reason after I\n22 have reviewed the facts after I've been\n23 asked to do that, then I would render the\n24 opinion. But I don't know because I\n25 haven't done the analysis, and so I have\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 256 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 255\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 no opinion to render.\n3 Q Perfect. Exactly. You keep\n4 saying that. And again, I'm not asking\n5 you to render an opinion on it. I get\n6 that you don't have an opinion on it.\n7 That's obvious.\n8 My point is, and the question\n9 that I'm trying to ask you is you say,\n10 when that situation presents itself then\n11 I'll come to the conclusion. What\n12 hypothetical situation is in your mind?\n13 In what situation would it not be\n14 possible? What situation?\n15 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n16 A You seem assured of an instance\n17 for me to come up with of a hypothetical.\n18 And I've not gone through the permutations\n19 of all hypotheticals as to when something\n20 would or would not hold because it's\n21 wholly irrelevant until I've reviewed the\n22 information.\n23 Q Great. I understand that.\n24 Again, you're a smart guy. I can't take\n25 other than its intentional evasion at this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 257 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 256\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 point. But the point is, and I think you\n3 probably know as well as I do, when you\n4 testified as far as I understood it that\n5 you said when the eventuality presents\n6 itself, then I'll be able to tell you.\n7 Well, that presupposes that\n8 there is an eventuality you're thinking\n9 about. So you were the one who testified\n10 that you said, okay, well, after looking\n11 at the facts and circumstances when I was\n12 faced with that eventuality, then I would\n13 do it. And I'm asking, is there any\n14 situation in the world where you would not\n15 be able to render this opinion at this\n16 point in time?\n17 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n18 A You seem insistent that I have a\n19 hypothetical in my head that doesn't\n20 exist. So I don't understand this line of\n21 questioning because you keep saying I have\n22 something in my head that I'm not\n23 disclosing. Couldn't be farther from the\n24 truth. Again, I'm not going to render an\n25 opinion without the benefit of full\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 258 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 257\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 information.\n3 Q Right. And I understand that.\n4 What I'm keep going back to is you do\n5 render an opinion that you say\n6 CleanSpark's -- the price of CleanSpark's\n7 securities can be determined on a common\n8 class-wide basis. How? You still can't\n9 tell me how. All you can tell me is I can\n10 do it, but I can't tell you how. Other\n11 than you said I can look at analysts or\n12 news reports. We've looked at the day\n13 where there are none. So I'm just asking\n14 how you could do it.\n15 A I already gave you an example\n16 where I can disentangle confounding\n17 information --\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 A -- it arrives at different parts\n20 of the day. So there are elements,\n21 statistically speaking, where you can\n22 disentangle confounding information, that\n23 is more common. To the extent that\n24 there's information that's confounding\n25 that arrives at the same time, then we\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 259 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 258\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 have to go to corroborative evidence, as\n3 I've discussed.\n4 Q Correct. And what happens when\n5 there is no corroborative evidence one way\n6 or the other? You can't do it with that\n7 model then, can you?\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 A As I said, there are limitations\n10 to the event study model whereby it can't\n11 speak to certain conditions. We've\n12 already elucidated those. And I've\n13 already also said where I would go to\n14 speak to it.\n15 Q Right.\n16 A Now, I haven't encountered a\n17 case where there's no information\n18 whatsoever on the firm existing in the\n19 entirety of the world. And so when I\n20 encounter that case, I will analyze it\n21 properly and then I will opine on it at\n22 that point in time.\n23 Q And if you did encounter that\n24 case, though, you suspect that you\n25 wouldn't be able to do it?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 260 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 259\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 A I have no suspects because I\n4 can't speak out of turn until I've done\n5 analysis. It would be inappropriate.\n6 Q Well, again, how can you say\n7 that you can do it if you haven't done the\n8 analysis? How is that a truthful\n9 statement if you sit here and say, I can\n10 do analysis, but I can't tell you that I\n11 can do it because I haven't done it?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q Those both can't be true.\n15 MR. LINKH: David, this is getting a\n16 little bit argumentative now. If you\n17 can --\n18 MR. PARTIDA: Are you going to\n19 instruct him not to answer?\n20 MR. LINKH: No, I'm just pointing\n21 that out for the record.\n22 MR. PARTIDA: And I will point out\n23 for the record as well, you've been in\n24 depositions where witnesses are evasive\n25 and you know exactly what's happening\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 261 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 260\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 here, Greg. I'm asking very\n3 straightforward questions. I've asked\n4 very simple, factual questions that this\n5 witness is refusing to answer on any sort\n6 of kind of proper basis.\n7 This entire exercise has been an\n8 exercise in obstruction, and I get it.\n9 But the questions aren't being answered.\n10 There's very simple, factual questions\n11 that have been established that this\n12 gentleman is arguing with me about. And\n13 so all I'm trying to do is make testimony\n14 that's clear on here, and I'm trying to\n15 explain the background of exactly what I'm\n16 asking.\n17 But, you know, in terms of when I ask\n18 a specific question that says CleanSpark's\n19 securities can be determined, is that the\n20 truth? And he says, well, no, I can't\n21 tell you because I haven't looked at it.\n22 I don't understand.\n23 MR. LINKH: You're asking\n24 inappropriate and, you know, inappropriate\n25 hypotheticals here, whereas this is\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 262 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 261\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 common -- out of all the issues here, this\n3 is a common issue that experts always take\n4 a look at confounding information, and\n5 they determine whether or not there is,\n6 you know --\n7 MR. PARTIDA: So I'm going to\n8 actually ask you to stop. I'm going to\n9 ask you to stop. You made your objection.\n10 I'm not going to tolerate speaking\n11 objections, and I'm certainly not going to\n12 tolerate coaching of the witness. So\n13 you've stated your objection. It's on the\n14 record. Unless you're going to instruct\n15 him not to answer, then I'd prefer you to\n16 keep your objection to the stated\n17 objection and move on.\n18 So is he going to be instructed not\n19 to answer?\n20 MR. LINKH: Dr. Bozanic, you're\n21 welcome to answer whatever the previous\n22 question was.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: Thank you.\n24 Can you read back the question, Ms.\n25 Court Reporter? Well, you know what?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 263 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 262\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I'll withdraw it. I'll withdraw it.\n3 THE REPORTER: Okay.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Why don't you go back to Exhibit\n6 73, which is your report? And can you\n7 tell me when you have it up.\n8 A I have the hard copy of my\n9 report in front of me.\n10 Q Perfect. Can you go to\n11 paragraph -- yeah, can you go to paragraph\n12 15?\n13 A I am there. Would you like for\n14 me to read it?\n15 Q Well, it says there, correct,\n16 that it says, \"The Complaint alleges that\n17 the truth regarding the ATL acquisition\n18 and CleanSpark's projections relating to\n19 the ATL expansion project was partially\n20 revealed, and/or the concealed risks\n21 materialized, on or about: January 14-15,\n22 2021, February 12, 2021, and August 17,\n23 2021.\"\n24 Is that correct?\n25 A Yes. That's an accurate reading\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 264 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 263\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 of that statement.\n3 Q What are the risks that,\n4 according to your understanding, the\n5 plaintiff alleges were concealed?\n6 A So the concern that I would\n7 start to highlight is with regards to the\n8 attractiveness of this acquisition and\n9 lack thereof; right? So you had the\n10 potential for this acquisition to occur\n11 with another company that was looking to\n12 acquire these assets. And this company\n13 chose to -- cost advantage power agreement\n14 with the municipality had a limited\n15 duration. And in order to get the\n16 operation up to snuff, that contract would\n17 run out very quickly. And therefore, they\n18 wouldn't be able to take advantage of\n19 those cost advantage rates. And so that\n20 materially impacts the overall\n21 profitability of the Bitcoin mining\n22 operation.\n23 Q What specific risk materialized\n24 on January 14, 2021?\n25 A So this is in regards to the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 265 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 264\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Culper Report and the associated tweet\n3 that followed it on the 15th.\n4 Q I'm asking about January 14th.\n5 And I'm asking what specific concealed\n6 risk materialized on that day?\n7 A So here in terms of the Culper\n8 Report on the 14th, there were several\n9 allegations in that report.\n10 Q And you were not familiar with\n11 the Culper Report when you did this\n12 report. That's correct?\n13 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n14 A That's correct. I was\n15 just -- the complaint.\n16 Q Okay. So how do you know what\n17 concealed risk materialized on that day?\n18 A So again, I take counsel's\n19 claims at face and then I analyze at the\n20 face of what is said on the complaint, and\n21 so I'm relying on the complaint in terms\n22 of the allegations. And part of those\n23 allegations in regards to the quality of\n24 the assets at the facility, the ATL\n25 facility, and whether or not it be\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 266 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 265\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 economically viable to do the expansion as\n3 intended, and to do so at cost advantaged\n4 rates.\n5 Q And what is the event, or when\n6 did that materialize on January 14 --\n7 A I'm sorry. I don't understand.\n8 What do you mean when did that materialize\n9 on January 14? The report is published on\n10 January 14, so the risks in terms of the\n11 revelation of the risk would be from that\n12 report.\n13 Q Now, do you agree that -- what\n14 was the materialization of the risk that\n15 happened on January 15th? What risk, what\n16 specific risk materialized on January 15th\n17 that hadn't already materialized on\n18 January 14th?\n19 A I appreciate the question. So\n20 the 14th is the report of January; the\n21 15th is the tweet. And so here in the\n22 tweet, one of two things would be\n23 occurring. So one, it would be the\n24 duplication of information in that report,\n25 and then the farther reach of that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 267 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 266\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 particular tweet to other investors who\n3 might not have been privy to the report\n4 from the prior date.\n5 Q But I guess I'm understanding,\n6 what I'm trying to understand is, how is\n7 that a new risk materializing? Isn't that\n8 just further dissemination? It's not a\n9 new risk materializing.\n10 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n11 A Correct. I appreciate the\n12 point. There's a nuance insofar as the\n13 investor that receives that information,\n14 that risk would have materialized for that\n15 investor upon the receipt of that\n16 information.\n17 Q Right. And could I ask if you\n18 have an efficient market, isn't one of the\n19 tenants of an efficient market theory that\n20 information is instantaneously absorbed\n21 into the market?\n22 A Well, there are several forms of\n23 market efficiency, and that is one view.\n24 Q Which is the view you're\n25 espousing here in your report?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 268 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 267\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A So here I'm espousing\n3 informational efficiency in terms of the\n4 arrival of new information being impounded\n5 into price. This is reflective of\n6 informational efficiency, not necessarily\n7 reflective of fundamental efficiency.\n8 Q And what concealed risk\n9 materialized on February 12th, 2021?\n10 A So let me go ahead and refresh\n11 myself with this paragraph, but I believe\n12 this is one of the earnings announcements\n13 with regards to discussing the delay. Let\n14 me just see. You're referring to the\n15 February 12th date; right?\n16 Q Yes.\n17 A Okay. So the disclosure was in\n18 regards to the timing of the operation\n19 ability of the new facility, whereby it\n20 was originally slated to be completed by\n21 April of 2021. But in this particular\n22 disclosure, they started to extend the\n23 deadline in terms of the potential\n24 completion of the facility to get it up\n25 and running. So the farther out those\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 269 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 268\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 profits to be realized, the lower the\n3 value of the firm if we can't start to get\n4 the cash flows to come in for the firm.\n5 Q But isn't it true, and I guess\n6 we could go back and look at the exhibit\n7 if you want to, but isn't it true that if\n8 we go back to -- this is Exhibit 78.\n9 A 78, I'll catch up to you when we\n10 find it. Taking a minute to render. Hold\n11 on. Okay. Yes, I have Exhibit 78 back\n12 open.\n13 Q So even going back to the day\n14 after the December 10th acquisition\n15 announcement, this is the report that we\n16 read where it says targeted by April 2021,\n17 but then it also discloses during the next\n18 several quarters, in line with this during\n19 FY22, we are projecting capacity to reach\n20 49.5.\n21 If we're talking about February\n22 12th, I guess is what concealed risk\n23 materialized? I guess I understand that\n24 the timeline was pushed back from April\n25 2021. I get that. So I get that that's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 270 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 269\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what was announced. I guess what I'm\n3 trying to understand is how is that a\n4 concealed risk that materialized? Because\n5 it seems like we have a document from the\n6 day months before that discloses it.\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 A I'm not sure what you mean by\n9 the document months before discloses what?\n10 Can you clarify?\n11 Q Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.\n12 Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this H. C.\n13 Wainwright report dated December 11th.\n14 A Right.\n15 Q And this H. C. Wainwright report\n16 that's dated December 11th?\n17 A Yeah.\n18 Q Is two months before February\n19 12th, 2021. And when I just previously\n20 asked you what was the risk that\n21 materialized, or the concealed risk that\n22 materialized on February 12th, 2021, then\n23 my understanding was that you looked back\n24 at that, and they pushed the timeline\n25 back, and that that's the risk\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 271 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 270\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 materialized. Do I have it correct so\n3 far?\n4 A Right. So this is part of the\n5 story. So I got confused here is then we\n6 went to this analyst report, and so it was\n7 unclear.\n8 Q And so -- right. The analyst\n9 report. Correct. What I'm saying about\n10 the analyst report is that we looked at\n11 sentences in this analyst report where it\n12 does disclose that the plan to increase;\n13 right? I'm reading where it says \"during\n14 the next\" -- under \"Bitcoin mining to be\n15 scaled immediately,\" we went kind of down\n16 to the middle of that paragraph. It says\n17 \"During the next several quarters, the\n18 company is planning to increase the\n19 capacity from the current 9.6MVV,\n20 operating at approximately 190PH/s, to\n21 50.0MVV, operating at approximately\n22 900-1,400PH/s. In line with this, during\n23 FY2022, we are projecting capacity to\n24 reach 49.5MVV, operating at approximately\n25 985PH/s and generating 6.16 bitcoins per\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 272 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 271\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 day.\"\n3 And the reason -- I'm trying to\n4 understand what concealed risk\n5 materialized is that I -- to me, I\n6 understand this H. C. Wainwright report to\n7 have already been disclosing the risk that\n8 the timeline might not -- the power might\n9 not be completed until FY2022. So what\n10 I'm trying to understand is, do you agree\n11 with that? Do you think -- because when\n12 we just previously talked about market\n13 efficiency absorbing information into the\n14 market, you know, instantaneously certain\n15 end investors might receive it at\n16 different times.\n17 But my point is, what was\n18 concealed about the risk that materialized\n19 on February 12th?\n20 A Sure. So it's my understanding,\n21 if we go back to the analyst report, that\n22 the analyst is parroting what management\n23 was saying in terms of their expectations\n24 for when the facility would be online,\n25 which it's very clear in this report. It\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 273 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 272\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 says in parentheses \"targeted to be\n3 completed by April 2021.\" And so the\n4 materialization of the risk in terms of\n5 when truth got to -- when truth started to\n6 come onto the market was this delay is\n7 indicative, and investors would be very\n8 concerned by the delay; this is indicative\n9 of potential problems.\n10 Now, we had the benefit of some\n11 hindsight. We had the benefit of some\n12 discovery to look and to say, it appears\n13 as if the contracts are not in place, the\n14 permits were not in place to be able to do\n15 the said expansion that was promised. And\n16 so, if we look back to the complaint,\n17 there are employees that discuss how the\n18 timeline was very unreasonable. And so to\n19 the average investor, this information is\n20 worthwhile to have because this is going\n21 to delay the realization of potential\n22 profits.\n23 And so, as soon as the Bitcoin\n24 miners get online, as soon as they start\n25 consuming some energy, potentially revenue\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 274 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 273\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 could be generated that's beneficial for\n3 investors in this stock. And so if we\n4 have to delay the massive expansion that\n5 was promised from 20 to 50 megawatts for\n6 any sort of time, this is going to reduce\n7 the value of the firm.\n8 Q So I get all that. And a lot of\n9 that's not in the report. I'll just note,\n10 although we could walk through that and\n11 choose which, I guess you could choose\n12 which of those opinions you want to adopt\n13 unless you don't want to.\n14 But my point is, when you say\n15 that sure, extending the timeline would be\n16 important to investors, obviously, we all\n17 agree on that. What I'm asking about is,\n18 how did that materialize on February 12th,\n19 2021, when it was already disclosed in the\n20 January 15th tweet that we just talked\n21 about, which had to do with the timeline\n22 and the -- projects; it's already\n23 disclosed in January 14th, and it was\n24 already disclosed in this report back in\n25 December 11th, that they were projecting\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 275 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 274\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 it to be done in FY 2022.\n3 MR. LINKH: I'm going to object --\n4 A Yeah, there's a lot you just\n5 said there. But this is the first time\n6 the firm is coming up and saying, we\n7 originally said April 2021, now we're\n8 going to have to push back to the summer.\n9 And so the investor is looking at this\n10 report -- if the firm itself, if the\n11 executives of the firm are saying this,\n12 right, chances are it's going to come to\n13 fruition that there's going to be some\n14 delay.\n15 And so, now the investor can\n16 take it at the word of the firm to say the\n17 firm now before they gave us estimates,\n18 changing the estimates, uncertainty\n19 increases, timing increases, lots of\n20 issues increase here in terms of the\n21 impact for investors in terms of their\n22 investments.\n23 Q So the difference is one was\n24 stated by management and one was not?\n25 A Well, again, the analyst report\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 276 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 275\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 also indicates April 2021. The analyst\n3 report you've identified. The tweet is\n4 talking about the potential for issues\n5 underlying the acquisition and the\n6 potentiality that it could have on the\n7 value of the firm, or the potential impact\n8 it could have on the value of the firm.\n9 Q Okay. So can you point to me\n10 the language of the February 12th\n11 disclosure that's the specific language\n12 that's the materialization of the risk?\n13 A I'm sorry. Point to which\n14 language where? What are you looking for?\n15 I apologize.\n16 Q You said on February 12th, 2021,\n17 there was a concealed risk that\n18 materialized.\n19 A Which paragraph of my report are\n20 we looking at? Can I refer to that first?\n21 Q Paragraph 30 -- or sorry,\n22 paragraph 15.\n23 A 15. Right. So the concealed\n24 risk -- I see that concealed risk\n25 materialized. And so if I'm hearing you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 277 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 276\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 correctly, you're saying that the\n3 materialization of risk occurred in a\n4 different date. And so what I'm saying is\n5 that in terms of the firm speaking to the\n6 materialization of risk, that February\n7 12th disclosure is the first instance that\n8 we see the firm, after touting the April\n9 2021 expected timeline, saying we're going\n10 to have to push this out until the summer.\n11 That's my understanding of what the\n12 complaint says and what these earnings --\n13 Q Right. And that's if we go to\n14 paragraph 16; correct? That's what you're\n15 talking about?\n16 A I'm sorry. I was on paragraph\n17 15. Let me go to 16.\n18 Q Yeah.\n19 A Okay. Yes, I've looked at 16.\n20 Q Okay. Now, are you sure that\n21 that's the first time that that\n22 information was publicly disclosed, or are\n23 you just understanding it from the\n24 complaint?\n25 A I'm understanding this from the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 278 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 277\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 complaint.\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 A So this is my understanding in\n5 terms of this particular earnings release\n6 being the disclosure of the firm to\n7 expansion delays.\n8 Q If the CEO of CleanSpark, Zach\n9 Bradford, had said on January 5th publicly\n10 that he did not anticipate the project,\n11 the expansion project, would be completed\n12 until mid-July, would that change your\n13 opinion as to whether or not this February\n14 12th disclosure actually represents a\n15 materialization of that risk?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 A Again, I'd have to review it.\n18 But if you're saying there was information\n19 in the public sphere that said the exact\n20 same thing that preceded this, then what\n21 you're arguing is that the risk could have\n22 materialized earlier on the basis of what\n23 the CEO had said.\n24 Q I'm asking, is that the case?\n25 In terms of the analysis, what I'm trying\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 279 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 278\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to understand is if the identical\n3 information was disclosed earlier and that\n4 information is redisclosed on a later\n5 date, the later disclosure is not a\n6 materialization of that risk because that\n7 concealed risk would have already\n8 materialized the first time it was\n9 disclosed. That's what I'm trying to\n10 understand.\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 A I think that could be the case;\n13 right? But now the concern would be is\n14 how wide-reaching are these comments? And\n15 so it's one thing for the CEO to publicly\n16 say it to a few people; it's another thing\n17 to distribute it widely through all the\n18 press circuits and the press. Obviously,\n19 a press release gets distributed to a wide\n20 swath of people. And so that\n21 materialization of risk, more broadly\n22 speaking, the public market may take some\n23 more time on the basis of the choice of\n24 how it was disclosed. And so an earnings\n25 release would reach a very large swath of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 280 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 279\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 investors very quickly.\n3 Q So if it were stated in a call\n4 following an earnings release, you'd\n5 consider that pretty broad spread,\n6 wouldn't you?\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 A Yeah. An earnings call itself\n9 would be --\n10 Q -- throughout --\n11 A I'm sorry. I missed that. Is\n12 there a question or comment? I'm sorry, I\n13 missed something.\n14 Q Go ahead. You can finish your\n15 answer.\n16 A No, obviously, so if you have an\n17 earnings call after an earnings\n18 announcement, that would also be widely\n19 followed by market participants.\n20 Q Yeah.\n21 THE WITNESS: I think we're coming up\n22 on an hour. So when we're ready with\n23 this -- when we're done with this line of\n24 questioning, a rest break would be nice.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah, that'll be\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 281 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 280\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 perfect. Why don't we come back at 4:25?\n3 THE WITNESS: About ten minutes.\n4 That sounds great. Thank you.\n5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going\n6 off the record at 4:15 p.m.\n7 (Off the record.)\n8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going\n9 back on the record at approximately 4:27\n10 p.m., beginning of media unit number 6.\n11 Go ahead, sir.\n12 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q All right, Dr. Bozanic, I think\n15 this is going to be pretty much.\n16 THE WITNESS: Was the internet slow\n17 for you guys there for a second?\n18 Everything froze up on my end.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Oh, maybe mine did.\n20 But --\n21 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yeah, I've got\n22 fiber optic, so there shouldn't be an\n23 issue on my side.\n24 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah, I hear you now.\n25 THE REPORTER: -- little sketchy,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 282 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 281\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 actually.\n3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. It\n4 froze just for a minute. I don't know if\n5 you guys saw the same, so.\n6 MR. PARTIDA: I did see it, but we\n7 seem to be okay now.\n8 THE WITNESS: I think so.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Okay. So I want to go back to\n11 Exhibit 80.\n12 A 80, okay.\n13 Q And that's this list of all\n14 these --\n15 A Opening it now. Okay. I have\n16 it open.\n17 Q So this is the exhibit we looked\n18 at earlier where you're not familiar with\n19 this document, but I just wanted you to\n20 have this in your mind when we go back to\n21 your report, because I want to look at\n22 exhibit 3 of your report. So I just\n23 wanted you to have this document in your\n24 mind and we can go back to it if you need\n25 to.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 283 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 282\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Thank you.\n3 Q So you could tell me when we're\n4 at exhibit 3.\n5 A I have it. Thank you.\n6 Q Okay. I see here below. It\n7 says \"Source: Counsel, LSEG Refinitiv.\"\n8 Do you see that?\n9 A I do.\n10 Q Did you make this exhibit 3 or\n11 was it sent to you by somebody else and\n12 you added it to the report?\n13 A I made this exhibit.\n14 Q So what is the source of the\n15 information in it? Where did you pull\n16 that information to -- I'm trying to\n17 understand where you got the 41, where you\n18 got these breakdown of numbers. Because I\n19 had assumed, frankly, and this is why I\n20 wanted you to have the other document in\n21 your mind, because Thomson Reuters is\n22 Refinitiv. This is why I was confused\n23 when -- anyways, I'm just, I had thought\n24 that this document, Exhibit No. 80, was\n25 the source of the data and information in\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 284 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 283\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 exhibit number 3, but then you said you'd\n3 never seen this document.\n4 And then I looked at exhibit 3,\n5 and I thought how would you make that\n6 without this? And so then it said\n7 provided by counsel and Refinitiv, which\n8 is Thomson, so I had assumed that maybe\n9 counsel had just done you a favor and done\n10 the chart and send it to you. That's why\n11 I asked. But now that that's not the\n12 case, I want to understand where you did\n13 get the data and information to put into\n14 this exhibit 3, particularly since you\n15 don't have the reports. So how did you\n16 make the exhibit?\n17 A Yes. So I made the exhibit,\n18 excuse me, on the basis of the reports\n19 that counsel did provide. And then by\n20 also querying the database listed for any\n21 additional reports. And so after querying\n22 the database, additional reports were\n23 identified.\n24 Q And you went in and queried the\n25 database Refinitiv, and so that's why it\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 285 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 284\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 says Counsel semicolon and then Refinitiv,\n3 where you went into and looked at it\n4 because counsel gave you certain of the\n5 reports, you identified additional ones\n6 through your searches, and then you made\n7 that exhibit?\n8 A That's correct, yeah.\n9 Q Okay. Now, I understand.\n10 A Pardon the confusion.\n11 Q No, no, no. This is why I ask\n12 these questions.\n13 Looking through, give me one\n14 second.\n15 A Sure.\n16 Q Now, you said you went in and\n17 did the searching on Refinitiv or ran that\n18 query. Is there a reason why that list of\n19 reports, like the list of them, wasn't\n20 included in your report?\n21 A I don't believe there's any\n22 reason why it would be excluded. I don't\n23 think that I created that listing that you\n24 see somewhere from counsel. It was just\n25 retrieving the number of reports that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 286 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 285\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 existed. But let me just -- I don't think\n3 anything was sent over in turnover in\n4 regards to a listing similar to what you\n5 would have seen from counsel, and I think\n6 that's what you're asking.\n7 Q Okay. That's what I guess I\n8 don't understand because I don't work with\n9 the interface that you do to look for\n10 these articles. So I didn't know if it\n11 prints out like a list, here are the 97 we\n12 identified like that, or if it just gives\n13 you a number or how it works.\n14 A I believe that's something,\n15 Greg, we can provide at some point if\n16 requested.\n17 Q Okay. We might request that.\n18 So now I understand that. Okay.\n19 And then the last thing, the\n20 last really, if you want to call it set,\n21 but the last question I have here is if\n22 you can go back to Exhibit 80.\n23 A Exhibit 80. Yes. Trying to get\n24 there. Let's see here. I am there.\n25 Thank you.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 287 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 286\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And you know how we\n3 earlier when we discussed this, we had\n4 discussed how it looked like the date, if\n5 you look in the middle, the date's kind of\n6 in descending order, starting with 10\n7 December 2021 and moving forward?\n8 A Yes. So it goes backwards in\n9 time.\n10 Q Backward. Yeah, exactly. When\n11 you go down to 40, between 39 and 40.\n12 A Okay.\n13 Q On that document.\n14 A I see it. Yes.\n15 Q Can you see that there's January\n16 8, 2021, as the --\n17 A Which line row? Which row\n18 number? I'm sorry.\n19 Q 40.\n20 A Okay. Yes, I'm there. Oh, I\n21 see it. January 8th. Yes.\n22 Q And then you just go right above\n23 that to 39, and that says --\n24 A Huh?\n25 Q You go right above row 40 to 39,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 288 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 287\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and that says February 9, 2021?\n3 A I see it.\n4 Q Right. Okay. And in between\n5 that, you don't see in between those two\n6 dates, at least on this sheet, you don't\n7 see any other news report?\n8 A You mean analyst reports?\n9 Q Yeah, analyst reports listed.\n10 A I mean, in this listing between\n11 rows 39 and 40, the two dates that were\n12 bracketing here, February 9th, 2021 and\n13 January 8th, 2021.\n14 Q Okay. But at least, and you're\n15 welcome to look through the rest of this\n16 document, but at least on this document\n17 there's nothing listed within seven days\n18 of the 14th or 15th of January?\n19 A Let me take a look. So within\n20 seven days, within a week of January 14th\n21 or 15th, '21, on the presumption this is\n22 in listed accurately in reverse\n23 chronological order, I would agree with\n24 you.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. I have no\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 289 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 288\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 further questions.\n3 MR. LINKH: Dr. Bozanic, I just have\n4 one question.\n5 EXAMINATION\n6 BY MR. LINKH:\n7 Q Is there anything in your report\n8 that you would care to correct?\n9 A I believe there is. So on\n10 paragraph 61, there is a reference to\n11 class period twice; that should say\n12 analysis period in paragraph 61. And then\n13 in exhibit 7, the header -- I believe it's\n14 exhibit 7, let me just double check.\n15 Q So wait, let me catch up with\n16 you and then I would expect you're going\n17 to submit -- are you going to submit an\n18 amended report, or am I just going to use\n19 what's stated here on the record?\n20 MR. PARTIDA: Greg, what's your\n21 intention?\n22 MR. LINKH: Whatever you'd prefer.\n23 But since the issues are relative, you\n24 know, are errata. We could send over an\n25 errata if you'd like.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 290 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 289\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. The only reason\n3 I ask is because it's your report. So I\n4 want to make sure however you want to\n5 correct it is signed off on by you, not I\n6 read this in a deposition. So if you\n7 could send me the errata, that would be\n8 great, but I appreciate you walking\n9 through them here, so you said on\n10 paragraph 61?\n11 THE WITNESS: Sorry, yeah, paragraph\n12 61, there are two references to class\n13 period that should say analysis period.\n14 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n15 THE WITNESS: And then in exhibit 7,\n16 the header for the exhibit, it says class\n17 period; it should also say analysis\n18 period. That's it.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: You know, I\n20 really -- sorry. It's not my line of\n21 questioning. I apologize, Greg.\n22 MR. LINKH: No, that's -- no further\n23 questions.\n24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record?\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Perfect.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 291 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 290\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE WITNESS: We're off the record, I\n3 just hear that right?\n4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Should we go off\n5 the record, Counsel?\n6 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Yes, I'm off -- yes,\n8 off the record.\n9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Stand by.\n10 We're now going off the record at\n11 approximately 4:37 p.m.\n12 (Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the\n13 proceeding was concluded.)\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 292 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 291\n\n1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER\n2 I, CRISTINA BETTS, the officer before whom the\n3 foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify that\n4 any witness(es) in the foregoing proceedings, prior to\n5 testifying, were duly sworn; that the proceedings were\n6 recorded by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by a\n7 qualified transcriptionist; that said digital audio\n8 recording of said proceedings are a true and accurate\n9 record to the best of my knowledge, skills, and ability;\n10 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by\n11 any of the parties to the action in which this was taken;\n12 and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any\n13 counsel or attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor\n14 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this\n15 action.\n16\n <%33266,Signature%>\n17 CRISTINA BETTS\n18 Notary Public in and for the\n19 State of New York\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 293 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 292\n\n1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER\n2 I, H. JAMES FOY, do hereby certify that this\n3 transcript was prepared from the digital audio recording of\n4 the foregoing proceeding, that said transcript is a true\n5 and accurate record of the proceedings to the best of my\n6 knowledge, skills, and ability; that I am neither counsel\n7 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the\n8 action in which this was taken; and, further, that I am not\n9 a relative or employee of any counsel or attorney employed\n10 by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise\n11 interested in the outcome of this action.\n12\n13\n <%26557,Signature%>\n14 H. JAMES FOY\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 294 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 293\n\n1 DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al. vs.\n CLEANSPARK, INC., et al.\n2 2/27/2025 - ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n3 E R R A T A S H E E T\n4 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n5 ________________________________________________\n6 REASON__________________________________________\n7 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n8 ________________________________________________\n9 REASON__________________________________________\n10 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n11 ________________________________________________\n12 REASON__________________________________________\n13 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n14 ________________________________________________\n15 REASON__________________________________________\n16 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n17 ________________________________________________\n18 REASON__________________________________________\n19 PAGE_____ LINE_____ CHANGE______________________\n20 ________________________________________________\n21 REASON__________________________________________\n22\n23 ________________________________ _____________\n24 ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D. Date\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 295 of 369\n\n\n\n\n Page 294\n\n1 DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al. vs.\n CLEANSPARK, INC., et al.\n2 2/27/2025 - ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEPONENT\n4 I, ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D., do hereby declare that I\n5 have read the foregoing transcript, I have made\n6 any corrections, additions, or changes I deemed\n7 necessary as noted on the Errata to be appended\n8 hereto, and that the same is a true, correct and\n9 complete transcript of the testimony given by me.\n10\n11 ______________________________ _______________\n12 ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D. Date\n13 *If notary is required\n14 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS\n15 ______ DAY OF ________________, 20___.\n16\n17\n18 __________________________\n19 NOTARY PUBLIC\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 296 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[& - 1q] Page 1\n\n & 199:9 230:9 12:15 110:19 16 26:9,22\n & 2:5 6:12 286:6 112:2 37:17 38:6\n 10.3 163:5 12:45 111:8,14 118:16,17,18\n 0\n 100 213:7 12:50 112:5 127:12 234:10\n 0.0000 162:6 10019 2:18 12th 267:9,15 276:14,17,19\n 0.00002. 166:6 10169 2:7 268:22 269:19 16th 235:25\n 0.0116. 156:23 10:00 177:21 269:22 271:19 17 80:13,16,23\n 0.019. 157:15 10:04 1:13 5:3 273:18 275:10 118:23 149:16\n 0.05 146:10 10th 14:5 37:16 275:16 276:7 230:21 231:12\n 153:18 268:14 277:14 234:14,24,25\n 0.05. 146:19 11 51:10,11 13 4:9 80:6,13 262:22\n 0.1 153:6,13,19 85:22 86:10 80:23 17th 231:22\n 0.1. 152:23,25 96:9 183:15,19 130 150:16 235:6,16\n 0.12. 156:17 184:11 189:7 14 4:11 156:3 242:23 249:25\n 0.16. 187:12 11.61 156:23 156:13 157:4 18 161:8,14,19\n 05 143:24 11:02 57:14 190:17,17,22 163:21 165:25\n 144:5 11th 191:9 192:12 195:11 18.79 157:17\n 1 269:13,16 263:24 265:6,9 182 4:20\n 1 5:5 16:4 273:25 265:10 18th 164:6\n 24:19 26:8 12 132:10,24 14-15 262:21 236:2\n 54:19 55:20 134:6,14,21,25 147 4:19 19 26:12 102:3\n 58:20 68:4,4,5 135:6,15,18,19 14th 264:4,8 102:9 103:5\n 132:10 149:22 136:10,17 265:18,20 106:13 117:5\n 149:24 137:11,15 273:23 287:18 118:9 128:4\n 1.65 146:17 138:2,5,6,23 287:20 229:19\n 10 26:8,22 38:6 139:3,15,17 15 63:17,22 190ph 186:24\n 79:24 94:4 140:7,10,11,13 64:10 127:11 270:20\n 148:23 149:4 141:3,12,13,15 157:13 234:10 1:00 111:8\n 153:13 154:12 141:17,23 262:12 275:22 1:21 1:7 15:14\n 154:22 155:19 156:15 157:23 275:23 276:17 1:53 166:22\n 159:10 183:21 160:10 262:22 15th 264:3 1q 185:15\n 184:14 192:18 12/10/2020 265:15,16,21 186:10\n 194:17 195:8 149:8 150:3 273:20 287:18\n 151:11 153:3,5 287:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 297 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[2 - 47] Page 2\n\n 2 267:21 268:16 288 4:4 108:25\n 2 24:10 57:17 268:25 269:19 29 120:17,20,21 32317 1:15\n 64:5,7 86:12 269:22 272:3 239:25 327 160:15\n 191:14 209:16 273:19 274:7 298 159:24 163:16\n 215:2 216:11 275:2,16 276:9 160:9 163:15 33266 291:16\n 2/27/2025 286:7,16 287:2 3 340 160:17\n 293:2 294:2 287:12,13 163:16\n 3 16:8,11 51:4\n 20 127:13 2022 274:2 356 160:18\n 51:7,8 71:6,16\n 189:25 273:5 2024 63:17 163:16\n 72:19 73:4\n 294:15 64:10 38 22:23,25\n 86:22,25 93:4\n 2020 26:8,22 2025 1:12 5:4 23:2 86:16\n 93:5 96:11\n 37:16 38:6 13:2 14:6 39 286:11,23,25\n 98:8,10 101:12\n 148:23 149:5 206 4:21 287:11\n 109:12 112:7\n 149:16 154:12 20th 13:2 3:06 222:20\n 113:3,4 180:5\n 154:22 155:19 21 287:21 3:15 222:17\n 180:7 215:3\n 159:10 183:16 21-20 99:18 3:19 222:23\n 216:12 281:22\n 183:20,21 212 2:10,20 3c 68:7 70:8,10\n 282:4,10 283:2\n 184:11 189:4,8 22 102:11 4\n 283:4,14\n 211:21 214:24 140:24 189:3\n 30 22:24 34:8,9 4 51:12 127:19\n 216:8 227 4:22\n 111:18,21 128:7,11,13,15\n 2021 26:9,22 23 4:14 28:20\n 275:21 128:24 167:3\n 37:17 38:6 230 2:6\n 301 160:12 40 286:11,11,19\n 96:9 156:3,13 24 185:6\n 161:13,17 286:25 287:11\n 157:5,13,23 255 149:12,16\n 163:15,22 41 87:4,8,10\n 160:10 161:8 149:25 151:9\n 165:25 89:6 93:5 94:4\n 161:14,20 152:20 153:2\n 309 160:14 102:4,7,8\n 163:21 165:25 159:10 162:16\n 163:15 106:12 117:5\n 190:3 230:9,21 163:15\n 31 16:21,21 184:12 282:17\n 231:13 234:21 26557 292:13\n 32 51:4 86:16 42.78 158:2\n 234:24,25 269 159:15,17\n 90:6,8,10 45 111:19\n 235:6 242:23 163:15\n 94:17 105:20 47 118:20,23\n 262:22,22,23 27 1:12 5:4\n 105:24,25 119:4,20\n 263:24 267:9 271 159:20\n 107:15 108:12\n 163:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 298 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[49.5. - 98] Page 3\n\n 49.5. 268:20 56 127:17 72 4:8 12:18,24 8\n 49.5mvv 187:6 130:23 131:11 12:25,25 13:4 8 231:19,20\n 270:24 5th 277:9 13:25 14:3 286:16\n 4:15 280:6 6 73 4:10 13:23 8-0 202:12\n 4:25 280:2 14:2,5,7,17 80 4:22 202:8\n 6 32:12 56:11\n 4:37 290:11,12 24:17 26:8,14 202:10,16\n 131:24 132:8\n 5 28:20 51:7 204:6 218:5\n 132:14 140:11\n 67:21 80:8 221:5 227:2,4\n 5 46:16,24 47:7 140:13 141:2\n 98:9 113:4 227:23 228:3\n 47:20 48:2,3 141:17 142:2\n 167:10 202:9,9 230:3 231:9\n 48:22 49:5,19 180:21 231:17\n 262:6 234:3,4 235:23\n 50:8 70:2 72:4 280:10\n 74 4:12 23:17 239:18,24\n 74:22 76:9 6.16 187:9\n 23:19 58:12 240:3,16\n 118:17 119:12 270:25\n 67:20 253:20 281:11\n 119:24 127:14 6.61 187:7\n 75 4:15 56:24 281:12 282:24\n 127:16,18 60 30:22 31:2\n 62:7 63:15,15 285:22,23\n 128:7 130:24 42:25\n 63:18 65:11,22 825 2:17\n 143:23 190:18 61 67:14\n 76 4:18 95:23 888 2:11\n 190:20 192:24 131:24 132:3\n 95:24 96:4,13 8th 2:17 286:21\n 192:25 222:24 139:2 288:10\n 147:6 287:13\n 5-1 167:12,13 288:12 289:10\n 77 4:19 147:3,9\n 50 189:25 289:12 9\n 147:14,17\n 273:5 62 67:15 9 287:2\n 773-9224 2:11\n 50.0mvv 63 4:17 59:6,15 9.6mvv 186:22\n 78 4:20 181:23\n 270:21 67:16 270:19\n 182:2 191:4,5\n 51 167:11 64 28:14,17 900-1,400ph\n 191:7 268:8,9\n 168:3 29:14 30:20 270:22\n 268:11\n 511 1:7 15:14 682-5340 2:10 91-1 15:3\n 79 4:21 120:15\n 52 26:15 29:8 7 91-9 14:20\n 120:17,24\n 31:5,7 33:4 92 16:25\n 7 4:3 32:12 206:16,19\n 39:22,23 96 4:18\n 288:13,14 207:22\n 530 2:6 97 285:11\n 289:15\n 54 128:5,9,10 98 157:23\n 71 12:23\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 299 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[981-2313 - actually] Page 4\n\n 981-2313 2:20 144:12 access 11:14 accurately\n 985ph 187:7 above 189:18 12:2 117:20 136:25 156:18\n 270:25 189:22 286:22 125:4 226:13 287:22\n 9th 287:12 286:25 accessible acknowledge...\n a absence 76:12 117:25 294:3\n absent 5:16 accommodate acknowledg...\n a.m. 1:13 5:3\n 34:13 47:19 10:14 12:10 5:13\n 57:14,19\n 222:11 248:18 218:16 acquire 263:12\n 177:21\n absolute accommodati... acquired 77:25\n abilities 50:4\n 146:21,22 224:25 78:2 104:12\n ability 34:13\n 201:17 accompanying acquisition\n 48:9 50:25\n absolutely 116:14 120:25 184:25 191:21\n 56:12 142:22\n 14:15 21:5 account 124:7 192:4 193:4,15\n 200:5 226:6,7\n 25:16 57:5 125:17,24 194:18 195:16\n 252:17,24\n 69:8 83:11 126:23 127:4 198:8 205:2,6\n 253:3 267:19\n 108:6 124:19 170:20 193:24 210:16 262:17\n 291:9 292:6\n 140:9 200:14 226:21 244:14 263:8,10\n able 8:25 9:16\n absorbed accounted 268:14 275:5\n 11:22 12:4,8\n 266:20 126:10 action 7:25\n 34:2 83:5\n absorbing accurate 26:9 79:24 207:11\n 104:9 113:7,9\n 271:13 29:4,14 39:19 291:11,15\n 125:14 158:10\n academia 40:3,5 59:17 292:8,11\n 171:3 174:23\n 98:22 87:5,6 90:19 actionable\n 208:6 215:14\n academic 41:20 120:3,4,10 101:2\n 217:6 232:14\n 41:22 46:22 125:6 134:16 actions 66:8\n 233:6 239:8\n 47:4 105:8 141:24 155:9 actual 44:19\n 241:20 251:25\n 113:21 146:3 155:10 157:2,3 95:11 127:12\n 252:11,20\n 176:13 157:4,7,8 179:17\n 253:7,18 256:6\n academically 164:10,13,16 actualities\n 256:15 258:25\n 34:8 38:16 164:19 165:22 116:9\n 263:18 272:14\n accepted 73:13 165:23 170:8 actually 11:25\n abnormal\n 203:2 221:15 223:11 262:25 22:16 30:17\n 141:23 142:2,3\n 247:17 291:8 292:5 85:21 109:14\n 142:8,12\n 113:18 133:22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 300 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[actually - analysis] Page 5\n\n 143:13 157:16 advice 97:21 293:1,1 294:1 america's\n 171:24 190:13 advised 97:15 294:1 199:8\n 215:18 218:2 adviser 97:7,10 alarms 145:9 amount 19:18\n 261:8 277:14 advisors 97:24 alejandro 3:3 20:25 100:22\n 281:2 agnostic 193:9 6:13 102:25 142:4\n added 282:12 ago 33:7 algorithms analyses 51:18\n addition 84:15 agree 5:14,19 81:21,23 51:22\n 117:10 139:19 70:19 159:19 alive 45:7,9 analysis 16:12\n 232:5 169:23 187:19 allegation 26:19,20,24\n additional 189:8 198:25 204:25 27:18,22 28:9\n 30:11 33:16 199:22 212:9 allegations 29:4,8,15,17,25\n 37:2 82:12 237:19,21 80:25 81:12 31:8,14 32:3,9\n 92:25 117:12 265:13 271:10 206:7 264:9,22 32:17,19,23\n 117:14 118:10 273:17 287:23 264:23 33:5,12,16\n 124:16 223:19 agreed 203:16 allege 225:16 34:3 35:8 36:4\n 226:20 235:11 agreement alleged 158:9 36:10 39:4,24\n 248:18 283:21 263:13 163:18 225:18 40:3 41:8 42:5\n 283:22 284:5 ahead 12:24 231:12 42:8,18 43:11\n additionally 57:20 68:9 alleges 262:16 43:25 44:5,5\n 5:16 70:22 112:8 263:5 44:12,16 45:21\n additions 294:6 115:18 118:16 alleging 199:12 45:25 46:7,13\n adjacent 33:17 120:22 137:21 allow 44:16 47:5 48:4,13\n 109:20 121:4 138:21 167:4 122:18 152:4 48:16 49:5,23\n 144:17 145:14 222:25 229:23 allowed 108:5 50:16 51:24\n adjust 122:23 241:25 252:6 115:5 52:12 54:9\n 151:3 267:10 279:14 allowing 55:21,23 58:14\n administer 280:11 106:17 58:25 59:18\n 5:13 ai 98:13,17,19 allows 76:5 70:13 72:21\n adopt 71:5 98:22,25 99:7 alluded 91:10 74:25 83:25,25\n 72:19 273:12 99:14,20 aloud 96:20,22 84:5,25,25\n advantage 100:11,13,17 96:23,25 97:2 85:5 119:6,13\n 263:13,18,19 105:7 amended 119:14,24,25\n advantaged al 1:4,7 2:2 288:18 120:6 124:23\n 265:3 15:12,13 64:16 129:9 130:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 301 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[analysis - answered] Page 6\n\n 133:7,14,23 104:22 105:24 60:3,8,10,11 168:8,20\n 141:4,21 142:6 106:2 107:11 191:23 267:12\n 146:13 167:24 108:20 109:3,8 analyze 30:12 answer 8:20\n 168:2 173:13 109:11 112:25 31:18,20 33:22 10:5,6,7,17,18\n 173:21 175:23 114:2 115:6 37:2 38:18 18:4,12,14,15\n 197:16 200:10 116:10 178:25 40:7 68:19 19:23 25:6\n 200:12,14 179:17 182:6 74:2 218:13,17 32:7 50:8 55:6\n 201:21 204:17 187:16,20 232:9 233:6,8 61:18 62:14\n 204:19,22 188:10,12 233:20 243:22 69:20 70:22,25\n 212:24 215:13 189:7,8 190:7 258:20 264:19 71:13,19 72:17\n 218:3,18 219:3 190:11 192:14 analyzed 30:4 74:21 103:13\n 219:19,25 192:14,22 31:3,16 43:5 105:15 136:2,4\n 220:15,19 194:25 195:6,9 43:10 44:20 137:25 138:10\n 221:18,22 195:17 198:6 45:21 46:10 138:14 139:8\n 222:14 223:9 198:17 199:12 89:15 132:24 140:2 158:10\n 223:14,17 234:7 238:2 134:2 236:8 173:9 174:11\n 224:15 225:8 240:22,24,25 analyzing 176:16,20\n 226:4,21 241:17 242:13 32:10 224:19 180:22 196:19\n 233:18 236:19 249:2,24 270:6 announced 204:16 213:20\n 236:23 237:14 270:8,10,11 269:2 215:8 216:19\n 237:23 239:3 271:21,22 announcement 236:18 239:2\n 243:4 246:17 274:25 275:2 132:17 170:12 241:25 242:6\n 248:20 252:5,7 287:8,9 170:15 181:2 243:20 245:14\n 254:20,25 analyst's 183:22 184:15 245:18 250:11\n 259:5,8,10 193:21 192:19 193:4 259:19 260:5\n 277:25 288:12 analysts 90:10 193:16 194:17 261:15,19,21\n 289:13,17 90:24 93:6 195:15 268:15 279:15\n analyst 86:14 99:12 114:3 279:18 answered 22:7\n 88:18 89:11,16 116:15 181:4 announcements 33:7 50:2\n 89:21 90:21 192:16 215:2 31:3 35:25 67:18 74:20\n 91:4,11,19 216:11 238:20 36:3 43:6,11 76:15 95:10\n 92:10 94:14 241:9 257:11 121:18 132:23 104:5 105:17\n 98:24 99:21 analytics 51:15 133:15,17 117:25 139:6\n 101:7 103:2,17 51:25 53:4 139:3 141:4 196:22 243:17\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 302 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[answered - asked] Page 7\n\n 260:9 appears 15:23 approaches arrive 173:17\n answering 26:10 211:11 251:24 174:19 204:5\n 27:19 76:14 212:5 229:18 appropriate 246:25\n 139:13 242:9 272:12 79:25 222:4 arrived 174:5\n 244:2 appended 248:6 254:10 arrives 171:12\n answers 55:8 294:7 appropriately 171:14 176:3\n 115:11 116:24 applicable 5:23 130:14 136:24 204:5 218:12\n 138:15 165:4 21:18 79:25 226:12 220:11 225:14\n ante 133:10,19 application approved 233:10,16\n 134:19 135:20 192:8 17:21 257:19,25\n 137:3,7,8,18 applied 73:13 approximately arriving 91:23\n 139:9,11 133:20 248:14 5:3 57:14,18 179:10 225:24\n 140:21 141:13 248:22 251:25 112:2,5 166:22 article 46:22\n 141:16 applies 15:7 166:25 186:23 47:12,15 99:15\n anticipate 9:18 124:17 187:7 222:20 101:21\n 277:10 apply 50:24 222:23 270:20 articles 99:13\n antonio 60:13 71:25 270:21,24 100:14,15\n 64:15 appreciate 280:9 290:11 229:19 238:9\n anymore 20:19 29:22 april 190:3 238:11 285:10\n 104:25 44:10 57:9 267:21 268:16 artificial\n anyways 65:25 76:12 268:24 272:3 121:14,21\n 145:13 282:23 101:4 115:15 274:7 275:2 122:4,12 124:5\n apologies 85:6 130:20 155:24 276:8 125:3,12\n 152:2 155:12 164:23 165:11 arguing 260:12 126:11,14,20\n apologize 93:12 166:11,15 277:21 127:5 202:20\n 107:7 127:24 190:5 194:11 argumentative 203:19 221:8\n 150:7 161:16 199:24 239:4 259:16 240:6 252:2\n 181:13 194:9 241:20 251:16 arrival 173:11 asics 82:8\n 228:17 230:25 265:19 266:11 175:17,19 188:7\n 231:4 238:25 289:8 197:6 206:2 aside 126:9,25\n 253:25 254:6 approach 222:10 224:18 132:20 193:8\n 275:15 289:21 22:10 33:9 224:25 243:6 202:4 218:22\n appear 234:19 41:24 174:3 243:12 248:15 asked 10:16\n 175:9 220:14 267:4 18:2,2 53:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 303 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[asked - aware] Page 8\n\n 55:9,23 56:13 134:9,10,11 assisted 62:4 attractiveness\n 67:24 70:8 164:8 170:17 64:23 66:9,22 263:8\n 83:24 101:25 188:9 196:7 associated attributed\n 108:2 115:9,18 201:22 213:5 129:8 132:4 202:21 221:10\n 116:8 117:18 214:21 215:10 264:2 240:8\n 124:3,5 125:11 215:11 217:4,4 assume 168:12 audio 291:7\n 125:15 127:5 217:5,9 219:13 201:24 241:14 292:3\n 155:14 165:12 219:18 220:6 241:14,15 august 26:9,22\n 171:25 172:18 232:13 236:14 253:6 37:17 38:6\n 179:19 187:25 236:22 242:20 assumed 230:19,21\n 192:12 197:17 244:6 248:23 164:13 282:19 231:12,22\n 219:6 223:21 249:9,16 283:8 234:7,14,16,21\n 223:24,25 251:13 252:9 assured 255:16 234:24,24,25\n 224:3,6 226:18 253:6 255:4 atl 193:4,14 235:6,16,25\n 233:7 235:9 256:13 257:13 194:17 195:16 236:2 242:22\n 238:17 243:17 260:2,16,23 205:2,6 210:2 249:25 262:22\n 245:3 246:22 264:4,5 273:17 210:15 262:17 auslander 2:16\n 247:6 252:4 277:24 285:6 262:19 264:24 authorized\n 254:23 260:3 aspects 170:7 attached 5:12\n 269:20 283:11 assess 38:12 207:12 auto 99:20\n asking 8:19 9:4 43:2 73:14 attachment availability\n 22:3,4 25:8 90:11 144:20 12:18 95:19 174:6\n 41:4,7,8 48:12 204:14 209:3 attacking available 87:12\n 49:13 50:14 assessing 102:17 95:16 104:8\n 53:20 55:16 121:19 122:11 attendance 6:6 118:11 172:8\n 57:9 61:9,15 assessment attention 95:3 224:10 239:7\n 61:17 62:22 37:21 240:18 95:3,4 100:25 249:10\n 65:17 66:15,25 241:5 243:23 133:14 167:8 avenue 2:6,17\n 69:14 70:4 assets 205:10 178:21 average 55:21\n 71:10,20 72:16 263:12 264:24 attorney 9:25 170:11,15\n 81:6 86:12 assist 51:15 9:25 291:13 272:19\n 89:2 101:8,9 53:9,12 54:9 292:9 aware 60:25\n 101:24 108:10 54:10 121:10 attorneys 65:2,7,9,10,19\n 110:3 129:16 112:18,20 65:23 88:2,12\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 304 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[aware - believe] Page 9\n\n 88:16,19 98:3 167:10 171:10 banking 97:8 bear 28:13\n 100:2 123:2,7 179:23 180:6 base 76:25 179:23 230:18\n 123:9 126:3 189:22 190:13 based 9:6 16:12 bears 99:18\n 127:3 179:25 190:14 191:4,5 40:17 70:12 beat 99:17\n 180:9 208:19 209:13,20 72:20 78:18 beautiful 132:8\n b 221:4 222:16 124:24 173:19 began 195:15\n 230:24 231:13 189:6 203:5 begets 95:4\n b 4:6 16:16\n 231:15,16 212:15 213:8 beginning\n 73:12 79:24\n 234:2 235:22 228:13 237:16 25:11 57:17\n 177:20 178:23\n 239:23 246:17 basic 237:19 112:6 154:13\n back 22:22\n 257:4 261:24 basically 78:10 154:25 167:2\n 24:16 28:11\n 262:5 268:6,8 80:12 94:13 210:21 222:24\n 29:23 30:2,20\n 268:11,13,24 119:4 128:24 237:17 280:10\n 31:5,19 36:5\n 269:23,25 244:11 begins 185:8\n 36:12,23 43:23\n 271:21 272:16 basis 35:9,14 behalf 2:2,13\n 44:3 57:18,22\n 273:24 274:8 37:4,6 38:8 behavior 120:7\n 58:12,19 64:12\n 280:2,9 281:10 47:22 56:13 believe 22:7\n 67:20,21 68:4\n 281:20,24 69:4,21 74:11 33:6 49:25\n 71:23 72:16\n 285:22 74:14 76:3,9 60:17 61:12\n 75:9 93:4 98:7\n background 76:17 79:12,19 64:23 81:4\n 98:8,10 105:19\n 11:5 79:13 90:3 122:22 95:10 119:19\n 107:23 111:14\n 80:15 99:24 125:14 126:5 120:10 146:17\n 112:10 113:2\n 260:15 173:14 201:9 148:15 160:3\n 117:3 118:14\n backup 4:19 202:25 221:14 163:7 166:3\n 118:15,19\n 101:25 147:16 221:17,19,25 176:13 180:21\n 120:22 127:9\n 182:23 201:8 246:18,20 181:20 190:12\n 127:10 136:19\n 228:4,10 247:17,25 190:16 207:7\n 137:17,25\n backward 249:20 251:20 207:15 217:25\n 138:9,16\n 286:10 251:22 253:19 228:23,25\n 140:19 152:23\n backwards 257:8 260:6 230:22 235:3\n 153:2 154:15\n 286:8 277:22 278:23 267:11 284:21\n 160:24 162:2\n bad 127:25 283:18 285:14 288:9\n 162:15 166:17\n 186:15 bathroom 57:4 288:13\n 166:25 167:7,9\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 305 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[beneficial - bozanic] Page 10\n\n beneficial 113:23 127:18 14:11 15:1 106:1 107:1\n 273:2 132:6 175:5 16:1 17:1 18:1 108:1 109:1\n benefit 127:7 182:16 229:14 18:16 19:1 110:1 111:1,17\n 188:2 197:19 259:16 20:1 21:1 22:1 112:1,11 113:1\n 197:21,23 bitcoin 81:15 23:1 24:1 25:1 114:1 115:1\n 198:18 199:5 81:20 82:7,11 26:1 27:1 28:1 116:1 117:1\n 201:4,18 82:22,24 29:1 30:1 31:1 118:1 119:1\n 206:10 209:4 184:20,25 32:1 33:1 34:1 120:1 121:1\n 213:23 239:4,5 185:8 188:18 35:1 36:1 37:1 122:1 123:1\n 249:5 250:10 189:23 193:3 38:1 39:1 40:1 124:1 125:1\n 256:25 272:10 195:14 198:23 41:1,4 42:1 126:1 127:1\n 272:11 199:8,10,23 43:1 44:1 45:1 128:1 129:1\n best 8:20 9:22 210:2 263:21 46:1 47:1 48:1 130:1 131:1\n 48:8 50:4,25 270:14 272:23 49:1 50:1 51:1 132:1 133:1\n 105:15 207:17 bitcoins 187:8 52:1 53:1 54:1 134:1 135:1\n 220:14 222:8 270:25 55:1 56:1 57:1 136:1 137:1\n 226:6 236:11 bizarre 93:24 57:23 58:1 138:1 139:1\n 244:25 291:9 blank 110:10 59:1 60:1 61:1 140:1 141:1\n 292:5 blue 14:21 62:1 63:1 64:1 142:1 143:1\n better 115:19 129:8 65:1 66:1 67:1 144:1 145:1\n 143:19 146:20 bold 23:7 68:1 69:1 70:1 146:1 147:1\n 152:5 197:25 bolded 210:9 71:1 72:1 73:1 148:1 149:1\n betts 1:17 5:9 book 78:4 74:1 75:1 76:1 150:1 151:1\n 8:10 291:2,17 bottom 113:5 77:1 78:1 79:1 152:1 153:1\n beyond 27:10 120:18 127:22 80:1 81:1 82:1 154:1 155:1\n 178:7 179:11 128:4 150:16 83:1 84:1 85:1 156:1 157:1\n 197:2 219:7 228:13 86:1 87:1 88:1 158:1 159:1\n big 184:21 box 91:17 89:1 90:1 91:1 160:1 161:1\n bigger 156:7 bozanic 1:11 92:1 93:1 94:1 162:1 163:1\n bit 30:14 49:2 4:9,11,13 5:1,6 95:1 96:1 97:1 164:1 165:1\n 54:18 64:11 6:1,8,8,20 7:1,6 98:1 99:1 166:1 167:1,7\n 68:2 85:21 8:1 9:1 10:1 100:1 101:1 168:1 169:1\n 92:7 93:24 11:1 12:1,16 102:1 103:1 170:1 171:1\n 99:5 108:2,3 13:1,3,7 14:1,6 104:1 105:1 172:1 173:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 306 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[bozanic - call] Page 11\n\n 174:1 175:1 242:1 243:1 164:18 166:12 74:16 101:17\n 176:1 177:1 244:1 245:1 166:15 220:23 177:21 178:23\n 178:1 179:1 246:1 247:1 222:16 279:24 182:20 191:8\n 180:1 181:1 248:1 249:1 breakdown 193:5 269:12\n 182:1 183:1 250:1 251:1 282:18 269:15 271:6\n 184:1 185:1 252:1 253:1 breaking cain 4:16 52:10\n 186:1 187:1 254:1 255:1 172:11 52:21 53:9,11\n 188:1 189:1 256:1 257:1 briefly 167:8,9 53:24 60:4\n 190:1 191:1 258:1 259:1 broad 279:5 63:17 64:10\n 192:1 193:1 260:1 261:1,20 broadly 278:21 65:13\n 194:1 195:1 262:1 263:1 broker 91:19 cain's 53:4 60:5\n 196:1 197:1 264:1 265:1 97:7 104:22 calculate 56:12\n 198:1 199:1 266:1 267:1 brokerage 88:8 83:19 124:5\n 200:1 201:1 268:1 269:1 110:7 125:12 126:20\n 202:1 203:1 270:1 271:1 brokers 94:4 127:4 219:11\n 204:1 205:1 272:1 273:1 btig 101:17 247:15 250:17\n 206:1 207:1 274:1 275:1 build 226:22 calculated\n 208:1 209:1 276:1 277:1 bunch 31:21 79:19 126:10\n 210:1 211:1 278:1 279:1 41:5 82:12 134:24 141:22\n 212:1 213:1 280:1,14 281:1 99:14 177:2 148:22 149:4\n 214:1 215:1 282:1 283:1 218:20 221:21 calculating\n 216:1 217:1 284:1 285:1 225:6 235:13 121:20 122:12\n 218:1 219:1 286:1 287:1 burden 122:2 204:11 218:9\n 220:1 221:1 288:1,3 289:1 business 90:12 calculation\n 222:1 223:1,4 290:1 293:2,24 104:25 110:8 37:13,18,20\n 224:1 225:1 294:2,4,12 110:10 38:5,23 39:3\n 226:1 227:1 bracketing buy 90:17 39:11 218:9\n 228:1 229:1 287:12 97:20 246:5,7\n 230:1 231:1 bradford 2:14 buysellsignals calculations\n 232:1 233:1 7:12 277:9 100:3 101:17 52:5 203:19\n 234:1 235:1 break 10:12,19 c 220:10\n 236:1 237:1 54:17 57:4,24 call 36:18\n c 2:1 3:1 4:20\n 238:1 239:1 107:24 110:20 279:3,8,17\n 16:16 73:22\n 240:1 241:1 110:24 112:12 285:20\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 307 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[called - change] Page 12\n\n called 6:21 caption 15:12 283:12 205:6 218:6\n 97:10 198:5 care 288:8 cases 21:19 219:17,18,22\n 206:22,25 careful 136:23 38:10 40:25 219:24 245:21\n cammer 20:15 cares 77:14 48:23 53:7 251:9 258:11\n 20:22 21:24 cars 145:5 63:10 66:5,14 271:14 284:4\n 32:11 46:16,24 case 1:6 7:9 66:19 79:24 certainly 57:7\n 47:7,20 48:2,3 15:14 18:10 116:12,14 111:20 116:20\n 48:7,22 49:5 21:16,17 23:16 cash 83:22 84:9 232:4 261:11\n 49:19 50:8,10 24:4 32:25 85:5 268:4 certainty\n 50:17 55:20 35:23 36:19 catch 268:9 201:17 239:4,5\n 63:12 68:20 37:22 48:2 288:15 239:11,19\n 70:2 72:4 53:18 54:21 cause 43:3 240:15 248:2,8\n 73:12 74:3,22 59:19,20,21 68:16 73:24 certificate\n 76:9 77:13 60:13,15,17,23 74:23 119:8,14 291:1 292:1\n 86:12 109:8 60:25 61:11,20 120:6 certification\n 119:10,12,24 61:25 62:3,5 cautioned 108:18 121:25\n candidate 62:11 64:13,22 97:22 122:18 178:9\n 213:10 64:24 66:21,22 caveat 96:20 certified 5:19\n candidates 75:5 78:21,23 caveating 97:4 certify 291:3\n 213:16 81:12 123:3,5 caveats 136:7 292:2\n capable 170:24 123:16 126:16 cell 11:15 160:4 cfallon 2:9\n 172:11,16,24 144:23 176:12 160:12 161:13 chance 51:10\n capacities 176:22 177:11 cells 149:10 142:21,23\n 53:12 180:25 203:6 152:13 143:2 190:22\n capacity 82:11 204:3 205:2,15 center 193:14 202:11 208:16\n 82:15,24 83:6 205:18 212:23 centers 195:16 chances 274:12\n 83:17 186:22 213:16 222:5 ceo 199:8 277:8 change 34:4\n 187:5 188:5,23 223:25 230:20 277:23 278:15 84:8 89:21\n 268:19 270:19 232:11 233:19 certain 48:11 125:20,23\n 270:23 234:19 235:3 51:17 72:2 126:6 153:8\n capital 95:4 235:10 241:12 78:20 103:18 198:13,15\n 100:21 114:18 252:19 254:3 104:9 107:22 233:23 277:12\n 133:13 258:17,20,24 114:19 131:19 293:4,7,10,13\n 277:24 278:12 171:5 200:14 293:16,19\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 308 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[changed - cleanspark's] Page 13\n\n changed 38:20 choose 98:25 clarifying 247:17,25\n 85:11 273:11,11 172:3 224:2 249:20 251:22\n changes 124:6 chose 29:25 class 7:25 253:19 257:8\n 152:3 294:6 66:15 136:8 25:23 26:5,7 288:11 289:12\n changing 20:18 263:13 26:21 27:3,4,6 289:16\n 198:11 274:18 chosen 35:12 27:9,10,13,19 classified 139:4\n characteristics chris 2:4 27:21,23 28:9 141:5 154:18\n 92:19 112:15,16,17 28:10 29:6,10 clause 68:13\n characterizati... chronological 29:19 30:3,6,7 72:6,13\n 90:23 234:18 287:23 31:4,10,19,20 cleanspark 1:7\n characterize circuits 278:18 31:22,25 32:13 2:13 4:11 7:9\n 123:8 circulate 11:23 32:16,18,19 7:13 15:13\n characterized circumstance 33:11,17 35:2 28:17,20 55:19\n 196:23 252:10 35:15,17 37:14 67:17 82:10\n charge 123:4 circumstances 37:22,23 38:5 88:4,13,23\n 219:9 236:15 47:11 124:13 38:13,14,23 89:8 129:11\n charged 114:14 176:12,22 39:19 40:6 141:3 193:2,17\n chart 131:7 217:18 222:12 41:2,12,17 199:6,9 209:13\n 132:8 134:12 241:11 243:19 42:5,6,17 43:7 209:20 214:24\n 140:11 185:4 244:16,18 43:13,17,19,21 216:9 277:8\n 185:13,23,25 245:15 246:8 44:2,7,11,13,15 293:1 294:1\n 186:2 283:10 252:12,19 44:18,19,22 cleanspark's\n chat 11:24 254:5 256:11 45:25 46:6,6 31:3 43:6,10\n cheaper 81:24 cite 48:24 46:11 48:18 68:21 73:5,15\n check 15:21 citing 233:22 56:13 58:15,23 74:4 83:21\n 91:17 180:16 claim 215:2 59:2,19 66:8 88:14 101:22\n 183:2 207:19 216:11 68:22 73:6 119:7 120:7\n 288:14 claims 79:21 74:6 79:19,24 129:3 168:4,17\n cherry 36:24 264:19 108:18 121:25 170:5 195:14\n 48:10 clarify 71:2,4 122:17 154:13 202:24 221:13\n chicago 99:17 105:14 118:8 154:25 168:5 240:11 247:23\n choice 77:10 127:21 215:24 168:18 178:8 251:2,21 257:6\n 278:23 219:24 226:16 183:21 202:25 257:6 260:18\n 235:21 269:10 207:11 221:14 262:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 309 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[clear - company's] Page 14\n\n clear 8:23 14:2 coefficients comes 63:23 249:20 251:22\n 15:8 16:8 21:7 129:21 130:6,9 122:5 123:6 251:23 253:19\n 28:16 32:8 130:14 148:8 173:22 194:18 257:7,23 261:2\n 38:21 49:2 coffee 166:9 218:19,21 261:3\n 70:6 84:21,22 coin 144:20 225:12 commonalities\n 85:4 123:13 145:17 comfort 10:12 20:14\n 184:10,16 collect 56:10 110:20 commonly\n 187:11,14 collection comfortable 133:25 146:4\n 189:11 198:19 230:6 111:18 161:12 companies\n 199:2 215:17 colloquial coming 63:25 25:20 97:14\n 215:21 260:14 133:12 198:10 131:12 145:6 company 7:10\n 271:25 column 132:11 177:14 182:8 29:16 43:4\n clearer 82:21 132:11 144:17 204:2 227:21 68:17 73:25\n clearly 9:16 145:14 148:11 274:6 279:21 81:15 82:22\n 31:11 69:22 150:4 151:2,3 comment 100:4 87:19 88:5,7\n 80:22 139:12 151:4,17,18 279:12 89:7 90:12\n 198:23 152:8,9 154:2 commentary 93:9 100:5\n cleveland 51:15 156:15,18 87:14 119:9,15 120:8\n 51:25 53:3 157:6 158:12 comments 121:18 130:11\n 60:3,8,9,11 159:11,16 278:14 168:4,8,16,20\n click 152:8,11 160:11 229:25 committed 168:25 169:13\n 152:17 come 9:20 33:5 180:11 169:16 170:8\n clicked 151:15 35:3 43:23 common 19:14 170:21 171:2\n client 20:10 75:5 106:23 20:8 21:5 172:8,9,14\n 21:22 88:14 111:14 122:17 25:15 30:5 173:2 186:13\n close 183:14 166:17 169:19 55:19 68:18,21 186:21 192:6\n closer 148:25 169:21 198:22 73:5,15,25 199:24 206:6\n closing 173:20 203:12 207:23 74:4 79:20 241:18 263:11\n clsk 209:13 222:16 225:4 91:25 119:7 263:12 270:18\n coaching 228:24 231:14 120:7 121:17 company's\n 261:12 249:7 255:11 129:4 168:5,7 90:17 121:17\n coefficient 255:17 268:4 168:17,19 168:7,19\n 129:7 272:6 274:12 202:25 221:14 188:22 191:22\n 280:2 247:16,24 198:9,21,22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 310 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[compared - confounding] Page 15\n\ncompared 52:8 components 36:20,21 44:7 216:3 217:17\ncomparison 56:4 48:4 49:7,17 219:7 225:24\n 52:11 composite 77:2 69:15,18 71:9 226:8 232:17\ncomplaint computations 72:14 192:24 confounder\n 80:25 154:15 83:4 130:18 193:2 195:10 225:16,18\n 154:17,19,23 computer 12:3 195:12 209:7 confounding\n 155:21,22 148:25 255:11 36:15 37:8\n 192:21 206:7 computers 83:4 conclusions 122:20,22,24\n 207:10,11,12 150:10 43:24 44:17 123:2,10,18\n 207:16 211:8 concealed 49:18 196:11 124:8 125:18\n 211:10,11,18 262:20 263:5 conditions 125:25 126:2,9\n 212:4,11 264:5,17 267:8 258:11 126:22 127:2\n 231:12 262:16 268:22 269:4 conduct 38:4 202:23 203:14\n 264:15,20,21 269:21 271:4 142:5,6 204:8,15\n 272:16 276:12 271:18 275:17 conducted 205:15,17\n 276:24 277:2 275:23,24 121:10 206:8 208:23\ncomplaints 278:7 conducting 212:18 213:8\n 210:16 concede 179:8 141:21 224:15 213:10,17,25\ncomplete 15:23 conceivably confirm 59:4 214:6,8 215:4\n 294:9 82:18 117:22 60:2 106:8 216:6,14 217:8\ncompleted conceptually 151:23 154:21 217:12 218:11\n 124:22 190:2 83:13 84:19 157:25 158:3 218:12,23,23\n 229:10 267:20 85:12 159:2 161:4 221:12 222:3\n 271:9 272:3 concern 33:8 167:23 203:21 222:10 223:5,7\n 277:11 33:10 263:6 214:5 223:8 223:10 224:13\ncompletely 278:13 confirmed 225:2,5,9,10\n 195:23 221:22 concerned 165:16 232:4,7 233:7\ncompletion 137:23 272:8 confirms 237:25 240:10\n 267:24 concerning 174:21 242:15,24\ncomplex 81:21 134:18 236:4 conflict 89:3 244:14 245:10\n 116:8,11 concluded 47:5 conflicts 88:6,9 250:17 252:3\ncomponent 290:13 88:19 252:21 253:17\n 56:5 98:25 conclusion 29:5 confound 257:16,22,24\n 99:2 29:15 32:4 123:23 214:19 261:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 311 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[confounds - correct] Page 16\n\n confounds consuming control 130:10 copying 20:20\n 219:6 223:13 272:25 193:25 222:9 core 191:22\n confused 121:8 consumption controlled 198:9 199:2,3\n 270:5 282:22 192:9 129:2,23 199:11\n confusing 46:8 cont'd 3:1 controlling corner 245:17\n 189:21 contain 89:7 150:21 168:24 cornerstone\n confusion 90:25 91:5 controls 130:13 3:4 6:14\n 44:11 45:20,20 107:4,6 232:4 convention corporate\n 173:5 190:5,6 237:18 145:25 146:2 98:23 134:2\n 284:10 contained 46:7 conventionally correct 14:12\n connection 92:23 144:3 16:17,18 17:7\n 54:3 55:24 contains convergence 17:8,9 21:12\n 61:5 64:21 171:21 208:23 146:18 24:5 26:5,6,24\n connectivity 235:17,18 conversation 26:25 27:3,6,8\n 209:5 content 47:15 9:21 136:20 27:11 29:20\n consensus 87:9,24 91:14 233:9 36:11 42:19\n 116:17 94:16 95:11 convey 133:9 50:15 58:16\n consider 40:12 108:19 110:13 133:24 137:11 59:23 60:6\n 46:20 279:5 contents 54:20 conveyed 94:9 79:16 85:2,6\n consideration context 99:9 106:6 205:10 95:23,24\n 25:21 35:23,24 216:23 225:21 convince 117:14 124:18\n considered contract 32:3 199:25 125:8,20,21\n 47:23 52:15 263:16 cookie 91:16 129:24 132:13\n 132:21 200:17 contracts cool 91:2 132:18 134:22\n 207:5 272:13 copied 18:22 136:11,12,17\n considering contradict 41:6 140:10,15\n 132:17 190:7 190:10 copy 11:7 141:8,9,18\n consistent 72:6 contributed 14:13,18,19,22 142:4,9,10,14\n 131:20 94:5 14:23,25 15:2 144:14,15\n constitute 6:3 contributors 15:20 17:16 145:19 147:4\n construed 98:12 107:3 18:3,17 21:20 148:11 149:22\n 97:18 109:12 113:9 22:5 207:15 153:7,9,22\n consult 97:22 114:7 115:24 262:8 157:10,11,20\n 116:4 157:21 158:5,6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 312 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[correct - cv] Page 17\n\n 158:7 159:22 corrective 228:11,25 109:11 114:15\n 159:23 160:2,3 123:20 156:25 229:3 236:16 create 30:10\n 161:14,17,20 157:5 160:6 236:20 282:7 53:17 54:13\n 161:21,24,25 183:9 204:10 283:7,9,19 90:24 92:16\n 162:3,18 163:3 206:3 230:20 284:2,4,24 181:7\n 163:6 164:2,22 231:11 232:6 285:5 290:5 created 17:19\n 167:13 169:2 correctly 14:11 291:10,13 17:22 284:23\n 169:20 170:2 25:9 78:11 292:6,9 creates 53:5\n 173:15,16 93:5 119:12 counsel's creating 110:8\n 174:16,20 124:21 132:9 264:18 creation 51:18\n 175:3,4 177:10 169:4 172:6 couple 7:14 8:6 98:17 100:15\n 179:20 188:16 196:24 247:21 8:9 10:24 109:23\n 189:3 203:20 276:2 17:14 112:24 credit 88:18\n 210:3 211:12 correspond 118:22 206:17 cristina 1:17\n 214:10 218:4 132:12 229:18 235:20 5:9 291:2,17\n 223:20 224:8 corroborate course 59:14,14 criteria 36:8\n 224:16,20,22 73:14 court 1:1 5:8 134:20\n 225:2 226:23 corroborating 8:9 9:10 15:6,7 crystal 21:7\n 226:24 227:2,3 179:14 15:10 63:23 culper 4:21\n 230:21,23 corroborative 77:6 137:24 206:22,25\n 231:22 232:2,5 243:14 245:2 138:10 165:3 208:5 218:20\n 232:7 235:19 258:2,5 261:25 264:2,7,11\n 240:13,14 cost 84:8,13 courts 20:19 current 186:22\n 244:16 249:3 263:13,19 46:20 48:8 270:19\n 253:20 258:4 265:3 50:24 73:13 currently\n 262:15,24 costs 81:22,25 cover 8:5,8 175:22\n 264:12,14 192:9 15:8 63:21 cut 20:2 153:16\n 266:11 270:2,9 counsel 6:9,12 162:15 181:4 cutoff 143:6,20\n 276:14 284:8 7:2,8 103:5 coverage 86:14 143:25 144:4\n 288:8 289:5 112:8 117:10 89:7 94:14 146:11\n 294:8 117:11,18 99:22 101:7,23 cutter 91:16\n corrections 167:4 180:15 103:2 105:24 cutting 71:18\n 294:6 182:22 183:2,4 106:13 107:11 cv 1:7 15:14\n 222:25 223:24 107:18 109:3,8 66:10\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 313 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[d - december] Page 18\n\n d databases 152:2 155:5 133:13 134:21\n d 4:1,16 16:16 93:16,16,18 166:8 220:23 135:6,20\n 79:18 113:15 103:20 114:15 230:25 236:24 136:10,17\n daily 173:19 114:16 115:4 238:15 259:15 139:16,17\n 174:16 175:24 115:17 117:12 day 11:11 140:7,10,12,15\n damages 56:12 date 1:12 5:4 54:16 63:6,8 140:17 141:12\n 79:18,22 16:12 70:13 132:13,18,21 141:13,15,16\n 218:10 219:12 72:21 108:4 133:3,3,22,24 141:24 156:2\n dandy 156:15 149:7 154:19 134:14 135:16 161:5 164:3,4\n darshan 1:4 154:22,24 139:4,5 141:5 164:20,21\n 2:2 15:12 155:20 156:12 141:7 154:17 165:6,17,20\n 293:1 294:1 156:13 157:5 155:11 157:13 180:20,20\n data 56:2,4,7,9 159:10,12 159:18,21,25 181:12 183:7\n 56:10 93:25 161:19 229:25 160:8,13 161:6 183:10 287:17\n 99:14,23 230:6,9,13 161:23 162:18 287:20\n 104:13 139:14 236:17 242:11 162:19,24 dcf 83:24 84:5\n 139:19,22,22 242:12 249:11 163:2 169:16 84:20,25 85:4\n 139:24 140:9 266:4 267:15 169:19,24 85:13\n 142:25 173:25 276:4 278:5 171:20 173:3,4 deadline\n 174:6,15,16 286:4 293:24 173:12,14,14 267:23\n 175:3 177:7 294:12 173:18,23 deal 124:10\n 185:4 193:14 date's 286:5 174:4,20 dealer 97:7\n 195:16 229:11 dated 63:17 175:11,13,14 debate 71:11\n 282:25 283:13 269:13,16 175:16 176:3 75:10 78:8\n database dates 27:6 28:8 183:23 187:8 232:15\n 104:14,19 158:8,9 162:14 195:7,8 233:4 debating 71:8\n 113:10,13,17 163:14,18 241:18,18 december 26:8\n 113:19 114:5,9 180:10,12,24 257:12,20 26:22 37:16\n 114:12,16,17 200:23 230:20 264:6,17 38:5 148:23\n 114:19,25 235:24 287:6 268:13 269:6 149:4,8,16\n 116:6,6,16 287:11 271:2 294:15 154:12,22\n 117:24 283:20 david 2:15 6:9 dayal 193:6 155:19 159:10\n 283:22,25 7:7 28:16 57:2 days 35:12 183:15,19,21\n 116:7 150:7,25 132:23 133:11 184:11,14\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 314 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[december - different] Page 19\n\n 189:4,7 191:9 defer 111:17 deposed 7:17 detailed 103:2\n 191:15 192:18 defined 27:21 7:20 8:8 184:6\n 194:17 195:8 27:23 31:15 deposing 145:7 details 95:17\n 230:9 268:14 139:16 140:23 deposition 1:10 determination\n 269:13,16 141:11,14,16 4:8 5:6,25 8:7 225:11 226:3\n 273:25 286:7 definitely 229:3 8:13,18 13:2 244:20 247:5\n decent 33:25 delay 83:20 14:4 106:19 254:11\n decide 33:3,4 267:13 272:6,8 113:4 237:10 determine\n 34:22 77:6 272:21 273:4 237:17 289:6 142:7,11 144:9\n 218:15 224:13 274:14 291:1 144:11 222:8\n 224:21 225:9 delaying 84:11 depositions 226:21 242:23\n decided 198:13 delays 277:7 53:6 259:24 253:19 261:5\n deciding demonstrate descending determined\n 224:23 47:25 192:5 230:13 286:6 202:25 221:13\n decision 118:9 demonstrating describe 240:12 247:16\n decisions 76:25 47:7 107:10 136:22 247:24 249:19\n declare 17:5 dentsply 4:16 136:25 204:13 251:22 257:7\n 294:4 60:14 64:16 described 260:19\n decreasing 65:12 67:16 16:13 34:20 detroit 99:17\n 175:22 depending 34:3 70:14 72:22 developments\n deem 133:2 35:11 84:7,9 94:17 119:10 90:12\n deemed 143:7 91:13,22 173:7 difference\n 294:6 113:20 114:19 describing 25:18 59:3\n defend 53:22 176:15 214:19 83:14 139:10 196:9\n 101:8 106:23 217:17 220:10 description 4:7 202:19 221:8\n defendants 1:8 232:18 244:15 designed 240:6 274:23\n 2:13 6:10,14 244:17 168:10,15 differences\n 7:8,9,11 15:14 depends 82:15 169:12,14 26:4 62:21\n 203:23 204:3 89:14 115:11 desk 11:8 122:8\n 225:4 121:23 despite 84:18 different 18:24\n defending 54:5 deployed 82:17 detail 68:3 20:3,6 25:19\n 108:16 depo 12:16 128:23 172:17 25:21,23,24\n defensive 55:16 deponent 294:3 184:7 236:11 26:2 27:2,7,8\n 27:12,15,15,24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 315 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[different - distinguishing] Page 20\n\n 28:2,3,7,9 29:9 differential discloses discusses\n 30:14,19 31:11 50:23 268:17 269:6,9 188:13,15\n 36:14 44:24 differentially disclosing discussing\n 47:24 48:17 72:3,9 66:13 256:23 267:13\n 49:2,3 53:12 differentiating 271:7 discussion\n 55:13 56:6 233:15 disclosure 98:3 71:24 190:4\n 58:25 66:12 differently 98:5 123:20 disentangle\n 69:9 91:23 49:11 156:25 157:5 177:15,19\n 99:5,9 104:12 difficult 19:6 160:6 171:21 179:5 193:23\n 113:23 115:5 177:19 178:6 178:19 183:9 194:15,22\n 115:16 121:19 178:15 194:20 205:21 230:20 200:6 248:14\n 121:22,23 206:13 209:2 231:11 232:6 257:16,22\n 122:10,15 222:12 244:3 267:17,22 disentangling\n 143:2 145:16 245:14 275:11 276:7 174:24 195:25\n 145:16 146:6 digital 2:23 277:6,14 278:5 196:12 200:20\n 148:13 159:8 291:7 292:3 disclosures disposal 216:22\n 165:6,6 169:17 direct 167:10 43:4 68:18 222:7 225:20\n 169:18,22 185:15 73:25 96:18 244:19 245:19\n 170:6,7,25 directed 51:17 204:10 254:10\n 172:2 173:18 53:11 discounted disseminate\n 173:23 174:5 directing 55:12 85:5 67:7 92:18,24\n 177:13,15 directly 184:14 discovered disseminated\n 188:6 192:16 228:24 37:14 170:2\n 192:16,17 disagree 70:5 discovery disseminating\n 193:25 194:2 disaster 205:23 121:25 122:21 92:21 94:10\n 194:15 195:23 206:4 123:6,11 127:8 114:2\n 200:8,9 211:11 disclose 61:15 197:19 203:12 dissemination\n 211:15 212:6,8 66:16,19 224:10 238:16 94:23 95:20\n 212:10 215:19 270:12 249:6 250:11 100:22 105:7,9\n 229:19 237:18 disclosed 66:7 252:6 272:12 109:22 110:2,3\n 242:8 243:12 67:3,8,10 discuss 111:24 110:5 118:4\n 247:12 248:15 273:19,23,24 132:2 272:17 266:8\n 257:19 271:16 276:22 278:3,9 discussed 258:3 distinguishing\n 276:4 278:24 286:3,4 172:24 174:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 316 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[distort - earnings] Page 21\n\n distort 203:18 229:11,23 dr 4:8 5:6 6:8 140:11 141:17\n 224:19 231:2,6,7 7:6 12:16 13:2 210:25 293:3,3\n distribute 235:4,22 269:5 13:7 14:6,11 293:3\n 278:17 269:9 281:19 18:16 41:4 earlier 63:8\n distributed 281:23 282:20 52:10,21 53:9 71:24 148:18\n 100:20 278:19 282:24 283:3 53:11,24 57:22 153:15 194:13\n distributing 286:13 287:16 60:3 111:17 219:5 223:15\n 110:12 287:16 112:10 167:7 226:9 233:4\n distributive documenting 223:4 261:20 277:22 278:3\n 81:20 142:21 280:14 288:3 281:18 286:3\n district 1:1,2 documents draft 53:16 earning 170:5\n 15:10,11 20:6 58:5,7 56:20 earnings 35:8\n diversification 112:22 201:7 drafted 62:17 35:24 36:3\n 34:7 207:5 229:16 draw 33:24 43:6,11 89:23\n diving 95:16 doing 52:4 78:4 34:2 44:17 97:14 114:3\n divino 211:8 80:11 101:3 185:19 186:10 115:8 132:15\n document 131:18 137:8 drawer 11:17 132:16,16,20\n 13:10 14:20,24 175:21 178:8 drives 184:25 132:23 133:15\n 15:3,16,19 193:19 219:3 driveway 145:5 133:17 134:3,7\n 17:7,22,22,23 226:17,20 due 76:11 134:15 135:6\n 18:24 19:11 237:12 123:21 135:15,19\n 20:3 59:12 dollar 142:3 duly 6:22 291:5 136:8 139:3,4\n 61:7 63:21 double 15:21 duplicate 105:6 140:14 141:3,6\n 64:6,8 177:5 93:20 180:15 duplication 148:13,15,19\n 180:3 182:5 207:19 246:3 265:24 159:25 160:5\n 183:12 185:3 288:14 duplicative 170:11,15\n 201:11,12,19 download 110:13 171:2,6 181:2\n 201:25 202:2 104:9 117:13 duration 181:12,17\n 206:21,25 147:19 263:15 231:24 232:3\n 207:8 208:10 downloaded e 235:15,18\n 208:14,15,20 93:20 236:3 237:15\n e 2:1,1 3:1,1 4:1\n 208:21 213:6 dpartida 2:19 237:17,24\n 4:6 48:3 113:4\n 218:25 227:9 12:15 241:2,18\n 118:17 132:8\n 228:5,7,17,22 242:12,17,21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 317 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[earnings - errors] Page 22\n\n 242:22 243:6 247:10 266:23 108:11 115:5 energy 81:24\n 245:8,10 267:3,6,7 126:4 148:7 81:25 83:14,15\n 267:12 276:12 271:13 174:18 177:13 84:13 191:23\n 277:5 278:24 efficient 21:22 177:15 178:17 192:6,7 272:25\n 279:4,8,17,17 29:6,16 47:6 178:20,23 engaged 78:5\n easier 12:8 47:22 68:22 179:9 205:11 engine 99:20\n 102:15 73:6,16 74:5 212:10 246:25 entire 72:13\n easy 18:20 75:16 266:18 257:20 175:13 197:22\n 85:18 208:6 266:19 elucidated 197:23 225:21\n economically efforts 191:22 92:20 258:12 246:23 260:7\n 265:2 198:9 eluding 146:17 entirety 209:4\n economist eight 96:12 email 11:22,23 216:21 258:19\n 252:15 101:14 162:11 12:5,13,14 entitled 10:5\n edited 17:21 eighth 160:17 191:6 69:20 199:13\n 62:16 either 12:11 emphasis 92:25 entity 110:8\n education 38:8 69:18 88:20 empirical 119:6 environment\n 76:17 77:24 111:9 126:16 119:13,25 94:6 197:25\n 79:15 115:16 144:21 173:8 120:6 124:23 209:6 212:23\n 220:14 214:4,11 215:9 employed 213:24 214:20\n effect 43:3 220:20 232:16 106:3 291:10 216:18,24\n 68:16 73:24 247:19 251:7 291:13 292:7,9 225:22 232:19\n 74:23 119:8,14 251:17 252:14 employee 238:18 243:4\n 120:6 224:19 elect 152:4 291:12 292:9 246:23\n efficiency 19:2 electronic 15:2 employees equal 50:18\n 46:24 47:5,19 15:22 272:17 equally 50:3,8\n 47:25 54:25 element 177:20 employers equivalence\n 55:18 68:16 177:23 178:23 106:3 146:19\n 69:3,6 73:14 216:22 238:5 enable 223:23 errata 288:24\n 73:23 74:14,17 elements 19:3,4 encounter 288:25 289:7\n 75:7,25 76:8 19:15 20:8 258:20,23 294:7\n 79:6 94:7 21:4 25:15,24 encountered error 93:17\n 108:17 121:11 55:13 56:6 258:16 errors 131:12\n 121:20 122:11 91:18,24,25 ended 164:25 131:16,19\n 125:2 219:10 92:3 95:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 318 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[es - example] Page 23\n\n es 291:4 evaluated 176:7 177:7 evolution 148:6\n espn 99:16,20 216:2 179:3,5,12 171:13 176:2\n espousing evaluation 194:19 232:22 222:5\n 266:25 267:2 16:13 55:18 232:23,23 evolve 130:6\n esquire 2:3,4 70:13 72:21 233:5,6,13 evolved 129:21\n 2:15 83:25 121:11 243:10,15 ex 39:11 133:10\n essential 72:5 evasion 255:25 258:10 265:5 133:19 134:19\n 104:22 evasive 259:24 events 30:4,7 135:20 137:3,3\n essentially evasiveness 30:11 33:11,16 137:7,8,18\n 26:21 69:14 61:22 33:21 34:15 139:9,11,11\n 93:6 128:24 event 26:19 35:19 36:15,25 140:21,21\n 129:9 148:17 35:13 42:8 37:2,8,23 141:13,16\n establish 122:3 52:3 58:24 38:13,16,18 exact 93:21\n 122:4 59:18 85:20 40:7,9,11 146:16 195:18\n established 89:4,16 120:2 41:13,18 42:7 233:16 277:19\n 163:8 260:11 120:5 121:10 42:16 44:17,21 exactly 45:24\n estimate 115:7 121:12 124:23 134:6,8 138:3 45:24 53:23\n 116:15,21 127:10,12 138:5,6,23 119:22 135:22\n 134:20 139:24 128:6 130:4 168:10 171:18 163:9 255:3\n estimates 89:23 131:7,12 133:8 172:19 259:25 260:15\n 89:24 97:14 134:2 135:17 eventuality 286:10\n 114:2,4 115:8 137:10 141:21 256:5,8,12 examination\n 115:22,24 148:3,9 153:3 everybody 4:2 7:4 288:5\n 116:2,5,13,19 154:9,11 111:15 examined 6:24\n 185:2 274:17 156:12 164:17 evidence 49:12 example 20:15\n 274:18 164:20 165:15 75:8,15 77:4 24:25 30:19\n et 1:4,7 2:2 167:23 168:2 179:15 202:18 34:5 42:25\n 15:12,13 64:16 168:15 169:12 203:9,25 221:6 44:24 56:8\n 293:1,1 294:1 169:14 170:20 240:4 243:14 67:14,15 82:5\n 294:1 170:23,23 245:2 253:16 88:3 90:5 99:8\n evading 139:13 171:4,5,11 258:2,5 100:12 101:20\n evaluate 172:6,11,15,24 evidentiary 114:9,22\n 220:12 222:6 173:4,13 5:24 115:12,22\n 244:18 174:12,15 122:10 123:13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 319 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[example - expert] Page 24\n\n 123:17,21 13:4,21,21,23 231:9,15,16 188:4,15 189:9\n 129:6 148:7,14 14:3,4,5,7,17 234:3,4 235:23 189:25 193:15\n 161:13 170:4,4 23:17,19 24:17 262:5 268:6,8 205:3 262:19\n 171:3 176:8 26:8,14 28:19 268:11 281:11 265:2 272:15\n 194:16 205:14 32:12 51:7 281:17,22 273:4 277:7,11\n 205:16 208:19 56:24 58:12 282:4,10,13,24 expect 89:10\n 214:22 216:7 62:7 63:15,15 283:2,4,14,16 113:9 114:8,10\n 219:7 237:14 63:18,22 65:11 283:17 284:7 115:25 116:4\n 257:15 65:22 67:19,20 285:22,23 133:9 288:16\n examples 67:13 86:22,25 93:4 288:13,14 expectations\n 122:9 212:19 93:5 95:15,23 289:15,16 131:21 271:23\n excel 147:15 96:4,11,13 exhibited 119:7 expected 276:9\n 163:12 164:3 98:8,9,10 exhibits 11:21 experience 23:8\n excellent 28:12 100:16 101:12 12:17 15:20 38:9,16 40:17\n except 212:2 102:14 109:12 128:5 148:4,18 41:12,15,23\n excluded 113:3,3 127:14 207:12,17 76:18 78:2,6\n 284:22 127:16,18,19 exist 65:14 66:3 78:18,22 79:13\n exclusions 128:7,7,11,13 114:20 256:20 79:15 220:13\n 115:3 128:15,24 existed 126:22 expert 4:10,12\n excuse 116:3 130:23 131:2 285:2 4:15 7:24,24\n 283:18 131:10,24 existence 94:18 9:5,6 14:6\n executives 132:4,14 94:22 107:10 19:10 22:2,17\n 274:11 140:13 141:2 117:23 125:18 22:19 23:7\n exempt 97:9 141:25 147:3 existing 181:6 34:18 36:17\n exemption 147:14,17 258:18 38:17 41:15\n 97:11 167:9 180:5,7 exists 222:3 49:4 50:16\n exercise 119:17 180:21 181:18 expand 32:2 52:10 53:5\n 260:7,8 181:23 182:2 41:17 43:21 62:9 63:16\n exhaustive 191:4,5,7,8 46:3 191:22 64:9 65:12,20\n 54:14 202:9 206:15 expanded 42:8 66:10,12,18\n exhibit 4:8,10 206:16,19,24 expanding 67:6,9,22\n 4:12,15,18,19 207:22,22 44:15 69:16,19,25\n 4:20,21,22 227:2,4,23 expansion 70:11 71:16\n 12:4,9,18,23,25 228:3 230:2,4 83:21 187:21 74:11,12,15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 320 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[expert - favor] Page 25\n\n 75:22,23 76:4 46:8 55:25 74:3,24 75:5 factually 140:3\n 76:6 79:7 56:19 61:14 75:11 76:24,24 failing 109:4\n 106:22 143:22 66:3 98:19 77:8,9,13 fair 10:19,21\n 217:6 224:15 119:20 198:14 86:12 109:8 21:6,10 81:3\n 226:17 252:15 198:15 202:17 119:24 123:22 92:4 130:16\n expertise 77:24 221:6 222:3 factors 16:13 158:11 163:11\n experts 40:24 224:9 236:19 20:16,17,18,23 165:8\n 41:5,16 72:2 237:22 240:4 46:10 47:23 fallon 2:4\n 72:11 75:11 252:4 253:16 48:9,11,19 112:17\n 192:17 229:17 253:22 257:23 49:10,11 50:3 familiar 13:9\n 229:17 261:3 extract 95:18 50:10,11,17,18 13:11 24:24\n explain 9:2 extremely 52:5 55:18 60:12,15,23\n 19:7 34:24 194:20 63:13 70:14 61:25 88:17\n 53:2,14 69:4 f 71:25 72:3,22 113:12 208:7\n 101:9 175:5 73:13 75:4,6 208:10 212:3\n face 264:19,20\n 260:15 75:13,14 76:19 212:11 228:5,6\n faced 256:12\n explained 76:2 76:22 77:3,4,7 228:16 243:2\n facility 145:8\n explaining 77:15 129:22 264:10 281:18\n 205:24 264:24\n 163:24 130:10,13 familiarize\n 264:25 267:19\n express 68:7 168:25 202:22 24:13,22 86:17\n 267:24 271:24\n expressed 85:9 221:11 240:9 130:25\n facing 43:15\n extend 27:4 facts 37:21 fantastic 61:8\n fact 10:3 28:4\n 28:10 30:9 47:11 124:12 239:8\n 48:23 66:22\n 32:16 33:15 176:12,22 far 10:9 50:16\n 92:21,23 94:10\n 36:23 37:6 222:11 241:11 132:11 137:22\n 107:9 116:13\n 46:13 267:22 243:18 244:15 148:10 177:6\n 241:13,14,15\n extended 42:17 244:17 245:15 197:3 232:11\n 241:15\n extending 246:8,16 256:4 270:3\n factor 32:11\n 35:17 273:15 252:12,18 farther 256:23\n 46:9,12,14,15\n extends 27:9,23 254:4,22 265:25 267:25\n 46:16,18,19\n 29:10 256:11 fashion 164:11\n 49:19,22 50:9\n extension 37:5 factual 260:4 faster 154:8\n 53:18 55:20\n extent 20:9 260:10 favor 75:7\n 68:20 72:5,12\n 21:19 43:2 165:8 283:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 321 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[february - focus] Page 26\n\n february 1:12 files 228:4,10 finer 129:5 74:15 103:3\n 5:4 12:25 filing 60:21 finger 185:19 127:19 128:8\n 157:23 160:10 63:23 186:10 139:5 140:25\n 161:8,14,19 filter 87:17 fingers 90:8 141:6 159:5,9\n 163:21 164:6 93:15 finish 28:25 162:16 171:16\n 165:25 262:22 filtering 89:6 241:24 279:14 173:10 177:12\n 267:9,15 filters 87:21,22 finished 16:25 183:22 185:5\n 268:21 269:18 final 160:19 17:3 29:2 191:18 198:20\n 269:22 271:19 226:3 finishes 210:22 208:9 230:8\n 273:18 275:10 finally 166:13 fire 60:13 64:15 274:5 275:20\n 275:16 276:6 financial 90:13 firm 84:7,12,14 276:7,21 278:8\n 277:13 287:2 97:23 84:17,18 87:16 fiscal 189:3\n 287:12 financially 88:24 93:2 190:7\n fee 117:24 291:14 292:10 94:6 95:3 fit 87:13\n feeding 89:24 financials 90:4 110:7 169:25 five 32:11\n feel 72:4 75:11 find 12:7,8 173:17 181:3 36:13 50:10,17\n 139:6 159:7 16:20 34:20 197:25 198:24 131:10 166:11\n 201:15 254:6 47:19 49:12 209:7 212:23 185:5\n feeling 236:21 75:3 76:8 77:8 216:25 225:22 fl 1:15\n fiber 280:22 103:20 113:10 243:5 246:24 flagged 158:8\n fifth 68:20 74:3 114:8,11 258:18 268:3,4 161:24 162:25\n 77:13 115:25 180:2,4 273:7 274:6,10 flexible 218:10\n figure 49:18 181:17 200:21 274:11,16,17 flip 12:9 16:19\n 102:13 103:8 254:20 268:10 275:7,8 276:5 22:22 24:19\n 103:22 107:5 finding 68:15 276:8 277:6 26:11,12 42:25\n 254:14 69:2,6 73:23 firm's 90:4 67:25\n figured 47:17 74:13,16 75:24 firms 34:9 flipping 120:22\n 193:20 79:5 87:15 88:8 flow 85:5 119:9\n file 147:14,15 finds 119:6 first 6:21 7:16 flows 83:22\n 163:12 227:14 fine 17:25 11:25 12:13 84:10 268:4\n filed 14:21 19:22 42:10 14:2 22:9,11 focus 16:11\n 62:10,11 65:5 103:23 107:13 24:6,7 25:25 25:22 32:12\n 65:14,21 111:9 122:6 65:7 68:12,24 46:5 68:12,24\n 151:6 219:23 71:15 72:19 77:9 91:23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 322 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[focus - further] Page 27\n\n 130:3 134:19 54:6 56:17 formatting free 159:7\n 210:12 247:9,9 61:2,24 62:13 152:3 freedom 91:20\n focused 48:18 65:24 67:4 formed 16:14 front 11:6 15:8\n 87:18 133:15 69:7,12 77:22 70:15 72:23 28:11 29:23\n focuses 92:11 79:2 83:2 91:8 76:5 85:10 62:20 108:22\n 115:7 92:14 93:11 176:20 214:3 124:13 262:9\n focusing 86:9 94:19 98:15 236:14 251:6,8 froze 280:18\n 134:21 195:4 103:9 104:3 251:17 252:13 281:4\n 231:3 106:16 107:20 253:13 fruition 274:13\n folks 192:16 119:18 133:4 forming 200:8 full 115:6\n followed 264:3 133:18 174:7 forms 248:15 206:10 212:22\n 279:19 187:23 189:20 266:22 213:23 215:13\n following 16:15 194:4 196:3 forth 54:13 216:17 238:17\n 70:15 72:23 205:4 208:25 83:10 84:14 239:6 256:25\n 279:4 212:20 213:12 98:24 134:20 fully 47:13\n follows 6:24 214:17 215:6 138:16 109:20 181:9\n font 150:15 219:4 238:8,14 forward 36:23 241:21\n footnote 120:14 239:13,20 118:20 119:2 fulsome 48:14\n 120:15,24 242:18 245:12 130:23 131:24 fun 179:21\n 121:3,8 245:23 248:3 286:7 224:4\n forecasts 90:14 248:20 249:4 found 46:23 function 11:24\n foregoing 17:6 249:14 250:5 165:24 12:7 77:23\n 291:3,4 292:4 250:19 251:5 four 16:16 functions 106:2\n 294:5 251:15 252:23 fourteen fund 60:14\n forever 154:7 253:21 254:17 190:23 64:15\n forget 128:2 255:15 256:17 foy 292:2,14 fundamental\n forgot 156:5 257:18 258:8 framework 267:7\n form 25:4 259:2,12 84:20 further 68:20\n 29:21 32:5 264:13 266:10 frank 246:3 74:3,21 100:12\n 35:6 38:7 40:4 269:7 277:3,16 frankly 61:23 111:24 172:12\n 40:21 41:21 278:11 279:7 76:11 282:19 266:8 288:2\n 44:9 46:4,25 format 152:13 fraud 202:22 289:22 291:12\n 47:8 49:9,24 formation 34:6 221:10 240:8 292:8\n 50:12,20 52:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 323 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[furthermore - go] Page 28\n\n furthermore generating 207:11 216:16 105:19 107:16\n 197:20 187:7 198:14 226:19 229:20 107:23 111:7,9\n future 83:21 270:25 240:13,18 111:23 112:8\n 84:11 90:14 generation 243:21,22 113:2 115:18\n fy 274:2 118:3 294:9 118:19,20\n fy2022 187:5 gentleman gives 99:18 119:2 120:15\n 187:22 189:16 260:12 188:12 189:15 127:9,15,21,23\n 270:23 271:9 genuinely 285:12 128:4,11,12\n fy22 268:19 45:19 103:15 giving 72:10 137:21 138:21\n g getting 71:18 gladly 108:22 140:19,23\n 77:19 110:19 glancy 2:5 6:11 143:14 148:10\n gallagher 2:23\n 128:22 154:8 glancylaw.com 149:12 150:3\n 5:7\n 166:13 259:15 2:8,9 150:15 151:8,8\n game 179:22\n giant 165:12 glass 10:12 151:10,12,18\n games 140:5\n give 8:15 10:18 glinkh 2:8 152:15,23,23\n gauge 226:13\n 15:5 50:24 glom 233:21 152:25 153:4,5\n general 79:12\n 67:12 70:25 go 12:24 16:9 153:25 154:5\n 80:14 81:13\n 71:18 94:14 22:13 24:16 154:15 155:25\n 100:16 101:6\n 99:8 123:12,16 28:13,14 30:22 156:2,4,13,24\n 129:13,15\n 128:16 138:17 31:4,11 35:9 157:14,22,23\n 130:2 169:23\n 148:24 170:3 36:5,12 39:20 157:24 159:11\n 172:23\n 171:2 201:19 40:18 45:23 159:14,15,16\n generalities\n 205:14,16 47:9 51:3,4 159:20,24\n 21:18\n 208:16 244:7 57:10,20 58:12 160:9,11,14,15\n generally 81:2\n 284:13 58:19 64:5,12 160:16,18,24\n 81:10\n given 9:7 10:17 65:6,16 67:20 160:25 161:9\n generate\n 20:13 32:15 67:21 68:2,3,9 161:11,22\n 100:13\n 35:15,16 40:9 70:22 71:12 162:2,11,15\n generated 94:9\n 41:20,22 66:4 72:16 80:5 167:4 171:10\n 99:7,20 105:6\n 91:24 98:21 84:10 85:21,22 174:23 177:25\n 116:22 130:15\n 117:23 169:16 86:20 90:6,8 179:23 181:16\n 148:9 273:2\n 169:24,24 93:3 95:12 185:20 189:22\n generates\n 170:11 173:17 96:16 98:7,8,9 190:13,14,18\n 81:15\n 184:13 207:4,9 99:9 102:15 190:25 191:4,5\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 324 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[go - guess] Page 29\n\n 191:11,15 13:20,22 18:11 274:12,13 285:15 288:20\n 193:11,19,24 19:22 20:10 276:9 280:5,8 289:21\n 195:24,25 29:22 34:20 280:15 288:16 gregory 2:3\n 196:12 200:19 39:14 47:12 288:17,18 ground 8:6\n 200:25 202:6,7 56:23,24 57:8 290:10 guess 23:7\n 202:8 208:2 57:13,17 61:19 good 7:6 45:9 24:13 29:12\n 209:11 211:19 62:7 63:14 45:14,16 57:3 30:18 31:17\n 218:23 219:2 64:11 74:24,25 101:4 111:11 32:22 41:10\n 222:25 226:25 80:14 86:2,11 151:8 220:22 43:16 48:21,25\n 227:18 229:23 96:4 104:23,24 gosh 185:22 49:21 59:6\n 230:5,17,19,24 105:4 110:19 gotten 202:10 67:12 77:17,18\n 234:2 237:12 111:2,25 112:4 gpus 82:8 78:19,23 79:4\n 239:22,23 118:14,15 188:7 80:21 82:20\n 241:25 242:14 128:6 133:21 granular 92:5,6,9 99:5\n 246:17 252:6 137:21 147:11 128:23 99:24 101:7\n 258:2,13 262:5 150:10 154:7 grasp 109:4 103:15 106:7\n 262:10,11 158:11 159:15 great 16:2 106:25 109:4\n 267:10 268:6,8 160:18 162:15 27:24 49:21 109:16 117:19\n 271:21 276:13 164:12 166:9 131:4 135:5 120:23 121:7\n 276:17 279:14 166:21,24 139:8 150:12 121:15 122:7\n 280:11 281:10 179:21 180:14 184:9 187:9 126:7,17 129:2\n 281:20,24 180:16 181:22 222:18 239:22 138:15 143:17\n 285:22 286:11 194:8 201:14 248:22 249:8 153:15,19\n 286:22,25 202:8 206:2 255:23 280:4 154:20 157:17\n 290:4 210:11 220:21 289:8 159:3 160:24\n goal 50:23 222:19,22 greater 35:20 161:3 162:11\n goes 30:2 50:16 225:19 231:14 81:25 100:21 165:5 169:15\n 51:12 71:23 234:4,11,15 100:23,24 172:2,5 174:10\n 117:3 136:19 235:2 256:24 131:19 143:3 180:22 186:15\n 137:17 197:3 257:4 259:18 greatly 194:11 189:12 192:11\n 286:8 261:7,8,10,11 greg 6:11 58:3 192:15 193:18\n going 5:2 8:14 261:14,18 99:10 111:4 203:20 208:3,9\n 8:22 11:20,23 268:13 272:20 112:15 115:9 224:4,5 225:3\n 12:14,16,17,19 273:6 274:3,8 229:4 260:2 228:15 229:6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 325 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[guess - hypothetical] Page 30\n\n 230:16 237:2 happy 10:14 helpful 94:11 148:20 149:9\n 244:10 266:5 105:14 108:13 156:8 174:7,9 150:2 152:16\n 268:5,22,23 108:14 111:2 175:2 154:4,10 155:2\n 269:2 273:11 236:18 helping 55:13 167:13\n 285:7 hard 27:14 helps 9:17 hold 63:9 64:2\n guidelines 48:7 136:3 262:8 11:10 94:7 90:17 147:20\n guy 193:5 harkens 75:9 174:10 148:24 185:22\n 255:24 hash 150:24 hereto 291:13 234:11 255:20\n guys 110:25 hasthantra 1:4 292:10 294:8 268:10\n 111:7 239:25 2:2 7:13 15:12 hey 225:5 honestly 59:8\n 280:17 281:5 293:1 294:1 high 157:17 150:25 194:8\n h hat 76:20 192:7 207:20 241:22\n head 9:14 higher 84:13,15 hopefully 8:25\n h 4:6,20 101:17\n 154:14 173:6 146:20,24 hoping 228:9\n 182:20 191:8\n 256:19,22 185:2 hour 57:8\n 193:5 269:12\n header 151:16 highest 143:11 110:20 111:10\n 269:15 271:6\n 288:13 289:16 143:13 111:15 220:22\n 292:2,14 293:3\n heading 118:17 highlight 279:22\n half 26:23\n 184:22 189:23 107:16 108:15 housing 113:25\n 110:4 111:9,14\n hear 25:9 34:8 151:4 152:9 hoyos 3:3 6:13\n hand 6:18 56:3\n 241:22 280:24 192:15 263:7 6:13\n 64:14 132:10\n 290:3 highlighted huge 163:23\n 132:11 183:17\n heard 48:21 153:6 156:20 huh 286:24\n 184:19,22\n 206:21,25 228:19 229:8 human 83:10\n 185:17 246:4,6\n hearing 6:16 hindsight hypothetical\n handy 156:14\n 20:19 275:25 198:18 199:6 44:25 47:13\n happen 35:8,20\n heavily 92:11 272:11 85:3 92:15\n 37:3 145:11\n heck 102:11 hired 88:4,13 124:15 178:16\n happened\n hell 102:10 hiring 88:15 243:25,25\n 31:22 265:15\n help 8:25 39:14 historical 90:13 244:2,5,7\n happening\n 66:4 76:13 history 205:9 245:17 250:12\n 142:19 259:25\n 78:12 102:16 hmm 9:13 253:11 255:12\n happens 35:13\n 102:18 105:14 16:20 58:21 255:17 256:19\n 205:22 258:4\n 158:10 219:21 120:21 148:12\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 326 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[hypotheticals - indicative] Page 31\n\n hypotheticals idis 113:10,13 importance inclusive 26:23\n 255:19 260:25 113:17 114:9 50:19 105:9 27:18 32:19\n i 114:12,17,20 109:23 44:12,13 252:2\n 115:7,22 116:2 important 8:16 incorporate\n icon 2:23\n 116:3,13,19 9:12 46:17 218:10\n idea 175:7\n ignore 63:21 48:20 49:5,14 incorrect 140:3\n 246:9\n 75:12 49:15,19,22 increase 32:15\n identical 58:15\n illustrated 50:9 78:15 32:23,24,25\n 59:18 65:22\n 253:11 90:20 92:22 33:17,19 35:18\n 278:2\n imagine 117:22 94:15,18,24 36:2,9 37:2,12\n identification\n immediately 109:2,3,10 39:18 40:12\n 13:5 14:8\n 184:21 185:9 110:2,3 155:23 42:7,18 82:11\n 23:20 63:19\n 188:19 189:24 237:5 273:16 82:23 83:6,17\n 96:14 147:18\n 270:15 impounded 186:21 188:22\n 182:3 206:20\n impact 84:21 267:4 270:12,18\n 227:5\n 85:14 122:3 inappropriate 274:20\n identified 72:7\n 129:3 168:3,16 259:5 260:24 increases\n 96:11 102:8\n 169:6 170:24 260:24 274:19,19\n 107:18 117:5\n 171:7,8,9,14 include 33:16 increasing\n 132:12 134:6,7\n 172:9,14,15 36:3 37:7 40:10 185:6\n 135:15 139:16\n 178:10 192:9 41:17 91:21 independent\n 148:19 154:19\n 193:11 195:25 95:14 135:21 97:23\n 154:23 155:20\n 197:16 201:21 137:13 240:21 independently\n 157:6 160:22\n 202:22 204:10 240:22 116:23\n 163:14,19\n 219:11 221:11 included 114:5 indicate 116:11\n 164:4,21\n 240:9 247:8 137:15 139:19 indicated 80:19\n 165:18 180:21\n 250:17 252:21 139:23,24 86:19 188:20\n 275:3 283:23\n 274:21 275:7 203:16 284:20 indicates 75:15\n 284:5 285:12\n impacted 83:21 includes 15:19 275:2\n identify 6:6\n impacts 129:3 31:10 43:12 indicating\n 89:6 93:7\n 129:15,19 including 27:13 188:4\n 106:11 231:10\n 172:25 193:25 216:7 217:19 indicative\n identifying\n 263:20 inclusion 272:7,8\n 132:15\n 138:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 327 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[indices - input] Page 32\n\n indices 226:10 105:5,6,8,10 203:12,15 240:10,13,17\n individual 7:10 106:5,21 107:4 204:9,15 240:18 242:11\n 77:7 87:24 108:12,15 205:15,17,20 242:16,25\n 174:18 180:12 109:15 118:4,5 206:3,8,11 243:4,6,13,21\n 241:4 119:9,16 208:24 209:6 244:15 245:7\n individually 121:24 122:21 212:15,18,22 245:10,19\n 87:10 122:23,25 213:8,11,17,24 246:21,23,25\n indulgence 123:3,7,10,15 214:2,7,9,18,20 248:15,18\n 155:24 123:18 124:8 214:22 215:5 249:6,10,21,23\n industry 78:13 124:16 125:5 215:25 216:2,7 250:18 252:3,5\n 88:20 129:7 125:18,25 216:14,16,17 252:22,25\n 130:2 226:10 126:3,4,9,22,25 216:21,23,24 253:3,7,8,18\n inference 33:24 127:2 129:11 217:7,8,10,12 254:9 255:22\n 34:2 129:25 133:24 217:14,16 257:2,17,22,24\n inflation 134:13 155:18 218:11,12,14 258:17 261:4\n 121:14,21 169:13 170:7 218:16,21,24 265:24 266:13\n 122:5,13 124:6 170:19,22 219:2 220:11 266:16,20\n 125:3,12 171:12,13,22 220:12 221:12 267:4 271:13\n 126:12,14,21 172:13,15 222:4,6,10 272:19 276:22\n 127:5 202:20 173:2,12,17,22 223:6,7,11,19 277:18 278:3,4\n 203:19 204:11 174:4,19,24 224:7,10,14,18 282:15,16,25\n 221:9 223:13 175:18,20 225:2,6,7,10,12 283:13\n 226:13 240:7 176:3 177:13 225:14,17,20 informational\n 252:2 177:20,23 225:21,23 97:17 267:3,6\n information 178:12,17,20 226:2,12,18,20 infrastructure\n 61:16 89:10,14 178:22 179:10 232:5,7,9,10,17 83:9\n 89:15,20 90:20 179:13 181:3,5 232:19,21 initial 37:10,14\n 91:3,13,22 193:12,13,23 233:7,10,15,17 38:22 117:4\n 92:17,23 94:5 194:15,22 233:21,21 initially 37:16\n 94:8,11 95:20 195:4,23 235:11,17 input 54:23\n 100:4,18,20,22 196:10 197:7 236:3,5,8 55:2,9,12 56:9\n 100:23,25 197:24 199:16 237:19,24 56:14,22 126:8\n 101:15 102:24 200:6,20,23 238:13,16,18 134:13 135:16\n 103:18,21 201:2 202:23 238:22 239:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 328 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[inputs - items] Page 33\n\n inputs 82:6,10 intent 81:2 176:6,7,9,18 isolate 129:10\n 83:13 84:6,8 intention 177:7,7 130:11 168:3\n 84:20 85:14 288:21 introduce 168:16,25\n 122:14 135:18 intentional 12:23 13:22 169:13\n insert 53:16 137:22 255:25 56:23 63:16 isolating 169:6\n 54:14 interest 88:7,10 147:3 170:24\n inserting 54:12 88:20 89:3 introduced isolation\n inside 31:22 interested 147:6 202:18 216:23\n insinuated 17:11 30:16 221:7 240:5 issue 8:24 21:2\n 116:9 101:5 195:19 253:16 32:13 33:12,22\n insistent 195:20 199:17 introducing 36:14 38:10\n 256:18 199:19,20 203:8,24 39:5 40:8,10\n insofar 40:5 229:16 291:14 investment 40:16,18 41:14\n 95:11 129:24 292:11 90:15 97:7,8 41:25 42:4\n 196:22 198:19 interface 285:9 97:10,12,21 43:20 46:12\n 266:12 interim 89:19 116:10 63:8 72:11\n instance 255:16 internet 280:16 investments 101:7 135:8\n 276:7 internet's 274:22 151:2 205:11\n instantaneous... 227:14 investor 178:24 237:7 261:3\n 266:20 271:14 interpretation 205:8 266:13 280:23\n institutional 137:6 266:15 272:19 issued 87:4\n 113:24 interpreted 274:9,15 139:5 141:3,6\n instruct 259:19 137:5 investors 90:16 180:19 181:11\n 261:14 interrupted 94:11 100:24 183:6 240:25\n instructed 241:21 133:9 197:8 issues 34:10\n 61:18 261:18 interruption 266:2 271:15 41:2 42:16\n instructs 10:7 209:6 242:4 272:7 273:3,16 137:2 261:2\n intact 100:17 interval 175:22 274:21 279:2 274:20 275:4\n intend 11:20 175:23 178:18 involve 173:8 288:23\n intended 5:22 intervals involves 189:10 it'd 111:10\n 94:13 121:13 173:18 175:21 249:2 it'll 14:16\n 265:3 intraday irrelevant items 83:8\n intensity 192:7 173:24 174:6 255:21\n 174:15 175:3\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 329 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[j - lead] Page 34\n\n j keeping 192:8 102:22 103:7 286:2 288:24\n j 2:15 kevin 2:23 5:7 103:11,16,22 289:19\n james 292:2,14 key 191:12,20 106:9 107:2,5 knowing\n january 14:5 197:3 109:18 110:16 102:22 227:16\n 156:3,13 157:4 kick 93:21 110:18 115:21 knowledge\n 157:13 211:21 kind 67:25 118:8 127:6 9:10 291:9\n 214:23 216:8 78:15 80:13 133:21 140:21 292:6\n 262:21 263:24 81:13 85:16 146:9 150:20 known 123:22\n 264:4 265:6,9 86:16 89:19 150:25 154:8 krogman 20:15\n 265:10,15,16 94:17 101:6 154:11 156:17 20:22 21:24\n 265:18,20 146:13 169:10 166:16 171:7 48:7 50:10,18\n 273:20,23 183:11,25 172:20,21,22 63:12 73:12\n 277:9 286:15 185:19 186:10 176:16,17 l\n 286:21 287:13 187:18 191:2 177:2 180:15\n label 151:16\n 287:18,20 193:9 207:25 180:18,23\n lack 33:10\n job 101:4 208:22 212:6 181:10 192:11\n 263:9\n joshi 193:6 212:13 260:6 193:6 194:14\n land 83:8\n journal 46:23 270:15 286:5 207:6 208:12\n language 62:9\n 47:4 kindly 86:25 208:18,19\n 210:9 275:10\n journalists knew 211:8 210:7 213:4\n 275:11,14\n 241:6 know 9:7,13,18 214:3,13\n lap 1:7\n july 277:12 10:13 14:17 215:23 217:14\n large 182:4\n jury 77:6 19:6 35:2 217:20 219:20\n 227:14 278:25\n 40:15 45:4,4,9 220:2,17 224:6\n k larger 34:11\n 45:16,19 48:16 228:19 229:7,8\n k 199:9 150:16 171:6\n 49:15 53:22,25 229:15,22,22\n keep 72:16 laws 5:24\n 54:2,3 66:18 229:22 236:4\n 111:2 120:23 lawsuit 7:25\n 67:15 69:24 240:23 244:8\n 220:7 230:11 8:3\n 81:5,11 83:12 245:18 254:24\n 234:14 236:21 lay 80:24\n 86:17 89:9 256:3 259:25\n 243:8 248:8,11 lead 22:19\n 94:13 95:7 260:17,24\n 255:3 256:21 66:11,17 67:5\n 98:11 99:6 261:6,25\n 257:4 261:16 215:2 216:11\n 100:3 101:6,13 264:16 271:14\n 102:6,10,11,17 281:4 285:10\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 330 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[learn - longer] Page 35\n\n learn 78:4,4,5 187:4 256:20 206:9 208:25 listen 21:25\n leave 110:17 268:18 270:22 212:20 213:12 136:7 140:4\n 126:17 279:23 286:17 213:18 214:17 246:4\n leaving 193:8 289:20 293:4,7 215:6 220:21 listing 104:11\n 202:4 218:22 293:10,13,16 238:8,14 104:18 229:9\n led 79:15 293:19 239:13,20 284:23 285:4\n ledger 81:20 lines 19:20 242:18 245:12 287:10\n left 64:14 linkh 2:3 4:4 245:23 248:3 literature\n 132:10,11 6:11,11 9:25 249:4,14 250:5 176:13\n 144:18 185:3 10:2 15:6 25:4 250:19 251:5 litigation 23:11\n 185:13 223:4 25:13 28:16 251:15 252:23 little 30:14 49:2\n legal 69:15,18 29:21 32:5 253:21 254:17 54:18 63:3\n 69:25 71:9 35:6 37:19 255:15 256:17 68:2 82:21\n 72:14,14 97:24 38:7 40:4,21 257:18 258:8 85:21 92:6\n length 35:15 41:21 42:13 259:2,12,15,20 93:24 99:5,16\n 36:10 151:3 44:9 46:4,25 260:23 261:20 111:7 113:23\n letting 150:11 47:8 49:9,24 264:13 266:10 120:18 127:18\n 166:16 50:12,20 52:18 269:7 274:3 132:6 150:16\n level 142:17 54:6 56:17 277:3,16 156:4,7,14\n 153:14 172:17 57:2 58:3 61:2 278:11 279:7 175:5 182:16\n 200:17 251:25 61:24 62:13 288:3,6,22 220:21 229:14\n license 91:20 65:24 67:4 289:22 259:16 280:25\n likely 91:15 69:7,14,23 lions 99:17 llc 51:15 53:4\n 240:21,22 77:22 79:2 list 16:15 54:14 60:3,5,8,10,11\n limitations 83:2 91:8 87:4 160:25 llp 2:5,16\n 243:9 258:9 92:14 93:11 281:13 284:18 location 1:14\n limited 114:25 94:19 98:15 284:19 285:11 long 71:12\n 134:9,17 103:9 104:3 listed 79:8 83:7 115:10 164:11\n 135:23 139:15 106:16 107:20 114:15 116:2,2 210:10\n 139:18 263:14 111:12 119:18 141:17 142:4 longer 29:18,18\n line 81:9,9 133:4,18 147:5 159:5 207:4 42:4 43:13\n 108:9 129:8 155:5 187:23 283:20 287:9 44:6 84:10\n 166:10 185:16 189:20 194:4 287:17,22 111:7\n 185:20 186:24 196:3,18 205:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 331 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[look - lseg] Page 36\n\n look 12:4 16:24 183:24,25 192:20,21,22 235:5,23,24\n 24:6 30:18 184:18,24 192:23 195:6 238:12 249:2\n 31:7 45:4,6,8 185:12,25 196:16 229:17 256:10 263:11\n 48:20 51:10 190:22 192:13 252:12 254:4 274:9 275:14\n 54:18 58:4,7 192:17 194:12 257:12 260:21 275:20 284:13\n 65:6,8,16 194:25 195:21 269:23 270:10 looks 11:4\n 67:13,15 68:6 196:10 200:25 276:19 281:17 86:15 95:13\n 70:8 80:12 202:11 207:21 283:4 284:3 213:9 228:12\n 87:17,24 208:4,22 210:9 286:4 228:13 229:9\n 101:11,11,13 210:19,23 looking 11:10 235:3\n 106:19 109:20 211:14 212:14 14:17,19,23,23 loses 200:5\n 112:22 114:14 216:22 218:24 14:25 15:9,16 loss 105:12\n 119:3 120:24 219:10 224:17 35:7,12,24 lost 242:4\n 120:25 121:3 225:15,17 37:22 38:14,15 lot 9:17 21:9\n 124:22 127:15 229:25 232:8 54:11 75:14 75:19,20\n 128:7,8,9 232:14 233:19 77:2 89:11 116:12 169:17\n 129:8 135:13 234:6 238:2,6 94:2 95:17,19 169:18,21\n 140:24 141:19 238:6,7,9,10,19 98:16 129:6,18 199:15 200:22\n 142:13,15 242:10 243:5 129:20 131:6 218:25 236:6\n 143:22 144:10 243:14 250:8 131:15 133:10 249:21 273:8\n 144:14,16 252:18 257:11 134:12 135:11 274:4\n 149:10,12 261:4 268:6 140:20 141:25 lots 105:8\n 154:15 156:3 272:12,16 146:6,15 148:3 139:23 274:19\n 156:19 157:16 281:21 285:9 148:16 149:17 loud 186:17\n 157:24 158:14 286:5 287:15 149:21,22 low 30:8 192:9\n 160:19,25 287:19 156:6 159:8 lower 81:25\n 161:13 162:10 looked 29:7,8 173:14 174:14 84:7,12,13,17\n 162:12 166:5 98:19 102:3,9 180:3 185:23 143:3,9,19\n 172:7 175:15 102:12 103:5 185:25 186:4 146:9,25 268:2\n 175:18,20,25 103:23 106:13 187:18 195:17 lowest 143:13\n 176:11,13 109:11,13 196:15 201:2 143:14\n 178:10 179:14 117:11 133:7 202:5 206:23 lseg 104:13\n 179:17 181:16 163:13 182:24 208:20 231:2,5 282:7\n 182:12,17 187:17 192:19 234:10,15,21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 332 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[lunch - mean] Page 37\n\n lunch 110:23 199:11 206:13 75:16,24 76:8 264:6,17\n 111:6,8,11,13 225:11 226:2,5 79:6 91:12 265:16,17\n 111:20 240:17 241:12 94:7,25 95:5 266:14 267:9\n lunchtime 243:23 244:19 95:20 108:17 268:23 269:4\n 111:5 245:20 247:4 121:11,19 269:21,22\n m 254:10 260:13 122:11 124:25 270:2 271:5,18\n 282:10 283:5 129:13,25 275:18,25\n m 185:14 186:2\n 283:16 289:4 133:25 173:20 277:22 278:8\n machinery\n makes 92:5 173:23 176:3 materializing\n 81:22,24\n 244:2 178:12 179:10 266:7,9\n machines 82:6\n making 25:7 179:13 181:4 materially\n 82:7,7,13,17,18\n 49:17 61:22 203:17 219:10 263:20\n 82:25 83:15,16\n 81:5 129:12 226:9,10 matt 53:4 60:4\n made 13:24\n 170:13 233:20 247:3 60:5 62:4\n 118:9 136:8\n man 49:20 247:10 266:18 64:24 66:4\n 215:17 240:2\n manage 192:7 266:19,21,23 matter 7:12,21\n 247:6 261:9\n management 271:12,14 7:22,23 9:8\n 282:13 283:17\n 271:22 274:24 272:6 278:22 21:16 38:11\n 284:6 294:5\n manager 3:3 279:19 65:15,21 79:18\n magnitude\n manner 5:25 market's 109:18 202:5\n 198:15\n 192:10 205:25 mattered 194:2\n main 83:7,13\n marked 13:4 markets 100:21 matters 18:9\n major 189:22\n 14:7,16 23:19 114:18 203:7\n make 8:18 9:3\n 63:18 96:13 mask 152:3 matthew 2:14\n 14:22 36:17\n 147:17 182:2 massive 273:4 4:15 7:11\n 39:21 44:6\n 206:19 227:4 materialization 52:10 63:16\n 59:10 65:18\n market 18:25 265:14 272:4 64:10 65:12\n 87:17 90:15\n 29:6,17 46:23 275:12 276:3,6 maximize 82:2\n 95:13 109:6\n 47:4,6,19,21,25 277:15 278:6 mean 10:4\n 120:13 122:14\n 54:24 55:18 278:21 25:14 33:20\n 124:6 150:15\n 68:15,22 69:2 materialize 47:12 52:22\n 156:6 169:4\n 69:6 73:5,14 265:6,8 273:18 56:19 65:5\n 184:9,15\n 73:16,23 74:5 materialized 82:7 83:6\n 187:11,13\n 74:13,17 75:7 262:21 263:23 87:22 88:13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 333 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[mean - mm] Page 38\n\n 100:9 101:13 238:9,19 mid 277:12 minutes 33:7\n 123:17 131:14 240:23 241:3,9 middle 29:24 110:22 111:19\n 135:2 137:18 241:16 242:13 30:15,21 111:22 280:3\n 151:25 182:7 249:3,25 250:9 270:16 286:5 mischaracteri...\n 184:2 189:18 280:10 million 186:5 94:20 108:3\n 201:6 207:14 meet 93:8 215:3,3 216:12 201:15\n 210:8,10 212:2 megawatts 216:12 misrep 159:18\n 244:4 247:25 190:2 273:5 mincing 198:5 159:21,25\n 248:5 265:8 memorandum mind 88:10 160:5 162:19\n 269:8 287:8,10 214:24 216:9 96:19 99:25 misrepresent...\nmeaning 72:13 memory 61:9 111:6 186:19 154:18 155:21\n 192:25 80:10 180:11 251:12 255:12 158:9 159:12\nmeans 6:2 207:17 230:23 281:20,24 160:13 161:6\n 10:16 85:5 mentioned 82:5 282:21 161:23 162:14\n 97:5 132:7 89:5 98:4 mine 77:10 162:17,24\nmeant 83:12 117:4 144:7 280:19 163:2,14,18\nmeasure 168:24 173:11 miner 199:8,10 164:4,21\n 119:14 125:2 174:25 175:10 miners 272:24 165:19 183:9\n 129:14 145:18 205:13 mining 81:15 misrepresent...\n 168:6,18 194:6 mere 92:21 82:7,11,22,24 154:24 161:5\n 195:21,24 94:10,18,21 83:14,16 165:17 205:7\n 196:2,9 197:4 merely 102:23 184:20,25 misreps 154:3\n 243:8,11 met 8:9 185:9 188:18 missed 162:21\n 252:21 254:15 method 40:22 189:23 193:3 279:11,13\nmeasured 40:24 41:24 195:14 198:24 misspoke\n 129:19 methodologies 199:24 263:21 139:21 162:23\nmeasures 135:5 203:2 221:15 270:14 234:25\nmeasuring 247:18 251:24 minute 24:12 mistake 13:25\n 120:9 193:11 methodology 118:21 128:9 240:2\n 242:14 243:8 33:14 79:20,22 130:24 160:24 mix 7:15\nmedia 2:24 5:5 204:14 218:9 166:11 179:22 170:18,21\n 57:17 100:13 metrics 90:2 183:24 211:22 172:7\n 100:14 112:6 mexico 211:9 268:10 281:4 mm 9:13 58:21\n 167:2 222:24 120:21 148:12\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 334 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[mm - new] Page 39\n\n 148:20 149:9 209:3 220:20 moves 175:15 294:7\n 150:2 152:16 222:13 249:13 moving 175:11 need 8:17 10:11\n 152:18 154:4 254:8 179:13 211:7 10:12 20:12\n 154:10 155:2 money 20:10 286:7 21:20 24:14\n 167:13 monitor 253:24 multiple 34:9,19 35:25\nmode 164:18 month 45:12,15 113:19 171:17 36:25 37:11\nmodel 85:13 83:20 171:22 172:19 39:11,18 42:4\n 122:24 124:7 months 45:6 179:9 187:21 42:7 43:14\n 125:17,19,24 269:6,9,18 municipality 46:2 67:9 76:2\n 126:6 127:13 morning 7:6 263:14 86:3,7 87:24\n 131:17 132:21 mou 214:25 murray 2:5 111:18 128:14\n 133:6 134:5,9 216:10 6:12 150:21 152:23\n 134:13,21,24 mouth 220:4 n 200:19 208:22\n 135:5,17,21,23 248:12 223:19 224:7\n n 2:1 3:1 4:1\n 135:25 136:10 mouthful 249:5 281:24\n 133:13\n 136:10,17 163:24 165:12 needed 19:17\n name 5:7 7:7\n 137:4,5,13,16 move 18:11 21:19 40:2\n 8:2 62:18 67:6\n 138:3,7,25 118:14,16 53:8 54:13\n 67:16\n 139:15,17,23 123:19,21 needing 38:11\n natural 205:22\n 141:11,14 129:12 130:22 needs 67:8\n 206:4\n 153:3 164:20 131:23 133:25 69:25 75:12\n naturally 9:20\n 168:10 197:2,3 169:10 177:22 neither 291:10\n nature 47:14\n 197:6,10 200:5 177:24 203:18 292:6\n 218:13 225:23\n 218:15 222:9 229:24 261:17 never 47:9\n 232:9 245:13\n 224:22,24 moved 101:22 48:21 145:11\n necessarily\n 226:22 258:7 102:24 178:18 212:2 283:3\n 57:6 69:24\n 258:10 179:8 new 1:2 2:7,18\n 125:3 136:21\nmodel's 226:6 movement 99:8 5:14 15:11\n 267:6\nmodeling 100:6,8 119:10 21:15 25:3\n necessary\n 136:25 175:25 68:17 73:24\n 40:14 68:15\nmodels 84:6 movements 181:3,7 202:2\n 69:2,5 73:22\n 89:25 139:24 43:5 68:19 266:7,9 267:4\n 74:13,16 75:24\nmoment 28:14 74:2 129:13 267:19 291:19\n 76:8 79:5\n 138:18 179:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 335 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[news - objectively] Page 40\n\n news 100:14 nobody's 280:10 283:2 214:17 215:6\n 120:8 121:18 103:23 284:25 285:13 238:8,14\n 132:13,18,21 nod 72:10 286:18 239:13,20\n 132:22 133:3,9 non 202:22 numbers 53:16 242:18 245:12\n 133:11,13,22 221:10 240:8 54:12 161:3 245:23 248:3\n 133:24 134:6,8 nonresponsive 282:18 249:4,14 250:5\n 134:14,21,23 18:12 ny 2:7,18 250:19 251:5\n 135:3,6,16,20 normal 111:5 o 251:15 252:23\n 136:10,17 notary 5:12 253:21 254:17\n o'clock 166:18\n 137:11 139:5 291:18 294:13 255:15 256:17\n oath 8:15 13:18\n 139:15,17 294:19 257:18 258:8\n oaths 5:13\n 140:7,10,11,15 notch 75:18 259:2,12\n object 10:2\n 140:17 141:7 note 201:3 264:13 266:10\n 25:4 29:21\n 141:12,13,15 273:9 269:7 274:3\n 32:5 35:6 38:7\n 141:16 168:4,8 noted 70:5 277:3,16\n 40:4,21 41:21\n 168:17,21 139:2,9 294:7 278:11 279:7\n 44:9 46:4,25\n 169:2,7,17,18 notes 11:5 objection 5:16\n 47:8 49:9,24\n 169:21,22,25 notice 4:8 13:2 6:16 25:13\n 50:12,20 54:6\n 170:25 171:5 14:3 37:19 42:13\n 56:17 61:2,24\n 171:17 172:8 november 52:18 69:22\n 62:13 65:24\n 172:19 180:5 63:17 64:10 70:5,24 71:3\n 67:4 69:7\n 180:20 183:7 nuance 266:12 196:18 206:9\n 77:22 79:2\n 192:18 195:8 number 5:5 213:18 261:9\n 83:2 91:8\n 195:17 206:5 24:9,10 33:22 261:13,16,17\n 92:14 93:11\n 235:13 250:7,8 33:25 34:4,7 objectionable\n 94:19 98:15\n 257:12 287:7 35:16 37:23 45:18\n 99:11 103:9\n nice 145:7 38:18 40:9 objections\n 104:3 106:16\n 279:24 54:15 55:20 261:11\n 107:20 119:18\n nine 158:8 57:17 104:21 objective 33:14\n 133:4,18\n 159:3 160:21 112:6 146:10 36:8,19,22\n 187:23 189:20\n 160:21 161:5,5 146:14,16 40:24\n 194:4 196:3\n 163:13,16,18 152:15 156:15 objectively\n 205:4 208:25\n 164:3,5,20 167:3 180:2 48:8 50:5,25\n 212:20 213:12\n 165:17,19 222:24 231:20 75:3 77:5\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 336 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[objectivity - okay] Page 41\n\n objectivity offered 192:4 36:5 37:9,10 118:18,19,23\n 38:25 133:6,20 offering 247:7 38:21 39:2 118:25 119:2\n objects 10:4 offerings 42:2,20 43:7 120:12 121:7\n observable 191:24 43:22 44:4,20 123:12 125:9\n 142:24 officer 291:1,2 45:3,11,23 125:22 127:9\n observation offices 227:17 47:17 50:6 128:10,12,21\n 35:11 officially 14:16 51:3,11,13 130:16,22\n observations offline 229:4 52:20 53:20 131:5,6,23\n 33:23,25 34:4 oh 12:24 30:24 54:17,23 55:15 132:3,5,19\n 35:16 49:20 57:5 55:17 56:9,10 135:13 136:15\n observed 90:3 86:10 96:23 56:18 57:12 137:14,20\n obstruction 145:3 149:14 59:7,11,16,24 138:17 140:4\n 260:8 150:11 158:19 60:7,12,20 141:19 142:5\n obvious 255:7 158:22 162:22 61:4 62:6 64:3 142:16 144:6\n obviously 167:18,20 64:19 66:6 145:12,20\n 32:12 224:3 171:24 185:22 67:11,23,24 146:5,7,22\n 273:16 278:18 191:7,10 70:4 78:19,21 147:7,10,10,13\n 279:16 213:21 231:5 79:17 80:20 147:22,24\n occur 263:10 269:11 280:19 82:9 83:19 148:10,21,25\n occurred 286:20 290:6 84:3,23 85:4 149:11 150:12\n 154:12 276:3 okay 7:23 8:5 85:19 86:13,20 150:18,19\n occurrence 10:22 11:13,18 86:24 87:3,7 151:7,8,10,20\n 142:20 12:12,22 13:13 87:20 88:2,2 152:15,17,19\n occurring 13:17,20,24 88:25 90:5,8 152:22,24\n 133:8 134:2 15:4,23 16:2,3 94:2 96:2,4,8 153:25 155:17\n 137:9 142:23 16:7 17:10 96:23 98:2,7 155:25 157:8\n 265:23 18:11 19:5 101:11,13 157:12,22\n occurs 175:18 22:12,22 23:6 102:6 103:10 158:18,25,25\n 197:7 23:13,17,25 103:21,25 159:14,24\n odds 45:13 24:2,11,16 106:7 110:14 160:10 161:22\n offer 97:18,19 25:17 26:17 112:10,18,21 162:2,10 166:7\n 115:5 192:6 28:6,12 29:3 113:7,16 167:15,20,22\n 209:9 30:19 31:8,19 114:21 117:2 169:3,8,9\n 33:19 34:18,25 117:15 118:13 170:10 173:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 337 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[okay - opposite] Page 42\n\n 176:24 179:16 275:9 276:19 270:21,24 219:16 221:17\n 179:21 180:9 276:20 280:12 operation 221:20 232:16\n 181:15,15,21 280:21 281:3,7 263:16,22 236:13,15\n 182:10,12 281:10,12,15 267:18 237:4 239:11\n 184:8,9 186:14 282:6 284:9 opine 48:9 239:15,16,17\n 187:14 189:5 285:7,17,18 49:11 50:3 241:12 243:20\n 190:12,25 286:2,12,20 95:18 108:17 244:13 245:20\n 191:18,25 287:4,14,25 108:19 127:8 246:11,19,20\n 192:11 196:21 289:14 290:9 152:7 181:9 247:7,8,22\n 197:13 198:3 old 25:2 45:2 212:25 213:2,4 248:20 249:12\n 200:2,24 omissions 215:14 216:4 251:6,9,17,20\n 202:15,16 205:6 216:25 217:2 252:13 253:2,4\n 205:13 206:15 omitted 245:16 218:14 222:12 253:10,14\n 207:3,18,21 once 15:5 127:7 238:25 246:24 254:24 255:2,5\n 208:2,16 145:8 193:20 254:19 258:21 255:6 256:15\n 209:11,19,22 200:6 225:13 opinion 9:6 256:25 257:5\n 210:14,15,19 225:25 238:15 18:9 20:19 277:13\n 211:2,25 238:16 240:18 49:4 68:6 opinions 16:15\n 213:21 217:21 241:10 250:10 69:17,19,20 16:16 17:23\n 219:23 220:4 ones 135:24 70:4,10,11 54:24 55:3,5,5\n 223:2 224:12 151:25 284:5 71:6 72:14 55:7,8,10\n 226:25 227:6 online 271:24 73:8,17,20 56:22 62:19\n 227:22,24 272:24 74:7,12,12,15 70:16 71:22\n 228:18 230:2 open 12:24 75:22 76:4,6 72:23 79:8,10\n 230:15 231:18 23:22 64:3 79:7,7 80:2 85:8 124:17,24\n 232:20 233:24 147:22 268:12 85:10 126:5,16 126:13 200:8\n 234:4,6,11,12 281:16 176:21 192:15 220:20 233:23\n 237:22 238:10 opened 182:13 199:14 200:16 273:12\n 241:24 246:6 opening 23:24 203:10 204:4 opportunity\n 246:10 249:18 281:15 206:13 209:8 201:19 243:22\n 250:2,25 operates 97:9 211:13 213:21 opposite 48:24\n 251:19 256:10 operating 214:4,11 215:8 92:7 193:7\n 262:3 264:16 90:14 186:23 215:11 217:5 195:10,12,18\n 267:17 268:11 187:6 270:20 219:4,8,14,15 196:11\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 338 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[optic - paragraph] Page 43\n\n optic 280:22 p 113:4 118:16 70:12 71:6,16\n optimal 34:6 p 2:1,1 3:1,1 118:18,23 72:19 80:5\n order 85:22 142:14,15,16 119:21 120:16 86:5,8 90:6,9\n 126:20 200:16 143:3,9,11,12 120:17 127:11 96:19 97:2\n 223:18,22 143:23,24 127:13,22 105:20,24\n 230:14 232:20 144:5,10,18,22 128:4 137:12 108:12,25\n 234:18 263:15 145:15 146:10 140:24 166:14 109:21 118:23\n 286:6 287:23 146:19,24 180:2 182:6 119:20 121:4\n originally 148:22 149:3 186:11 190:18 127:17 128:5,9\n 267:20 274:7 151:19 152:22 190:20 191:2 128:15,16\n oscillation 153:6,12,18 191:14 209:16 130:23 131:2\n 31:24 155:4 156:16 210:23 293:4,7 131:11,24\n ought 203:15 156:22 157:10 293:10,13,16 132:3 135:12\n 203:16 157:15,18,25 293:19 139:2 167:11\n outcome 84:17 161:2 162:3 pages 120:21 168:3,13,22\n 291:14 292:11 164:7 165:21 198:20 185:7,8 190:17\n output 137:7 p.m. 112:2,5 paid 178:21 190:17,22\n 148:2,16 149:7 166:22 167:2 paper 11:4,5,10 192:12 195:11\n outside 9:9 222:20,23 14:13,18,23,25 202:7,7,8,10,16\n 31:18,20 44:18 280:6,10 18:8 104:23 204:6,7 209:12\n 85:17 130:10 290:11,12 110:11 209:23 210:12\n 145:3 221:23 page 4:2,7 15:9 papers 146:4 210:20,21\n 243:15 15:19 16:4,20 par 50:22 72:7 211:4,20\n overall 45:9,14 16:21 22:23 76:22 214:23 218:5\n 94:5 226:10 24:6,7,9,10,15 paragraph 221:5 239:18\n 263:20 24:19 25:25 16:8,11,25 239:24,25\n overcome 33:9 26:7,12 28:20 25:19,25 26:15 240:3,15\n 40:10 51:3,4,12 28:14,17,24 253:20 262:11\n overlapping 54:19 63:22 29:8 30:22 262:11 267:11\n 27:25 28:5,6 64:5,7 67:25 31:2,5,7 33:4 270:16 275:19\n own 55:5 91:20 68:3,4,5 79:9 39:23 42:24 275:21,22\n 97:23 165:3 85:22 86:4,8 51:10 54:16 276:14,16\n owned 60:3 86:10 96:17 58:17,20 59:5 288:10,12\n 59:6,15 67:14 289:10,11\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 339 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[paragraphs - percent] Page 44\n\n paragraphs particular 61:3 63:14 parts 52:4\n 30:21 65:3,11 35:23 41:25 64:4 69:10,16 257:19\n 65:13,20,22 46:12 51:24 70:3,9 79:3 party 203:22\n 66:2 80:18,23 52:6 53:18 95:22 96:2,8 paste 17:16\n 86:19 109:20 54:15,15,16 96:15 107:21 18:3,17 20:2\n parameters 62:15 72:11 110:18,25 21:20 22:5\n 85:16 93:8 76:15 79:21 111:16 112:9 pasted 18:22\n pardon 284:10 82:16 84:2 115:9,13 20:22,23\n parentheses 88:8,21,23 138:13,22 pasting 20:21\n 272:2 92:20 94:6 147:2,7,10,21 path 47:10\n parenthetical 95:15,15,21 147:23 155:7,8 pattern 140:20\n 189:24 98:5 108:20 166:13 167:5,6 142:24\n park 2:6 118:5 129:22 194:5 196:4 pause 69:10\n parroting 130:4 144:23 213:14,19 206:23\n 271:22 149:7 152:7 220:25 221:3 peer 46:22 47:4\n parse 193:18 153:23 154:17 222:15 223:2,3 penalty 17:5\n 196:2 226:11 170:13,14 226:25 227:6 pending 10:16\n parsing 172:16 172:13 174:8 227:11,16,19 11:19 71:3\n part 38:3 42:21 177:10 181:5 227:22 228:2 79:21\n 42:22,23 68:25 183:8 187:15 239:14,21 pension 60:13\n 70:3 107:15 190:10 195:9 242:19 245:24 64:15\n 109:22 116:16 205:9 216:15 248:4 249:15 people 12:8\n 118:2 147:16 217:13 241:2 250:6,20 48:22 154:8\n 192:3 195:6 253:10 266:2 259:13,18,22 156:5 196:9\n 223:21 228:10 267:21 277:5 261:7,23 262:4 200:7 224:5\n 247:12,13 particularly 279:25 280:12 278:16,20\n 249:5,8 264:22 124:7 283:14 280:13,19,24 perceived\n 270:4 partida 2:15 281:6,9 287:25 203:14\n partial 129:25 4:3 6:9,9 7:3,5 288:20 289:2 percent 20:5\n 226:7 7:7 12:22 13:6 289:14,19,25 142:3 143:23\n partially 13:20 14:9 290:7 153:14 156:23\n 262:19 25:5 28:19,22 parties 5:14,18 158:2 163:5\n participants 32:6 52:19 291:11,13 213:7\n 247:3 279:19 56:23 57:5,21 292:7,10\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 340 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[perfect - ph.d.] Page 45\n\n perfect 11:13 32:10,13,16,18 perjury 17:6 63:1 64:1 65:1\n 26:3 42:20 32:19,20,24 permissible 66:1 67:1 68:1\n 55:11 114:6 33:5,11,15,17 11:8 69:1 70:1 71:1\n 120:12 123:24 35:15,17 37:14 permits 272:14 72:1 73:1 74:1\n 125:9 141:15 37:23,24 38:5 permitted 5:22 75:1 76:1 77:1\n 141:19 145:3 38:14,14,23 permutations 78:1 79:1 80:1\n 151:7 155:17 39:4,20,25 255:18 81:1 82:1 83:1\n 167:22 169:3 40:6,16 41:13 personal 7:21 84:1 85:1 86:1\n 174:21 227:22 41:17 42:5,5,6 personally 87:1 88:1 89:1\n 233:24 255:3 42:17,17,18 22:18 75:23 90:1 91:1 92:1\n 262:10 280:2 43:7,12,13,18 perspective 93:1 94:1 95:1\n 289:25 43:20,21 44:2 79:16 177:19 96:1 97:1 98:1\n perform 51:23 44:5,7,11,12,13 178:5,14 99:1 100:1\n 52:2 55:23 44:16,16,18,19 ph.d. 1:11 4:11 101:1 102:1\n 61:4,20 62:2 44:21,22 45:7 4:13,16 5:1 6:1 103:1 104:1\n 175:13 219:19 45:8,12,15,21 6:20 7:1 8:1 105:1 106:1\n performance 45:25 46:2,6,6 9:1 10:1 11:1 107:1 108:1\n 90:13,15 46:7,11 48:17 12:1 13:1 14:1 109:1 110:1\n performed 49:6 48:18 58:14,15 15:1 16:1 17:1 111:1 112:1\n 64:21 66:7 58:23,25 59:2 18:1 19:1 20:1 113:1 114:1\n 223:17 59:18,19 68:23 21:1 22:1 23:1 115:1 116:1\n performing 73:7 74:6 24:1 25:1 26:1 117:1 118:1\n 61:10 130:7 133:16 27:1 28:1 29:1 119:1 120:1\n period 25:23 141:4 154:13 30:1 31:1 32:1 121:1 122:1\n 26:5,7,20,21,24 154:25 168:6 33:1 34:1 35:1 123:1 124:1\n 27:3,4,6,8,9,10 168:18 183:21 36:1 37:1 38:1 125:1 126:1\n 27:13,18,19,21 288:11,12 39:1 40:1 41:1 127:1 128:1\n 27:22,23 28:9 289:13,13,17 42:1 43:1 44:1 129:1 130:1\n 28:10,11 29:6 289:18 45:1 46:1 47:1 131:1 132:1\n 29:9,10,17,18 periodicity 48:1 49:1 50:1 133:1 134:1\n 29:19 30:2,3,6 35:20 51:1 52:1 53:1 135:1 136:1\n 30:7 31:4,9,10 periods 27:16 54:1 55:1 56:1 137:1 138:1\n 31:15,16,19,21 131:20,21 57:1 58:1 59:1 139:1 140:1\n 31:22,25 32:10 60:1 61:1 62:1 141:1 142:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 341 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[ph.d. - please] Page 46\n\n 143:1 144:1 211:1 212:1 279:1 280:1 218:24 232:17\n 145:1 146:1 213:1 214:1 281:1 282:1 pieces 170:6\n 147:1 148:1 215:1 216:1 283:1 284:1 171:22 173:2\n 149:1 150:1 217:1 218:1 285:1 286:1 193:12 212:15\n 151:1 152:1 219:1 220:1 287:1 288:1 237:18 243:12\n 153:1 154:1 221:1 222:1 289:1 290:1 pivot 191:21\n 155:1 156:1 223:1 224:1 293:2,24 294:2 195:14 198:5,8\n 157:1 158:1 225:1 226:1 294:4,12 198:10,11\n 159:1 160:1 227:1 228:1 phenomena 199:2,3,4,11,22\n 161:1 162:1 229:1 230:1 34:14 199:23\n 163:1 164:1 231:1 232:1 phenomenon pivoting 193:2\n 165:1 166:1 233:1 234:1 142:20 place 190:15\n 167:1 168:1 235:1 236:1 phone 11:15,15 272:13,14\n 169:1 170:1 237:1 238:1 phrase 76:21 plaintiff 15:13\n 171:1 172:1 239:1 240:1 100:7 134:17 263:5\n 173:1 174:1 241:1 242:1 219:22 plaintiff's\n 175:1 176:1 243:1 244:1 phrasing 112:20 204:25\n 177:1 178:1 245:1 246:1 115:20 plaintiffs 1:5\n 179:1 180:1 247:1 248:1 pick 34:16 35:5 2:2 6:12 10:2\n 181:1 182:1 249:1 250:1 40:16 64:16 79:21\n 183:1 184:1 251:1 252:1 picked 31:8 192:20,22\n 185:1 186:1 253:1 254:1 picking 36:24 203:23\n 187:1 188:1 255:1 256:1 48:10 plan 270:12\n 189:1 190:1 257:1 258:1 pictures 210:22 planning\n 191:1 192:1 259:1 260:1 piece 134:23 186:21 188:22\n 193:1 194:1 261:1 262:1 135:3 164:18 270:18\n 195:1 196:1 263:1 264:1 164:19 171:5 plant 205:23\n 197:1 198:1 265:1 266:1 172:13,14 play 140:4\n 199:1 200:1 267:1 268:1 174:3 179:12 179:21\n 201:1 202:1 269:1 270:1 192:18 193:13 players 99:19\n 203:1 204:1 271:1 272:1 196:10 197:8 please 6:6,18\n 205:1 206:1 273:1 274:1 214:18 215:25 16:3 58:18\n 207:1 208:1 275:1 276:1 216:2,13 217:7 63:21 74:19\n 209:1 210:1 277:1 278:1 217:9,14,16,19 96:22 108:7,13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 342 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[please - prepared] Page 47\n\n 128:17 138:13 275:13 285:15 140:21 82:6,12,23\n 138:13 182:18 pointed 26:4 potential 88:19 83:3,20 187:21\n 187:25 190:23 pointing 66:2 124:8 133:11 188:5,16 192:8\n 209:11 232:25 186:16 231:6 133:23 135:20 193:15 205:3\n plotting 131:11 259:20 137:11 174:2 263:13 271:8\n plus 26:23 points 109:6 175:9 203:17 powered 82:19\n pocket 79:22 173:23 174:5 217:17 223:12 practice 224:5\n point 36:16 235:20 263:10 267:23 practices\n 39:6,10 42:24 police 60:13 272:9,21 275:4 244:25\n 44:4 59:4 61:6 64:15 275:7 preceded\n 100:16 106:14 portfolio 34:6 potentiality 277:20\n 106:20 107:8 portion 202:19 275:6 precise 130:19\n 107:13 108:10 221:8 240:6 potentially 140:9 165:11\n 111:10 117:19 portrayal 40:8 54:11 precisely 43:13\n 122:2 123:5 125:8 56:21 100:25 197:4\n 126:15 129:5 posed 92:16 126:21 181:7 precision\n 132:25 135:12 position 245:9 197:21 203:14 130:21 136:20\n 137:14,24 possession 205:8 206:4 139:25\n 149:9 154:20 182:24 183:5 212:19,21 precursor 7:14\n 164:15 174:17 183:14 184:13 214:19 217:20 predominance\n 176:17 178:7 possible 20:9 217:21 232:18 75:15\n 194:12 197:10 50:5 51:2 75:3 233:19 272:25 predominant\n 198:7,16,24,25 77:5 82:4 93:7 power 30:2,8 81:22\n 199:10 201:22 104:15 140:15 30:10 32:14,15 prefer 71:13\n 204:21 220:4 140:17,18 33:10,12,18,20 261:15 288:22\n 221:4 222:8 220:9,10,16,17 34:11 35:18 premature\n 223:25 237:20 240:19 244:14 36:9 37:3,12 124:11\n 242:3 245:4 244:21 246:12 37:13,15,17,20 preparation\n 247:5,19 247:23 251:4 38:4,12,22 51:16 53:10\n 251:18 255:8 251:10,11,13 39:3,8,11,19,25 prepare 23:15\n 256:2,2,16 252:8,10 40:8,10,13,15 prepared 22:17\n 258:22 259:22 255:14 40:18 41:2,13 23:14 24:4\n 266:12 271:17 post 39:12 41:18 42:7,15 52:16 106:23\n 273:14 275:9 137:3 139:11 42:19 46:11 292:3\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 343 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[preparing - profitability] Page 48\n\n preparing 38:3 previously 98:2 prints 285:11 proceed 7:2\n 66:9 187:17 269:19 prior 91:24 33:15 70:22\n presence 271:12 97:24 138:10 252:6\n 240:16 246:21 price 43:5 138:15 148:4 proceeding\n 252:3 68:19 74:2 215:7 216:18 1:14 5:21\n present 2:22 89:23 97:13 243:19 266:4 290:13 292:4\n 3:2 49:12 98:14 100:6,8 291:4 proceedings\n 209:3 220:20 101:22 102:24 privilege 60:19 291:3,4,5,8\n 249:12 254:7 119:10 120:8 61:13 292:5\n presented 121:17 122:3 privileged process 90:23\n 238:15 123:19 129:4 61:16 123:11 193:23 235:12\n presenting 75:8 169:7 171:14 privileges 236:11 237:12\n presently 123:9 172:10 175:11 113:22 114:25 244:24 245:5\n 126:3 175:15,25 privy 266:3 248:13,17,17\n presents 176:4 177:22 probably 13:24 248:24,25\n 254:18 255:10 177:24 178:10 14:19 15:4 249:17,18\n 256:5 178:18 179:7 138:16 145:3 250:3,3,9\n press 278:18,18 185:6 197:16 180:4 210:13 produce 225:6\n 278:19 201:21 202:24 227:19 256:3 produced 5:20\n presume 74:21 203:18 204:10 problem 9:19 98:13 121:24\n presumption 219:11 221:12 12:6 34:19 122:21 182:22\n 105:3 110:11 223:13 230:6 35:4 37:15 183:4,13,13\n 287:21 240:10 247:8 39:18,25 41:18 229:21\n presupposes 257:6 267:5 43:15 150:8 producing\n 256:7 prices 119:16 197:9 207:25 110:10 205:24\n pretty 8:23 133:25 168:5 problems product 60:18\n 46:17 75:18 168:17 173:20 233:14 272:9 61:13\n 135:25 162:6 pricing 174:6 procedural profession\n 208:6 279:5 primarily 5:23 76:19 78:3\n 280:15 114:2 115:7 procedurally professional\n previous 22:16 primary 243:16 7:21,23 52:21\n 62:24 241:25 204:25 procedure 22:9 52:23\n 261:21 printed 15:20 22:12 244:24 profitability\n 192:10 263:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 344 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[profits - question] Page 49\n\n profits 268:2 285:15 purchasing 126:11\n 272:22 provided 97:17 97:24 quarter 35:10\n project 84:11 116:13 117:9 purpose 119:17 35:21 189:13\n 177:8 193:20 117:11 237:9 130:8,12 189:13\n 196:14 200:19 283:7 167:25 quarterly 35:9\n 211:9 262:19 provider purposes 32:2 35:14 37:4\n 277:10,11 116:16 32:4,18 97:17 134:3\n projecting providers 95:5 143:19 223:9 quarters\n 187:5 268:19 provides 225:8 226:3 185:21 186:13\n 270:23 273:25 106:12 push 274:8 186:20 187:21\n projection providing 77:4 276:10 188:21,25\n 189:16 90:4 115:22 pushed 268:24 189:10,15\n projections 116:17 269:24 268:18 270:17\n 262:18 public 60:21 put 19:10 50:22 queried 283:24\n projects 273:22 61:7 277:19 67:6 95:22 query 284:18\n promised 278:22 291:18 100:19 104:23 querying\n 272:15 273:5 294:19 104:25 105:4 283:20,21\n prongay 2:5 publicly 62:10 108:21 129:5 question 8:19\n 6:12 67:7 276:22 201:14 283:13 8:21,21 10:3,5\n pronouncing 277:9 278:15 puts 15:6 92:24 10:6,15,16\n 14:10 publish 90:10 putting 62:24 11:19,25 17:15\n proper 260:6 106:4 114:21 87:11 220:3 18:2,5,15,16,20\n properly 114:23 248:12 19:7,8,23,24\n 258:21 published q 22:8,9 25:8,10\n propose 158:12 97:16 265:9 27:20 30:13\n q255 149:13\n protected publisher's 33:7 35:7\n qualified 291:7\n 60:18,18 61:13 97:11 45:18 47:2,14\n qualify 224:13\n 249:7 pull 56:7 47:24 48:15,25\n quality 264:23\n provide 36:7 101:20 282:15 49:3 50:6,13\n quantified 20:7\n 90:14 97:8,12 purchase 59:9 60:2\n quantify\n 104:10 114:4 202:20 221:9 65:17 69:13\n 121:13 251:25\n 114:23 116:15 240:7 71:13,14 72:17\n quantifying\n 117:18 201:7 purchased 75:19,20,21\n 19:17 20:25\n 245:2,3 283:19 117:17 76:3,15 81:6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 345 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[question - read] Page 50\n\n 82:20 87:19 213:15 215:19 quickly 93:13 reached 209:8\n 88:11,21 89:8 215:19 221:16 110:7,9 263:17 reaches 100:24\n 92:6 95:11 225:3 230:16 279:2 reaching\n 99:4,5,10,25 232:13 233:2 quite 25:9,14 278:14\n 104:6 106:7 239:2 241:22 29:3 41:9 91:9 reacted 197:9\n 113:11 114:6 242:6,6,8,9,10 100:8 106:8 197:15 233:17\n 115:14,23 243:18 244:3 108:2,3 115:23 reacting 241:7\n 116:8,25 117:2 244:10 245:14 126:18 134:4 reaction 197:14\n 118:2 119:23 246:18 247:20 136:9 139:13 read 17:13\n 125:10 126:8 250:11 253:10 163:25 190:8 28:24 30:23,25\n 126:18,24 255:8 260:18 236:9 242:10 31:6 43:9\n 129:16,17 261:22,24 quote 133:11 68:10,11,14\n 130:4 133:2 265:19 279:12 r 70:12,17,18\n 135:4 136:3,16 285:21 288:4 96:18,22,23,25\n r 2:1 3:1 293:3\n 138:4 139:6,12 questioning 96:25 98:6\n 293:3\n 139:20 140:2 108:10 166:10 118:21,25\n raise 6:18\n 154:21 155:6 256:21 279:24 119:19 121:6\n raised 174:8\n 155:13 158:11 289:21 137:25 138:11\n ramifications\n 161:15 163:11 questions 7:14 138:13 167:18\n 70:2\n 164:25 165:9 8:22 10:8,24 184:2,7 186:17\n ran 37:15\n 165:16,18 27:16 63:5 187:2,18,24\n 103:25 284:17\n 167:17 168:9 67:19 76:13,14 190:24 191:3\n random 142:21\n 168:12,14 81:14 105:15 191:16,18,25\n 142:23 143:2\n 169:15 170:19 112:25 118:22 192:12 197:21\n rates 263:19\n 171:15 172:23 150:9 165:5 201:7,25 210:4\n 265:4\n 173:8 174:8,11 182:20 184:3 210:5,6,8,13,14\n rather 21:22\n 178:21 184:6 206:18 210:13 210:20,25\n 145:4 240:14\n 187:25 189:6 220:24 221:2 211:4,10,22,23\n ratings 97:13\n 193:10 194:10 236:14,18,23 217:10 239:17\n rationale 192:3\n 196:6,7,8,22 260:3,4,9,10 239:22,23,24\n reach 49:16\n 197:14 200:3,4 284:12 288:2 253:22,24\n 187:6 196:11\n 200:11 201:12 289:23 261:24 262:14\n 265:25 268:19\n 202:6 208:9 quick 159:4 268:16 289:6\n 270:24 278:25\n 212:13 213:13 208:4 294:5\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 346 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[readers - refinitiv] Page 51\n\n readers 97:15 reason 13:13 207:7,15 291:6\n 97:21 13:15 29:25 208:13 227:9 recording 5:20\n reading 17:2,3 101:24 125:14 227:11 8:11 291:8\n 17:12 28:25 163:24 164:10 receives 266:13 292:3\n 29:2 134:12 172:18 223:16 receiving 23:23 recurring\n 164:2 188:2 254:21 271:3 200:7 89:18\n 197:23 201:4 284:18,22 recent 90:11 recycle 25:2,11\n 209:4 212:2,7 289:2 293:6,9 191:8 25:15\n 213:6 262:25 293:12,15,18 recognize red 19:20\n 270:13 293:21 208:11 redisclosed\n ready 96:22 reasonable recollect 278:4\n 128:12 131:3 30:5 33:9,14 207:14 reduce 273:6\n 132:2 167:16 34:21,23 36:8 recollection reduced 291:6\n 279:22 36:18,22 37:6 64:20 refer 14:13\n realistic 250:15 40:23 41:24 recommendat... 60:20 84:4\n reality 250:13 42:9 90:23 90:16 97:13 86:21 138:9\n realization 95:14 125:7 record 5:3,17 201:17 215:7\n 272:21 144:3 146:11 6:7 57:11,13 216:18 231:13\n realized 84:10 146:14 153:16 57:15,18 70:6 231:16 235:4\n 268:2 reasons 94:16 110:15 111:24 275:20\n really 8:24 9:2 134:10 233:23 111:25 112:3,5 reference\n 21:8,8 29:14 recall 62:23 123:14 138:20 288:10\n 39:8,15 45:6 181:13 183:20 166:22,23,25 references\n 45:13 48:23 211:18 183:3 187:14 289:12\n 77:17 88:25 recant 219:15 201:15 222:20 referred 117:8\n 89:2 91:3,6 receipt 266:15 222:21,23 127:13 141:10\n 92:11 94:2 receive 63:20 259:21,23 referring 52:13\n 101:5 111:17 93:18 94:25 261:14 280:6,7 58:18 171:23\n 130:10 157:17 252:5 271:15 280:9 288:19 195:13 212:17\n 159:4 194:2 received 12:20 289:24 290:2,5 267:14\n 200:3 242:8 12:21 23:18 290:8,10 291:9 refers 127:17\n 244:13 254:14 91:14 96:6,7 292:5 refinitiv 104:14\n 285:20 289:20 147:15 181:20 recorded 5:6 282:7,22 283:7\n 181:24 195:22 5:25 8:13 283:25 284:2\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 347 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[refinitiv - report] Page 52\n\n 284:17 167:24 242:17,21,22 remote 1:14\n reflected regular 89:17 243:7 277:5 remotely 5:15\n 163:22 89:18 278:19,25 removed\n reflective 267:5 regularity 279:4 250:12\n 267:7 35:14 released 173:3 render 217:5\n reflects 17:23 regularly 133:8 195:7 235:14 218:18 253:2\n refresh 59:11 137:9 235:16 241:17 254:23 255:2,5\n 64:19 80:9 reinvent 20:11 releases 132:15 256:15,24\n 267:10 20:12 132:16 134:3,7 257:5 268:10\n refusing 260:5 reject 142:22 134:15 135:6 rendered\n regard 55:17 relate 205:2 135:15,20 150:23 253:4\n 56:14 169:15 related 202:22 136:8 140:14 rendering\n regarding 221:11 240:9 148:14,19 97:20 150:14\n 190:4 262:17 291:10 292:7 170:6 177:3 209:17\n regardless relating 262:18 237:18 repeat 47:2\n 92:22 relationship relevant 101:15 66:17 67:5\n regards 21:23 43:3 45:5,10 129:12 205:8 77:21 104:4\n 22:8 25:20 45:15,16 52:21 205:18,20 113:11 243:19\n 30:3 32:11 52:23 68:17 reliable 202:17 repeated 18:13\n 46:9 51:18 73:24 74:23 221:6 240:4 138:19\n 55:3,7 100:16 88:22 119:8,15 253:16 repeatedly\n 104:20 114:3 143:5 reliance 72:12 20:23 21:24\n 118:3 131:10 relative 189:4 relied 177:24 79:14 217:25\n 133:6 137:3 288:23 291:12 178:13,24 repeating\n 173:9 206:11 292:9 rely 178:11 220:8 254:7\n 223:13 235:6 release 132:20 relying 41:15 repetitive\n 235:23 236:2 139:5 141:6 93:15 264:21 105:11\n 247:8 263:7,25 148:16 171:3,8 remains 38:10 rephrase\n 264:23 267:13 172:22 181:5 100:17 173:6 194:10 196:6\n 267:18 285:4 181:12 195:17 198:16 205:18 report 4:10,12\n registered 97:6 231:24 232:3 225:13 4:15,18,19,20\n regression 235:18 236:3 remember 4:21 9:7 11:8\n 26:19 130:15 237:16,25 61:10 93:15 14:6,14 15:5\n 131:8,13 241:2 242:12 242:2 15:24 16:4,10\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 348 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[report - reports] Page 53\n\n 16:14 17:11,15 92:13,16,18,21 197:23 198:12 287:7 288:7,18\n 17:17,17 18:3 92:24 93:7,19 198:17,20,22 289:3\n 18:7,17,23 93:21 94:25 200:13 201:2,8 reported 1:17\n 19:25 20:2,13 95:2,12,14,16 202:9 204:7,13 116:5\n 21:11,15,15,21 96:9,9,17 98:9 206:22 207:2 reporter 5:8,11\n 22:4,20,21 98:10,18,20 208:5 209:5,10 6:15,25 8:10\n 23:13,15 24:3 100:19 103:18 210:10 212:3 9:11 95:24\n 24:7,14,20 105:4 106:11 217:11 218:6 138:17,19,21\n 25:2,3,12,12 106:22 108:11 218:20 221:23 147:9 227:3\n 26:12 28:15,18 108:16,25 223:9 228:12 261:25 262:3\n 28:20 31:7 110:12 113:3 231:14,16 280:25\n 38:2,4,25 41:7 115:6 116:14 234:14 235:15 reporting 75:2\n 49:6,16 51:5 116:17,22,23 235:16,25 144:18 146:3\n 51:16,19 52:9 117:23 118:15 236:2 237:4 148:6\n 53:10,13,21,23 121:9,13 239:23 240:24 reports 17:16\n 54:4,11,19,20 124:21,25 241:16,17,19 18:4,18 19:2,9\n 55:14 58:13,14 137:24 138:11 242:16,25 19:10,12,13,14\n 58:24 59:22 140:16,24 244:5,9 245:8 19:15,16 20:8\n 62:10,11,15,16 146:4 147:16 245:11 247:9 20:14,24 21:5\n 62:17,19,20,24 158:8 167:9 247:12,13 21:11,13,25\n 62:25 63:16 171:6,8 174:13 250:24 253:13 22:6,10,17\n 64:9 65:3,4,5 180:8 181:7,8 253:15 262:6,9 25:16 40:23\n 65:12,14,20 181:18 182:6 264:2,8,9,11,12 41:5,16 52:10\n 66:25 67:7,22 182:21 183:6 265:9,12,20,24 52:15 53:6\n 68:5 69:17 183:12,23 266:3,25 66:10 87:4,8\n 70:15 71:16 184:11 186:19 268:15 269:13 87:10,11,12,17\n 72:20,22 74:24 187:16 188:3 269:15 270:6,9 87:18,23 88:4\n 74:25 77:12,12 189:7 190:14 270:10,11 89:7,11 90:11\n 80:7,8,24 84:2 190:15,18 271:6,21,25 90:21,24 91:12\n 85:9,16,23 191:9,13,15 273:9,24 93:6,23 94:3,4\n 87:13 89:17,18 192:13,14,25 274:10,25 94:24 95:9\n 89:19 90:7,9 193:21 195:5,6 275:3,19 96:11 97:15,16\n 91:2,4,5,15,21 195:7,11,13 281:21,22 97:22 98:13,14\n 91:24,25 92:7 196:16 197:22 282:12 284:20 99:7 100:4,6,7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 349 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[reports - retyping] Page 54\n\n 100:11 102:23 represent respect 20:5,14 restate 232:25\n 103:17,20 160:20 180:14 21:2 32:14 234:8 242:5\n 104:7,9,11,12 180:16 182:25 34:5 53:23 restated 76:16\n 104:16,17,21 183:3 208:5 54:24 55:10 restating 101:6\n 104:21 106:4 representation 63:12 76:11 restricted\n 106:18,20 15:24 128:25 88:21 107:14 46:10\n 107:3,12,17 129:18 184:17 188:5 216:15 restrictions\n 108:14,20 represented 217:13 219:7 115:2,3\n 109:23 110:9 184:10 226:9 restroom\n 113:2,8 114:8 representing respond 71:17 166:12\n 114:11,20,21 105:25 74:18 107:25 result 179:7\n 114:24 115:8 represents 108:5,6,7 resulting 43:4\n 115:23,25 277:14 136:13 241:21 68:18 73:25\n 116:3,20,21 request 285:17 responded results 4:22\n 117:3,5,9,11,12 requested 54:8 110:6 247:4 228:13\n 117:14,17,20 106:21 138:20 responding retained 83:23\n 118:11 179:18 236:20 285:16 93:13 206:2 84:24 85:7\n 180:5,10,13,19 required 66:18 responds 176:4 201:21 204:19\n 181:6,11,17,20 124:10 294:13 response 20:4 204:22 219:9\n 182:21,23 requirements 22:11 94:21 220:18 222:6\n 183:4 184:12 66:13 108:13,15 236:10 238:24\n 195:2 196:16 research 3:4 121:16 140:20 retrieve 56:2\n 198:2 200:25 4:18,21,22 168:6,19 174:7 retrieved\n 228:20 234:7 6:14 87:13 178:19 253:9 104:18\n 234:16,21,23 88:3,12,18 responsible retrieving\n 238:2 240:22 96:10,17,21 188:10 203:8 284:25\n 240:25 241:9 97:5,16 100:3 203:11,24 return 142:8,12\n 242:13,14 101:12 114:11 responsive 144:12 161:8\n 249:2,3,24,25 246:16 18:13 123:20 173:19 175:14\n 250:9 257:12 residual 141:23 rest 16:10 197:13\n 283:15,18,21 161:7 103:7 188:3 returns 141:23\n 283:22 284:5 resources 254:8 279:24 175:24\n 284:19,25 83:10 102:2 287:15 retyping 21:23\n 287:8,9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 350 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[reuters - risk] Page 55\n\n reuters 228:14 24:2,15 46:22 82:16,20 83:8 192:18 193:9\n 228:16 282:21 47:4 56:20 83:11 93:10,21 195:19 197:4\n revealed 89:21 62:16 80:18 99:13 104:8,13 199:15,20,21\n 91:12 205:21 86:18 87:23 104:16,24 202:13,14\n 262:20 104:7,16 112:24 119:22 205:25 209:25\n revelation 128:19 163:12 119:22 121:2,5 210:16,20\n 265:11 176:21 203:13 124:14 126:5,7 211:7,20\n revenue 185:14 203:15 208:14 126:17 130:18 212:12 213:22\n 186:2,5 272:25 216:20 241:3 131:14,18 216:3 218:3\n revenues 241:10 254:22 132:25 134:4 219:13 222:15\n 198:14 215:3 255:21 135:22 140:25 223:17 224:21\n 216:12 reviewing 143:14,16 225:3,25\n reverse 287:22 37:21 133:14 148:11 150:16 226:14 227:7\n review 86:15 154:17 193:21 150:20 151:11 230:3 231:25\n 87:7,9,12 213:24 151:14,15 233:12 234:13\n 90:12 95:8 revisit 188:17 152:8,11,25 234:14 235:7\n 104:10 106:18 right 6:18 7:3 154:2,3,9,20 235:10,19\n 108:14,21 10:22 12:13,19 156:9,15,24 236:6 237:2,25\n 117:13 118:9 16:10,24 17:4 157:14 159:14 238:21 245:8\n 128:14,17 17:4 19:21 159:21 160:7 247:11 248:10\n 131:25 132:3 22:15 29:7,17 160:11 161:13 254:8 257:3\n 163:17 182:14 33:8 34:5,9 162:7,16,18 258:15 263:9\n 207:3 208:17 36:11,14 44:14 164:12 165:4 266:17 267:15\n 212:22 214:13 44:23 45:2,13 167:5 168:22 269:14 270:4,8\n 216:4,17 46:18 48:12 170:3,17 270:13 274:12\n 224:11 225:15 49:13,14 56:5 171:15,19 275:23 276:13\n 225:19 228:7 56:6 57:22 173:5,12,25 278:13 280:14\n 229:20 232:18 58:4,23 59:24 175:11,24 286:22,25\n 232:20 238:17 61:9 62:22 177:14 178:6 287:4 290:3\n 243:21 246:22 63:14 65:17,19 183:17 184:19 rip 48:3\n 246:22 252:25 66:20 70:19 184:22 185:4 risk 263:23\n 253:3 277:17 71:3 73:4 185:17 188:8 264:6,17\n reviewed 17:18 75:21 77:11 188:24,25 265:11,14,15\n 17:20 18:7 79:17 81:23 189:6,12,18 265:16 266:7,9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 351 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[risk - scenarios] Page 56\n\n 266:14 267:8 run 38:22 39:3 92:9 94:3 156:17 157:15\n 268:22 269:4 133:22 137:4,6 109:17 124:16 184:20,25\n 269:20,21,25 142:6 186:11 124:22 134:19 185:5,13,15,21\n 271:4,7,18 188:6 263:17 137:9 139:21 186:2,3,7,10,12\n 272:4 275:12 running 267:25 154:16 155:9 186:19 188:18\n 275:17,24,24 s 172:12 174:3 188:21 189:25\n 276:3,6 277:15 175:12 194:7 191:12 195:13\n s 2:1,14 3:1 4:6\n 277:21 278:6,7 195:5 198:2,6 195:18 209:12\n 113:15 186:24\n 278:21 198:12,19 211:20 214:23\n 187:7 270:20\n riskiness 84:16 199:13 201:24 219:16 229:25\n 270:22,25\n risks 262:20 213:6 218:8 230:5,9 237:4\n 293:3\n 263:3 265:10 234:20 236:21 240:3 244:5\n s&p 129:6\n road 178:9 238:19,20 253:20 260:18\n sake 139:25\n 197:18 248:12,24,25 260:20 262:15\n sale 202:21\n rolling 131:7 249:22 250:14 262:16 268:16\n 221:9 240:7\n room 10:25 254:12,20 270:13,16\n salience 100:23\n 144:25 255:4 256:21 272:2 276:12\n salient 89:16\n routine 133:8 270:9 271:23 282:7 284:2\n 95:2\n 137:10 274:6,11 276:2 286:23 287:2\n sample 34:11\n row 149:12,16 276:4,9 277:18 289:16\n 35:11\n 149:25 151:9 says 8:12 12:18 scaled 184:21\n san 60:13 64:15\n 152:19 153:2 15:9 16:12 185:9 188:19\n satisfying\n 153:23 159:9 23:7 31:2,8,21 189:23 270:15\n 46:24\n 159:17 161:17 43:2,17 56:12 scan 80:13\n sausage 29:24\n 161:23 162:12 63:22 68:14,25 scanned 102:2\n save 20:10\n 162:16 163:22 70:12 72:20 103:4\n saw 92:7 94:15\n 165:24 286:17 77:12,12,15 scanning 23:24\n 178:17 281:5\n 286:17,25 79:5 81:10 scenario 173:8\n saying 13:25\n rows 159:3 90:10 93:5 173:10,10\n 27:20 30:17\n 162:13 163:15 99:17 102:18 175:9 176:25\n 36:12,25 38:2\n 235:5 287:11 102:19 108:25 177:4,11,12\n 38:15 39:13\n rubber 91:16 109:2,9 121:9 206:12 254:18\n 42:2 44:4,15\n rules 5:24 8:6 121:12 134:13 scenarios\n 52:14 76:10,21\n 135:7 154:2 254:13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 352 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[schools - send] Page 57\n\n schools 214:25 202:12 209:12 137:12 142:2 seeing 149:6\n 216:10 209:15,18,23 145:5 148:8,14 213:9\n schultz 2:14 211:7 230:18 149:16,24,25 seem 212:10,16\n 7:11 233:16 234:5 150:3,9,13,22 255:16 256:18\n screen 12:7 280:17 284:14 151:7,11,14 281:7\n 98:16,18 99:14 section 48:3 154:2,5 156:9 seems 188:3\n 100:10 149:15 56:11 79:23 156:16,19,23 190:8 211:6,15\n 149:19 150:6 81:3 86:15,22 159:11,13,17 212:7 269:5\n 150:13 182:11 184:19 159:21 160:5 seen 13:10,11\n scroll 15:22 sections 56:15 162:5 175:25 40:22 198:16\n 230:12 66:24 176:4 178:12 205:19 225:13\n scrolled 235:21 secure 145:8 181:16 183:16 228:21 245:19\n scrolling 90:7 securities 7:25 184:18,21,23 283:3 285:5\n 230:11 23:11 66:8 185:7,9,11,12 select 19:9\n se 4:14 8:4 79:24 97:20,25 185:14,18 122:19 138:24\n 23:10 202:21,24 186:3,6,9,14 selected 135:19\n search 4:22 203:7 221:10 188:20 189:24 135:24 137:13\n 228:12 229:10 221:13 240:8 190:3 191:16 138:3,7,23\n searches 240:11 247:24 191:17 194:7 140:7 230:5\n 103:19,24 251:2,21 257:7 195:2,3 198:20 selecting 48:10\n 284:6 260:19 199:6 203:3 selectively\n searching security 25:22 209:19,22 136:7\n 284:17 see 11:3 13:7 212:14,16 sell 90:17 97:19\n sec 147:12 15:15 16:4 214:20 220:13 selling 97:25\n second 9:15 22:23 23:6 222:7 230:7,8 semicolon\n 13:23 22:16,20 31:7 58:21 231:19,19 284:2\n 22:21 56:25 64:9,12,13 234:16 238:19 send 11:21,24\n 59:7 69:11 76:16 78:9 253:24 267:14 12:5,12,19\n 90:9 96:19 79:8 86:21 275:24 276:8 13:21,23 14:16\n 97:2 118:2 87:3 89:11,13 281:6 282:6,8 56:25 62:7\n 128:16 148:24 92:2,3 93:23 284:24 285:24 63:15 96:4\n 159:18 165:18 98:17 100:10 286:14,15,21 147:11 181:22\n 173:10 181:19 101:12,21,23 287:3,5,7 283:10 288:24\n 183:18 190:23 116:19,20 289:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 353 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[sending - simple] Page 58\n\n sending 14:14 setting 130:5 42:6 71:11 significance\n 181:19 217:18 176:5,9,18 39:7 142:18\n senior 3:3 setup 133:5 shortened 143:4,18\n sense 92:5 seven 100:4 35:22 144:21 145:18\n 94:14 133:12 287:17,20 shorter 175:20 146:12,15\n 193:10 seventh 160:16 shortly 183:6 155:11 200:22\n sent 23:17 several 18:25 show 62:20 significant 39:9\n 206:15 227:7 19:13,14 25:24 74:22 84:6 39:10 74:23\n 282:11 285:3 139:6 185:21 105:8 161:10 142:9,13 143:8\n sentence 21:20 186:13,20 166:3 171:12 143:10,21,25\n 29:13 43:9 188:21,25 179:7 202:18 144:2,13\n 71:5,15 72:19 189:10,14 204:12 221:7 151:24 153:11\n 78:9,10 90:9 199:18 215:22 240:5 253:17 153:13,18,20\n 90:22 92:20 264:8 266:22 showed 163:17 153:24 155:4\n 119:12 137:25 268:18 270:17 showing 48:2 155:16 157:9\n 138:14 141:2 shaking 9:13 130:5 131:9,18 157:19 158:5\n 141:10 186:12 share 11:21 142:18 161:7 162:7,8\n 186:17 187:3 12:7 149:14,19 shown 141:2 163:5,20 164:7\n 191:19 192:2 150:5,6,11,11 shows 68:20 165:21 166:7\n 239:24 245:25 182:10 74:4 141:20 192:10 197:13\n sentences shareholder 237:10 202:19 221:7\n 187:19,24 82:3 side 64:14 240:5\n 188:4 190:9 sharing 12:6 107:8,13 silenced 11:19\n 270:11 199:18 183:17 184:19 similar 19:3\n sentiment she'll 8:11 185:3,17 20:24 38:9\n 169:24 sheet 104:23 280:23 52:15 285:4\n separate 149:22,24 sides 144:19 similarities\n 174:25 192:14 154:16 287:6 145:17 52:9 63:11,13\n series 65:3,11 sheets 110:11 sign 17:7 similarly\n service 129:7 shoreline signature 211:21 214:23\n services 97:9 214:25 216:10 291:16 292:13 216:8\n serving 230:22 short 30:6 signed 62:18 simple 61:21\n set 77:3 134:20 32:16 33:11 214:24 216:9 65:18 71:14\n 285:20 40:6 41:2,12 289:5 83:7 102:23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 354 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[simple - speak] Page 59\n\n 115:15 135:25 250:16,25 solution 34:21 187:12,14\n 138:4 140:2 251:3,12,14 34:23 35:5 191:3 209:15\n 165:15 200:4 254:13 255:10 245:17 209:17 233:2\n 260:4,10 255:12,13,14 solutions 192:6 234:8 265:7\n simpler 75:20 256:14 solve 34:19 269:11,11,11\n 75:20 six 45:5 182:6 35:4 39:25 269:11 275:13\n simply 41:9 sixth 160:15 40:18 41:14 275:21 276:16\n 47:18 88:11 size 34:11 43:15 81:21,23 279:11,12\n 98:13 106:8 156:18 solves 41:18 286:18 289:11\n 115:23 125:11 sketchy 280:25 176:25 289:20 290:6\n 126:19 134:4 skills 291:9 somebody sort 11:4 82:8\n 136:9 139:14 292:6 282:11 83:24 84:24\n 145:25 163:25 skim 95:13 son 45:2,5 89:5 126:25\n 194:11 200:4 184:5 201:20 soon 272:23,24 193:22 200:9\n 242:10 skimmed 98:4 sorry 12:25 238:11 260:5\n simultaneous 184:8 210:11 22:24 25:7 273:6\n 243:11 247:2 skipping 30:16 28:19 30:24 sorted 158:18\n single 52:7 slated 267:20 41:22 47:2 158:19\n 171:16,21 sleuthing 51:21,21 58:6 sorting 158:12\n 172:22 210:12 229:14 65:9 67:21 sorts 87:15\n 241:16,17 slightly 160:12 69:10 80:21 115:3 159:8\n singling 170:13 slow 90:7 86:6,10,10 sounds 222:18\n sir 57:20 150:22 227:15 90:7 93:12 246:3 280:4\n 280:11 280:16 96:24 98:8 source 282:7,14\n sirona 4:17 slowly 21:8 126:7 127:12 282:25\n 60:14 64:16 smaller 171:7 127:19 128:2 southern 1:2\n sit 259:9 smart 255:24 128:15 135:12 15:10\n site 82:19 snuff 263:16 149:20 151:14 speak 9:13,17\n sitting 65:18 software 129:7 152:24 154:6 9:23 57:23\n 71:4 72:18 191:23 156:5 157:3 58:9 85:12\n 252:16 solely 97:17 161:15 162:20 110:15 197:6\n situation 30:8 solicitation 162:22 166:5 197:10 236:24\n 237:15 249:17 97:19 167:16,18,20 246:4 258:11\n 249:18 250:15 179:25 186:15 258:14 259:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 355 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[speaking - statistically] Page 60\n\n speaking 9:21 speculate 9:9 127:20 132:5 164:24 216:8\n 30:9 33:13,23 speculated 173:21,24 237:9 259:9\n 84:20 85:12 219:5 175:15,24 263:2\n 118:6 142:25 speed 167:21 178:11 218:14 statements\n 238:23 257:21 spent 221:20 233:19 234:15 73:2 165:3\n 261:10 276:5 sphere 277:19 238:18 246:24 170:14\n 278:22 spits 99:21,22 263:7 268:3 states 1:1 15:10\n special 89:19 spoke 223:15 272:24 199:9\n specific 25:10 sports 99:13 started 45:3 statistic 144:19\n 44:22 45:12 spread 279:5 63:6 108:9 144:22 145:14\n 66:2 94:16 spreadsheet 171:17 193:2 146:13,23\n 119:9 121:18 4:19 164:3 233:20 267:22 statistical\n 168:4,8,16,20 sprung 201:11 272:5 32:14,17 33:20\n 168:25 169:13 staff 51:14,23 starting 97:2 33:24 37:12,13\n 170:21 172:2,8 51:25 208:12 210:25 38:12 39:7\n 172:25 176:11 stage 108:18 286:6 40:2 142:7,18\n 182:19 185:16 122:2 178:9 starts 86:11 143:4,18 144:4\n 189:15 194:25 204:18 127:11 183:21 144:21 145:18\n 214:22 217:9 stages 233:18 185:20 146:11,15\n 219:14 222:11 stamp 15:7 state 78:7 155:3,11\n 241:11 242:25 91:16 202:17 204:8 177:18 178:5\n 243:18 260:18 stamped 15:3 291:19 178:14 194:20\n 263:23 264:5 stand 62:18 stated 75:21 200:22\n 265:16 275:11 71:7,15,21 124:25 138:2 statistically\n specifically 72:5,18,25 168:2 239:10 30:8 33:13,23\n 53:22 69:3 73:2,10,19 239:17,18 39:9,9 74:22\n 77:13,15 94:23 74:9 79:9 80:3 253:14 261:13 142:8,13,25\n 106:9 118:17 290:9 261:16 274:24 143:7,10,21,24\n 130:2,11 standard 79:20 279:3 288:19 144:2,12\n 168:23 87:13 statement 25:8 151:24 153:10\n specifics 21:17 standing 76:7 69:5 70:20 153:17,20,24\n 56:5 242:21 stands 96:20 71:21,23 72:24 155:15 157:9\n specifying start 31:25 74:15 79:12 157:19 158:4\n 212:24 43:19 122:23 81:6 155:13 161:7 162:6,8\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 356 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[statistically - sure] Page 61\n\n 163:4,20 164:6 story 241:7 179:3,5,12 sudden 145:9\n 165:21 166:6 270:5 194:19 200:10 sufficient 58:22\n 194:14 197:12 straightforward 232:22,23,23 suggest 166:15\n 257:21 138:5 260:3 233:5,6,13 204:23\n statistics strategy 90:2 243:15 258:10 suitable 197:16\n 146:20 strength 143:4 studying 35:13 suite 2:6 192:5\n stats 99:18 strike 18:12,21 stuff 31:21 summarize\n stay 48:4 struck 205:23 210:2 119:5\n 159:16 160:10 structure suarez 3:3 summarized\n stenographic 224:24 subject 12:16 108:12\n 6:2 struggling 79:19 93:17 summary\n step 39:20,20 136:2 subjectively 175:14\n stick 176:8 studied 140:14 36:17 summer 274:8\n stipulation 6:4 studies 105:8 subjectivity 276:10\n stock 29:16 243:10 36:12 support 52:24\n 43:5 55:19 study 26:19 submit 46:21 53:7 66:5,12\n 68:18,21 73:5 34:13,15 52:3 47:3 288:17,17 67:8 178:22\n 73:15 74:2,4 58:24 59:18 submitted 179:6 244:7\n 75:17 90:18 85:20 120:2,5 15:25 54:20 supports 29:4\n 95:21 98:14 121:10,12 59:22 29:15\n 99:7 100:6,8 124:23 127:10 subscribed suppose 211:14\n 119:7,16 120:7 127:13 128:6 294:14 supposed\n 121:17 123:19 131:7,12 subscriber 106:23\n 129:4 130:3 135:17 141:21 113:20,21,24 sure 8:18 9:3\n 168:5,7,17,19 148:3,9 153:3 subscription 14:22 18:6\n 171:14 172:9 164:17,20 113:22 19:19 20:4\n 173:20 175:11 167:24 168:2 subsequently 23:21 25:10,14\n 177:22 185:4 168:10,15 229:21 25:17 32:9\n 219:11 273:3 169:12,14 subtracted 39:21 52:22\n stop 137:21 170:20,23,24 204:9 55:15 58:19\n 261:8,9 171:4,5,11 successive 59:10 68:13\n stories 240:23 172:6,11,16,24 177:2 87:17 88:10\n 241:5 173:13 174:12 successively 91:9 95:13\n 176:7 177:7 172:21 99:4,10 100:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 357 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[sure - tell] Page 62\n\n 103:14 108:6 system 15:6,7 talk 30:15,20 targeted\n 109:25 111:21 t 33:2 43:24 268:16 272:2\n 113:18 128:18 48:14 85:19 targets 97:13\n t 4:6 144:19,22\n 152:6 155:12 109:21 112:11 task 54:8\n 145:14 146:13\n 158:13,16 131:3 169:11 114:13\n 146:20,23\n 162:24 169:4 177:3 190:16 tasked 126:15\n 293:3,3\n 184:5,5,16 229:4 241:23 tax 97:23\n table 54:19\n 190:8 196:13 talked 177:12 taxonomy 54:7\n 118:5\n 199:25 210:6 183:8 219:6 teaching 35:2\n take 5:9,12\n 215:16,17 226:8 240:24 technical 98:14\n 9:16 10:18\n 224:2,2 226:5 243:9 271:12 100:5,7\n 21:10 24:12\n 228:22 236:9 273:20 teleperforma...\n 50:23 57:3\n 253:15 269:8 talking 22:13 4:14 8:4 23:10\n 62:9 86:2,7\n 271:20 273:15 31:14 39:22 24:4 25:12\n 95:12 106:19\n 276:20 284:15 43:18 78:14 58:13 59:20,21\n 110:21 111:20\n 289:4 89:22,24 93:8 tell 6:22 12:20\n 118:20 128:8\n surprise 66:23 132:6 140:22 16:22,25 23:3\n 130:24 135:8\n 201:11 202:2 144:4 148:17 23:18 25:17\n 154:7 160:23\n surprising 99:3 152:20 165:14 28:24 51:9\n 170:4 183:24\n 106:24 168:23 187:20 54:8,10 63:20\n 208:4 211:22\n suspect 258:24 189:9 193:14 68:9 78:19,21\n 220:22 222:15\n suspects 259:3 195:2 206:12 85:23 89:9\n 228:18 234:17\n swath 278:20 212:17 223:5 96:5 109:13\n 235:2 255:24\n 278:25 242:3 243:8 113:7,16 131:2\n 261:3 263:18\n swear 5:14 247:11,13 131:8,25\n 264:18 274:16\n 6:17 268:21 275:4 145:23 147:13\n 278:22 287:19\n switch 150:10 276:15 147:14,24\n takeaways\n switching 57:2 talks 209:25 148:21 149:3\n 191:12,20\n 57:7 210:15 150:21 151:22\n taken 223:14\n swore 8:10 tallahassee 161:3 171:4\n 241:4 291:3,11\n sworn 5:17 1:15 172:7 179:12\n 292:8\n 6:22 291:5 tandem 100:14 181:23 182:15\n takes 170:20\n 294:14 target 89:23 190:19 202:10\n 185:6 208:6 217:6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 358 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[tell - think] Page 63\n\n 225:4 227:8,8 78:7 81:19 43:14 66:20 172:3 182:12\n 228:9 229:13 84:5,16 85:12 194:13,13 190:20,24\n 240:2 252:17 87:14 89:25 200:21 214:10 191:10,10\n 252:20 254:2 90:2 93:14,17 215:21 217:25 199:17 202:12\n 256:6 257:9,9 94:8 104:11 238:3 256:4,9 210:14 211:5\n 257:10 259:10 126:6 132:22 testify 217:15 211:23,23\n 260:21 262:7 133:5,12,19,23 testifying 7:24 227:6,21 231:8\n 282:3 134:19 137:3 42:10 48:15 261:23 280:4\n telling 76:7 139:21 143:12 291:5 281:3 282:2,5\n 102:7 105:23 146:2,18 148:5 testimony 8:14 285:25\n 215:12 221:21 171:11 174:3 47:18,21 50:15 theoretically\n 241:13,14 178:8 197:3,7 108:4 164:12 244:13,21\n 244:11 248:16 197:25 198:11 196:23 201:16 246:11 247:23\n 252:16 253:5 201:16 205:9 214:7 233:3 theory 266:19\n tells 102:15 212:24 219:5 237:16 244:12 thereof 263:9\n temporary 223:12,22 247:21,21 thing 9:15\n 181:8 224:23,24 260:13 294:9 10:14 17:10\n ten 98:12 99:6 233:14,22 testing 176:15 52:6 92:12\n 107:3 109:12 236:13 243:7 text 19:9,25 99:16 118:13\n 114:7 280:3 243:18 244:25 21:10 22:5 138:12 156:2\n tenants 266:19 260:17 264:7 24:7 62:23 157:13 187:10\n tend 212:9 264:21 265:10 121:2 185:16 230:13 236:22\n term 142:3,3 267:3,23 textbook 76:4 277:20 278:15\n terms 18:9 271:23 272:4 texts 18:23 278:16 285:19\n 19:17 20:5,20 274:20,21 textual 52:12 things 8:17 9:9\n 20:24 22:10 276:5 277:5,25 thank 5:11 6:15 9:14 38:19\n 25:22 29:25 test 12:13 6:25 14:12 91:5 102:8\n 34:6,10 37:4 32:15 33:18 23:2 59:16 115:17 125:16\n 38:18 47:15 37:3,16 38:12 62:6 72:15 144:8,10,13\n 52:2,4,12 38:19 40:13 73:4 86:18 265:22\n 54:10 56:6,22 42:19 84:19 96:2 116:25 think 8:22,23\n 63:6,9 66:13 142:7 123:24 128:20 13:24 16:20\n 72:8,11 76:13 testified 6:24 147:11 166:20 17:12 51:4\n 76:21 77:24,25 29:9 41:11 167:14,21 67:2,18 69:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 359 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[think - touting] Page 64\n\n 90:22 94:20 three 38:13,15 257:25 258:22 236:12,16\n 105:17 111:21 50:9,18 70:12 273:6 274:5 239:9 247:7,9\n 125:7 136:2 99:19 105:18 276:21 278:8 247:10 252:14\n 147:5 150:14 138:15 160:7 278:23 286:9 252:16\n 151:22 156:17 178:17,20 timeline 188:12 today's 5:4\n 162:5 172:19 180:19 181:12 188:13,15 together 52:24\n 174:10,22 217:11 189:2,9 190:4 52:25 87:11\n 186:19 188:14 thumb 120:23 268:24 269:24 told 22:9 102:3\n 194:21 196:21 thursday 1:12 271:8 272:18 102:9 115:10\n 198:4,10 203:7 time 1:13 6:5 273:15,21 153:16 194:24\n 205:11 207:16 9:18,24,24 276:9 246:15 248:17\n 215:20 220:3 10:11 20:13 times 7:19 tolerate 261:10\n 230:13 234:19 27:15 36:16 17:14 104:6 261:12\n 237:7,8 256:2 39:10 45:12 105:18 139:7 ton 83:15\n 271:11 278:12 57:3 64:25 165:10 199:19 235:17 236:3,5\n 279:21 280:14 71:11 86:3,7 215:22 217:11 236:8\n 281:8 284:23 87:25 106:17 271:16 tone 76:12\n 285:2,5 129:22 130:6 timestamp tons 82:23\n thinking 111:5 131:16,20,22 175:19 140:8\n 111:12 256:8 137:23 148:6 timing 84:9 top 14:18,21\n third 23:6 166:18 174:5 267:18 274:19 64:14 75:18\n 159:21 174:17 176:17 tipped 76:20 151:19 154:6\n thompson 177:14 179:11 title 60:7,9,10 154:14 157:16\n 114:22 183:14 194:16 64:11 185:2 166:6 183:16\n thomson 194:19 197:8 209:19 230:5 184:24 188:18\n 228:14,15 198:7,16,24,25 toc 230:5 191:11,14\n 282:21 283:8 200:7 208:21 today 7:12 230:5\n thoroughly 218:22 220:12 11:21 13:14,16 topic 211:16\n 208:17 220:22 221:21 13:18 17:24 220:24\n thought 43:9 222:4,8 233:11 71:5 72:18 topics 57:3,7\n 70:7 155:14 235:14 238:4 73:10 75:14 total 172:7\n 185:22 231:3 242:3 245:4 78:9 209:8,9 totally 192:13\n 242:5 282:23 247:5 251:18 213:22 215:9 touting 76:24\n 283:5 254:11 256:16 217:15 219:8,9 276:8\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 360 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[toward - types] Page 65\n\n toward 195:14 trifecta 160:6 108:24 118:8 turned 228:23\n towards 193:3 true 17:6 45:24 119:23 121:15 turnover 285:3\n tower 4:18 88:3 45:24,25 122:7,13 turns 17:13\n 88:12 96:21 132:22 259:14 124:20 129:9 tweet 264:2\n 97:5 101:12 268:5,7 291:8 129:24 134:5 265:21,22\n 114:11 292:4 294:8 135:13 136:9 266:2 273:20\n towers 96:10 truly 225:22 139:14 143:17 275:3\n tradable 101:2 truth 6:22,23 145:21 151:21 twice 7:20\n traded 29:5,16 6:23 138:8 153:21 163:10 288:11\n 68:21 73:15 205:20 256:24 163:10 164:9 two 7:10 20:6\n 74:5 260:20 262:17 164:15 165:2,9 27:15 36:5,13\n trading 55:21 272:5,5 165:11 171:11 44:20 45:2,12\n 176:2 truthful 259:8 172:4 174:24 45:15 82:5,10\n traditional try 9:22 102:16 180:2 185:15 83:13 94:15,17\n 84:5 165:7 178:3 190:2 196:5 109:6,8 128:5\n train 242:5 194:14 218:13 199:25 200:11 144:19 145:15\n training 41:23 226:5,7 248:14 200:18,23 146:6 154:24\n 76:5 trying 27:17 215:24 217:23 162:17,21,22\n transcriber 29:12 31:5,13 221:18,24 166:18 171:25\n 292:1 31:17,23 32:8 226:11,15 172:2 187:19\n transcript 5:19 34:23 36:7 230:17 231:10 188:3 189:16\n 292:3,4 294:5 39:16 41:9 235:7,12 195:22 196:9\n 294:9 42:3,22,23 236:11 237:11 210:22 265:22\n transcriptionist 43:8,16 44:2,8 241:23 245:2 269:18 287:5\n 291:7 45:18 49:18,21 255:9 260:13 287:11 289:12\n trash 209:13,20 59:9,10 77:18 260:14 266:6 type 78:21,22\n treat 225:9 78:16,23 81:7 269:3 271:3,10 83:25 90:20\n trend 130:5 81:19 85:15 277:25 278:9 91:13 106:12\n trick 27:16 101:8,10,19 282:16 285:23 107:18 113:20\n 59:9 232:13 102:5,13,14,18 tucked 11:16 119:8 203:8,24\n trickier 177:16 102:20 103:6,7 turn 16:3 86:25 204:19,22\n tricky 178:4 103:15,22,25 133:21 167:8 types 89:10\n 179:4 194:21 106:25 107:5 259:4 91:11 114:24\n 196:25 233:5 107:14 108:8 169:18,22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 361 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[types - understanding] Page 66\n\n 170:25 unclear 19:8,18 78:16,24 80:20 200:24 215:16\n typewriting 61:14 270:7 81:8,14 83:18 217:24 218:5\n 291:6 under 5:23 84:23 85:17 218:13 219:21\n typical 105:25 8:15 13:18 92:10 93:4 221:19,24\n 106:2,4,5 17:5 25:21 94:12 101:10 225:23 226:15\n typically 12:8 33:11,15 56:11 101:19 102:5 230:17 233:3\n 34:8 89:22 68:19 74:3 102:14,16,18 235:8,8,10,12\n 90:10 113:25 96:18 97:10 102:21 103:6 237:11 238:12\n 116:18 146:10 115:21 151:15 103:16 107:2,8 243:7 244:12\n 180:25 162:18 184:19 107:14 108:8 246:2 255:23\n typos 54:12 209:12,23 108:24 109:25 256:20 257:3\n u 270:14 110:2,17 119:4 260:22 265:7\n underlying 119:5,11,24 266:6 268:23\n u 148:11 154:2\n 193:13,16 121:16 122:7 269:3 271:4,6\n 154:6 156:24\n 275:5 122:13 123:14 271:10 278:2\n 157:6 158:12\n undermine 124:2,3,20 278:10 282:17\n 158:18,19\n 38:24 85:2 125:13 127:17 283:12 284:9\n 159:11,16\n undermines 132:7 134:5 285:8,18\n 160:11 161:23\n 28:4 135:3 136:3,9 understanding\n 162:18\n understand 139:10,12,14 26:18 32:22\n u7 148:15\n 5:18 8:19,24 140:5 143:18 50:7,15 66:11\n ubiquity 98:21\n 9:3 13:17 144:6 146:5,8 69:9 72:2\n ultimately\n 27:17 31:6,13 151:23 153:21 76:18 77:20\n 127:16 224:12\n 31:17,24 32:8 155:22 156:16 78:8,11,18,20\n 224:22 225:7\n 34:24 39:16,17 156:22 162:6 78:24 80:24\n 226:16\n 39:21,23 41:9 162:13 163:10 81:11 82:14\n unable 250:16\n 41:10 42:3,11 164:2 165:8,13 89:3 105:23\n unavailable\n 42:21,24 43:8 167:25 169:8 107:17 109:7\n 117:7\n 43:12,16,22 169:11 171:25 109:17 124:21\n unaware 88:6\n 44:3,8 45:22 172:4,6,10 128:22 132:9\n 88:22\n 47:10,14 49:22 174:11,22 141:22 167:23\n uncertainty\n 61:21 67:6,11 176:24 177:6 169:21 174:22\n 84:16 274:18\n 69:22 75:10 194:9 196:5 180:23 187:15\n 76:23 77:18 197:24 200:11 203:5,11,22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 362 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[understanding - vary] Page 67\n\n 204:24 205:5 united 1:1 175:23 176:14 84:14,18 85:14\n 214:25 216:10 15:10 194:22 220:8 101:15 130:21\n 229:6 233:25 unlimited 83:3 useful 91:4,7 142:14,15,16\n 237:3 246:14 unlock 81:20 92:9 145:24 143:3,9,11,12\n 247:20 263:4 unmarked 11:7 177:8 143:23,24\n 266:5 269:23 unquote 133:11 user 195:9 144:10,18,22\n 271:20 276:11 unreasonable users 97:21 145:15 146:10\n 276:23,25 272:18 178:11 194:2 146:19,21,22\n 277:4 unsurprising 195:3,22 146:24 148:22\n understood 66:4 98:21 238:12 149:3 151:19\n 32:9 44:10 untangle uses 5:22 152:22 153:6\n 78:13 92:5 254:16 using 41:14 153:12,18\n 95:6 118:7 update 124:17 44:25 48:6 155:4 156:16\n 120:13 143:8 125:17 181:6 144:21 174:16 156:22 157:10\n 169:4 171:15 use 11:23 12:6 175:14 203:2 157:15,18,25\n 194:23 223:16 21:11 44:24 221:14 232:21 162:3 164:7\n 256:4 62:11 98:25 247:17 248:9 165:21 195:23\n undertake 99:14 110:20 usually 123:6 204:8,14 268:3\n 114:14 243:3 136:20,21,23 204:2,17 273:7 275:7,8\n undertaken 136:24 145:17 229:15 valueengine\n 223:8 145:22,22 utilized 188:6 101:18\n undertaking 165:3,4 173:24 v values 144:5\n 119:13 120:2 176:6,10,19 150:24 161:2\n v 1:6 15:13\n unfamiliar 219:22 233:5 variables\n vacuum 22:13\n 229:12 240:15,16 130:13\n vague 78:15\n unfortunately 250:9 288:18 variety 89:13\n validate 192:5\n 116:7 used 19:16 91:11 169:25\n validea 101:18\n unimportant 21:21 28:8 170:6 176:14\n 101:21\n 48:23 40:25 79:23 various 129:2\n valle 211:8\n unique 19:4 82:17 94:22,23 170:25 172:25\n valuation 84:22\n unit 5:5 112:6 98:17,20,22 203:2 221:15\n 85:11,17\n 167:2 222:24 100:11,13,18 247:17\n value 81:16\n 280:10 114:18 130:17 vary 91:15\n 82:2 84:7,12\n 144:4 173:20\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 363 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[vendor - way] Page 68\n\n vendor 93:20 193:7,8 198:7 want 8:5,8 9:2 169:10 177:3\n 93:25 104:13 266:23,24 9:8 10:23 177:25 179:23\n 104:19 229:11 viewing 72:8 12:24 14:22 183:24 187:11\n verbatim 65:4 76:21 16:7,11,19 187:13 190:25\n 65:5,13,15,21 views 76:19 21:6 26:11 208:11 212:25\n 119:20 197:22 virtual 209:5 28:13,14 30:20 214:5 215:21\n 253:23,25 virtually 79:23 36:9 39:20,23 219:15 221:4\n versa 53:7 66:5 visibility 92:25 42:10,25 53:22 222:16 223:7\n version 15:22 visual 128:25 53:24 54:2,3 226:25 231:13\n versions 113:19 129:18 54:17 58:12 231:15 234:2\n versus 66:12 volatility 60:2,22 65:6 235:21 244:8\n 67:16 72:12 131:16 67:25,25 68:12 268:7 273:12\n 91:24 137:5 volume 55:22 68:24 69:21 273:13 281:10\n 171:20 177:20 107:11,12 71:3 77:7,9 281:21 283:12\n 177:21 178:23 vs 7:13 60:14 80:5 81:8 285:20 289:4,4\n 225:10 64:16 293:1 85:19,21 86:15 wanted 81:13\n viable 265:2 294:1 86:20 91:21 117:15,20\n vice 53:7 66:5 w 96:16,18 98:7 118:12 120:12\n video 5:5 8:14 98:8,9 103:11 127:23 164:13\n wainwright\n videoconfere... 107:10 110:21 165:13 169:3\n 4:20 101:17\n 2:3,4,15,24 3:4 111:3,7 113:2 184:15 226:15\n 182:20 191:9\n videographer 118:22 119:3 229:15 281:19\n 193:5 269:13\n 2:23 5:2,8 127:14,15,16 281:23 282:20\n 269:15 271:6\n 57:12,16 127:19 128:6,8 waste 137:23\n wait 288:15\n 111:23 112:4 130:22,24 water 4:18\n waiting 70:21\n 166:21,24 131:23 132:5 10:12 88:3,12\n 206:17 207:23\n 222:19,22 140:5,6 146:23 96:9,21 97:5\n walk 19:21\n 280:5,8 289:24 146:25 147:2 101:12 114:11\n 21:8 33:3\n 290:4,9 149:10 153:12 way 11:20\n 39:14 81:9\n videotaped 155:25 157:12 31:12 33:2\n 159:4,7 164:14\n 1:10 157:14,22,24 49:4 53:10\n 273:10\n view 50:3,21 160:23 161:4 63:23 100:2\n walking 164:23\n 72:6 92:15 161:10 163:25 102:21 107:23\n 289:8\n 178:22 191:21 167:8,10,15,22 107:24 111:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 364 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[way - work] Page 69\n\n 114:10 115:19 weighed 75:12 wilk 2:16 witnesses 165:6\n 117:19 125:19 weighing 75:7 wilkauslande... 165:7 259:24\n 126:16 127:25 77:3 2:19 12:15 wonderful\n 135:14 142:11 weight 49:10 window 30:9 128:19 150:17\n 145:21 154:8 50:23 71:24 32:17 35:21 166:20\n 158:11 163:11 welcome 11:9 36:2 37:5,7 wondering\n 163:25 172:5 57:22 112:10 40:11 41:3 88:16 89:8\n 173:7 186:16 167:7 261:21 145:2 176:6,9 103:3 148:5\n 194:21 201:3 287:15 176:18 164:24\n 206:13 213:22 went 43:17 windows word 17:19,20\n 214:4,11 215:9 107:15 145:9 176:14 18:8 20:21\n 216:4 220:20 270:6,15 wise 235:12 94:22 136:24\n 232:16 245:6 283:24 284:3 wish 12:10 140:5,18 184:2\n 251:7,17 284:16 138:11 236:24 184:3 194:21\n 252:14 258:5 whatever's withdraw 198:5 210:8,8\nways 145:16 47:11 18:21 95:7 220:7 234:17\n 146:6 172:2,3 whatsoever 106:10 170:22 235:2 240:15\n 197:2 258:18 262:2,2 240:16 248:6,7\nwe've 57:8 wheel 20:11,12 witness 5:15,17 248:8,11\n 110:19 147:5 white 104:23 5:18 6:17,21 274:16\n 163:7 165:16 wholesale 23:8 28:21 words 25:18\n 183:7 193:20 66:24 53:5 63:25 119:21 136:21\n 196:16 197:19 wholly 255:21 96:7 110:23 185:5 220:3\n 220:21 232:15 wide 56:13 111:4,21 248:9\n 233:9 240:23 79:19 202:25 147:19,22 work 52:23,25\n 243:9 257:12 221:14 247:17 166:8,19 60:16,18 61:4\n 258:11 247:25 249:20 222:18 227:10 61:10,12,17,20\nwebsite 198:21 251:22 253:19 227:13,18,21 62:2 64:21\n 199:7 257:8 278:14 227:23 260:5 66:7,14,19\nweek 287:20 278:19 261:12 279:21 85:13 111:13\nweekly 55:21 widely 278:17 280:3,16,21 165:10 203:6\nweigh 72:2 279:18 281:3,8 289:11 249:17,18\n 224:17 wildly 47:13 289:15 290:2,6 250:3,4 285:8\n 291:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 365 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[worked - z] Page 70\n\n worked 18:25 wtr 96:20 97:2 189:5 190:21 z\n 19:13 21:13 97:6,8,9,11 194:12 208:8 z 5:1 6:1 7:1\n 38:9 60:23 wtr's 97:22 208:13 209:15 8:1 9:1 10:1\n 66:21 x 209:17 210:6,6 11:1 12:1 13:1\n working 42:12 210:18 211:3,6 14:1 15:1 16:1\n x 4:1,6 101:22\n works 8:7 211:19 227:24 17:1 18:1 19:1\n 102:24\n 31:24 116:10 228:3 230:4 20:1 21:1 22:1\n 224:22 285:13 y 239:10 262:11 23:1 24:1 25:1\n world 48:22 yeah 16:21 269:12,12,12 26:1 27:1 28:1\n 98:23 116:11 30:24 51:6,7 269:17 274:4 29:1 30:1 31:1\n 249:22,23,24 55:4 58:22 276:18 279:8 32:1 33:1 34:1\n 250:2 256:14 59:14 67:11 279:20,25 35:1 36:1 37:1\n 258:19 80:11,17 81:7 280:21,24 38:1 39:1 40:1\n worried 61:22 81:7 82:9 284:8 286:10 41:1 42:1 43:1\n 88:14 136:6 83:11 105:12 287:9 289:2,11 44:1 45:1 46:1\n worry 39:8 105:16,19 year 26:23 27:5 47:1 48:1 49:1\n worthwhile 109:17 124:19 27:5,10,11 50:1 51:1 52:1\n 272:20 127:25 128:18 29:11,11 31:9 53:1 54:1 55:1\n wow 17:12 128:18 129:20 31:9 34:17,17 56:1 57:1 58:1\n 199:15 130:20 132:18 35:18 36:13,13 59:1 60:1 61:1\n write 20:13 147:7,21 36:23,23 37:5 62:1 63:1 64:1\n 21:25 22:2 149:20 150:8 44:20 189:3,11 65:1 66:1 67:1\n 88:4 244:9 150:14 151:4 189:14 190:7 68:1 69:1 70:1\n writing 99:15 151:18 152:21 years 36:6,13 71:1 72:1 73:1\n written 6:3 152:24 158:14 45:2 189:16 74:1 75:1 76:1\n 17:18 18:7 158:21,24 yep 14:15 77:1 78:1 79:1\n 19:12,13 79:9 159:7,9 160:7 86:23 152:10 80:1 81:1 82:1\n 99:12 250:23 163:9 165:2 152:12,14 83:1 84:1 85:1\n wrong 43:17 166:5,5 168:22 196:20 209:22 86:1 87:1 88:1\n 180:3 193:9 169:8 170:10 yikes 145:10 89:1 90:1 91:1\n 195:19 199:20 170:16 182:15 york 1:2 2:7,18 92:1 93:1 94:1\n wrote 22:3 25:3 183:19 185:24 5:14 15:11 95:1 96:1 97:1\n 106:24 198:17 185:24 186:9 291:19 98:1 99:1\n 187:13 188:17\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 366 of 369\n\n\n\n\n[z - zeros] Page 71\n\n 100:1 101:1 168:1 169:1 236:1 237:1 293:2,24 294:2\n 102:1 103:1 170:1 171:1 238:1 239:1 294:4,12\n 104:1 105:1 172:1 173:1 240:1 241:1 zero 143:15,17\n 106:1 107:1 174:1 175:1 242:1 243:1 151:23\n 108:1 109:1 176:1 177:1 244:1 245:1 zeros 151:25\n 110:1 111:1 178:1 179:1 246:1 247:1\n 112:1 113:1 180:1 181:1 248:1 249:1\n 114:1 115:1 182:1 183:1 250:1 251:1\n 116:1 117:1 184:1 185:1 252:1 253:1\n 118:1 119:1 186:1 187:1 254:1 255:1\n 120:1 121:1 188:1 189:1 256:1 257:1\n 122:1 123:1 190:1 191:1 258:1 259:1\n 124:1 125:1 192:1 193:1 260:1 261:1\n 126:1 127:1 194:1 195:1 262:1 263:1\n 128:1 129:1 196:1 197:1 264:1 265:1\n 130:1 131:1 198:1 199:1 266:1 267:1\n 132:1 133:1 200:1 201:1 268:1 269:1\n 134:1 135:1 202:1 203:1 270:1 271:1\n 136:1 137:1 204:1 205:1 272:1 273:1\n 138:1 139:1 206:1 207:1 274:1 275:1\n 140:1 141:1 208:1 209:1 276:1 277:1\n 142:1 143:1 210:1 211:1 278:1 279:1\n 144:1 145:1 212:1 213:1 280:1 281:1\n 146:1 147:1 214:1 215:1 282:1 283:1\n 148:1 149:1 216:1 217:1 284:1 285:1\n 150:1 151:1 218:1 219:1 286:1 287:1\n 152:1 153:1 220:1 221:1 288:1 289:1\n 154:1 155:1 222:1 223:1 290:1\n 156:1 157:1 224:1 225:1 zach 277:8\n 158:1 159:1 226:1 227:1 zachary 2:13\n 160:1 161:1 228:1 229:1 7:11\n 162:1 163:1 230:1 231:1 zahn 1:11 4:9\n 164:1 165:1 232:1 233:1 4:10,12 5:6 6:8\n 166:1 167:1 234:1 235:1 6:20 13:3 14:6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 367 of 369\n\n\n\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n\n Rule 30\n\n\n\n (e) Review By the Witness; Changes.\n\n (1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the\n\n deponent or a party before the deposition is\n\n completed, the deponent must be allowed 30 days\n\n after being notified by the officer that the\n\n transcript or recording is available in which:\n\n (A) to review the transcript or recording; and\n\n (B) if there are changes in form or substance, to\n\n sign a statement listing the changes and the\n\n reasons for making them.\n\n (2) Changes Indicated in the Officer's Certificate.\n\n The officer must note in the certificate prescribed\n\n by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review was requested\n\n and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent\n\n makes during the 30-day period.\n\n\n\n\n DISCLAIMER: THE FOREGOING FEDERAL PROCEDURE RULES\n\n ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.\n\n THE ABOVE RULES ARE CURRENT AS OF APRIL 1,\n\n 2019. PLEASE REFER TO THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES\n\n OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION.\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 368 of 369\n\n VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS\n\n COMPANY CERTIFICATE AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions represents that the\n\n foregoing transcript is a true, correct and complete\n\n transcript of the colloquies, questions and answers\n\n as submitted by the court reporter. Veritext Legal\n\n Solutions further represents that the attached\n\n exhibits, if any, are true, correct and complete\n\n documents as submitted by the court reporter and/or\n\n attorneys in relation to this deposition and that\n\n the documents were processed in accordance with\n\n our litigation support and production standards.\n\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions is committed to maintaining\n\n the confidentiality of client and witness information,\n\n in accordance with the regulations promulgated under\n\n the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability\n\n Act (HIPAA), as amended with respect to protected\n\n health information and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as\n\n amended, with respect to Personally Identifiable\n\n Information (PII). Physical transcripts and exhibits\n\n are managed under strict facility and personnel access\n\n controls. Electronic files of documents are stored\n\n in encrypted form and are transmitted in an encrypted\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-2 Filed 12/12/25 Page 369 of 369\n\n\n\n fashion to authenticated parties who are permitted to\n\n access the material. Our data is hosted in a Tier 4\n\n SSAE 16 certified facility.\n\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions complies with all federal and\n\n State regulations with respect to the provision of\n\n court reporting services, and maintains its neutrality\n\n and independence regardless of relationship or the\n\n financial outcome of any litigation. Veritext requires\n\n adherence to the foregoing professional and ethical\n\n standards from all of its subcontractors in their\n\n independent contractor agreements.\n\n\n Inquiries about Veritext Legal Solutions'\n\n confidentiality and security policies and practices\n\n should be directed to Veritext's Client Services\n\n Associates indicated on the cover of this document or\n\n at www.veritext.com.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:32.768764-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727940","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit B - 2025.02.27 - Dr. Zahn Bozanic Depo Transcript Full","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528955/","id":484528955,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/3/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:52.608670-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:42.471366-07:00","sha1":"16d8d5add909d3611ff5c88e39ffd44f5d27af63","page_count":26,"file_size":515818,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-3 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 26\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1 2ofof2526\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n CLASS ACTION\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPLY REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n May 2, 2025\n\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIAL\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2 3ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nTable of Contents\n\nI. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1\nII. Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................................2\nIII. Background on the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and Stock Prices ............................5\nIV. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Widely Accepted by Courts at the Class\n Certification Stage and Defendants\u2019 Concerns Will be Addressed at the Damages\n Stage ....................................................................................................................................7\n A. Defendants Fail to Demonstrate that the Alleged Misrepresentations Had No Price\n Impact .................................................................................................................................8\n B. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Capable of Addressing Confounding\n Information .......................................................................................................................18\n C. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Capable of Addressing Materializations of Risks\n ............................................................................................................................................19\nV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................21\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page3 4ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n I. Introduction\n\n 1. On January 10, 2025, I submitted an expert report in this matter (my \u201cOpening\n\nReport\u201d), in which I concluded that the market for CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock was efficient\n\nthroughout the Class Period. I also concluded that damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis\n\nsubject to a common methodology in this matter on Plaintiff\u2019s claims under \u00a710(b) and \u00a720(a).1\n\n 2. Following the submission of my Opening Report, Counsel for Plaintiff provided\n\nme with Defendants\u2019 Opposition to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Class Certification, dated March 14,\n\n2025 (Doc. 92) (\u201cDefendants\u2019 Opp. Brief\u201d). I have been asked to respond to certain\n\ncharacterizations of my Opening Report opinions contained within Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief.\n\n 3. My qualifications (including my CV) and rate of compensation for work in this\n\nmatter were identified in my Opening Report and so I do not repeat them here.\n\n 4. In formulating my opinions set forth in this Expert Reply Report, I have relied upon\n\nthe analyses already described in my Opening Report, as well as my knowledge, experience, and\n\nformal training in economics, finance, and statistics, in addition to the allegations and facts set\n\nforth in this matter. All of the materials I have considered in forming my opinions are identified in\n\nAppendix A to this Reply Report, in addition to those previously identified in Appendix B to my\n\nOpening Report.\n\n 5. I reserve the right to amend this report to reflect new information that becomes\n\navailable to me in light of the discovery process and/or future rulings from the Court.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Opening Report, \u00b6\u00b6 3, 92, and Sections V and VI. I continue to hold the opinions expressed in my Opening Report\nand reiterate them here. Capitalized terms in this report have the same meaning as in my Opening Report.\n\n 1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page4 5ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n II. Summary of Opinions\n\n 6. Nothing in Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief disturbs the opinions expressed in my Opening\n\nReport. There are a number of important opinions I express in my Opening Report that Defendants\n\ndo not dispute. First, Defendants do not dispute my conclusion that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the entirety of the Class Period. In my Opening Report, I\n\ntested the market efficiency of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock by evaluating the Cammer and\n\nKrogman factors.2 Defendants do not dispute my analyses of or my conclusions regarding any of\n\nthese factors.\n\n 7. Second, Defendants do not offer any criticism of the event study regression\n\nspecified in my Opening Report. Defendants do not put forward their own event study, nor do they\n\ndispute that I performed a valid event study regression that controls for market and industry effects\n\nthat accurately measures the abnormal returns exhibited by CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock during\n\nthe Class Period and on the alleged corrective disclosure dates. They also do not dispute that an\n\nevent study regression, like the one I conducted in my Opening Report, is one of the economically\n\nvalid methods for conducting a loss causation and damages analysis.\n\n 8. Third, Defendants do not dispute that the damages methodology (i.e., the out-of-\n\npocket method) that I detail in my Opening Report is standard, reasonable, and relied upon in\n\nvirtually all securities class action matters alleging fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the\n\nExchange Act.3 Nor do they articulate any alternative methodology that would be more suitable in\n\nthis matter.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Opening Report, Section V.\n3\n Opening Report, Section VI.\n\n 2\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page5 6ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n 9. Defendants claim that the out-of-pocket damages methodology I have put forward\n\nis flawed for several reasons, because \u201cindividual causation, injury, and damages issues will\n\npredominate.\u201d4 First, Defendants claim a lack of front-end price impact around the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations.5 Second, Defendants claim a lack of back-end price impact around several\n\nalleged corrective disclosures.6 Third, Defendants claim I have failed to identify a method to\n\ndetermine the amount of confounding information that caused a portion of CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock price declines around the corrective disclosures.7 Fourth, Defendants claim I have failed to\n\nexplain how the out-of-pocket damages methodology would address Plaintiff\u2019s allegations\n\nregarding materializations of the risk.8\n\n 10. Defendants\u2019 concerns are unpersuasive. None of the purported issues they raise\n\nwould lead to individualized questions about loss causation and damages. Rather, as explained in\n\nmy Opening Report, the out-of-pocket damages methodology will reasonably address the\n\ncalculation of artificial inflation and any disaggregation of confounding information at the loss\n\ncausation and damages stage, based on a merits-based inquiry.9 This methodology is common\n\nacross all Class members. As noted in my Opening Report: \u201cAll of these loss causation calculations\n\ncan be performed on a class-wide basis and are not dependent upon individual Class member\n\nidentities or circumstances.\u201d10\n\n\n\n\n4\n Defendants Opp. Brief, at pp. 22-25.\n5\n Id.\n6\n Id.\n7\n Id.\n8\n Id.\n9\n Opening Report, Section VI.\n10\n Opening Report, \u00b6 85.\n\n 3\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page6 7ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n 11. What Defendants claim regarding the amount of stock price changes and potential\n\nneed for disaggregation have nothing to do with how the out-of-pocket damages framework fits\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s liability theory or its uniform applicability to all class members. Rather, their speculative\n\nconcerns relate to circumstances that may later implicate the precise amount of artificial inflation\n\nthat a jury or finder of fact attributes to Defendants\u2019 misconduct, and thus determines was present\n\nin CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock throughout the Class Period. These are common concerns in\n\nsecurities litigation matters and are addressed in a loss causation and damages analysis, which I\n\nhave not been asked to perform at this time. As I detail below, parsing out any confounding\n\ninformation will be conducted on a class-wide basis with common information at the loss causation\n\nand damages stage, and there are well-accepted valuation techniques to address these questions at\n\nthat stage based on a detailed merits-based inquiry.11\n\n 12. Moreover, I demonstrate evidence of the price impact of the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations via the associated corrective disclosures in this case. This evidence includes: i)\n\nfundamental principles of finance and economic analysis, ii) internal case documents, iii) analyst\n\ncoverage which explicitly references the economic information pertaining to the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations, and iv) my event study analysis, which documents statistically significant\n\nevidence of price impact in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns.\n\n 13. As a result, Defendants\u2019 critiques do not address, much less alter, my opinion that\n\ndamages in this case can be calculated using a common methodology that is consistent with\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s theory of liability.\n\n\n\n\n11\n Opening Report, Section VI.\n\n 4\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page7 8ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nIII. Background on the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and Stock Prices\n\n 14. In my Opening Report, I explained how the fraud-on-the-market theory relates\n\ndirectly to the price of a given security.12 This theory posits that if a company\u2019s stock price reflects\n\nall public widely available information, then all purchasers of that company\u2019s stock implicitly rely\n\non any misrepresentations or omissions because those statements or omissions have distorted the\n\nvalue of each investor\u2019s purchase price. I further explained how the fraud-on-the-market theory of\n\nreliance has been addressed by numerous courts over the years in relation to claims made under\n\nSection 10(b) of the Exchange Act and was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Basic and\n\nreaffirmed in its Halliburton II decision.\n\n 15. I analyzed the Cammer and Krogman factors relating to CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock in my Opening Report, and I ultimately found that these factors support a conclusion of\n\nmarket efficiency.13 Thus, it follows that purchasers of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock implicitly\n\nrelied on Defendants\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions because the value of that\n\ninformation was incorporated into the price of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock at the time those\n\ntrades were made. Defendants do not dispute my analyses of any of the efficiency factors or my\n\nconclusion that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market during the entirety of\n\nthe Class Period.\n\n 16. As part of the analysis in my Opening Report, I performed an event study to analyze\n\nthe stock price movements for CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock throughout the Class Period. To\n\nperform the event study, I used a regression analysis to measure the relationship between\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s stock price returns and: (1) changes in market-wide factors that would be expected\n\n\n\n12\n Opening Report, Section IV.\n13\n Opening Report, Section V.\n\n 5\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page8 9ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nto impact all stocks, and (2) changes in industry-wide factors that would be expected to impact\n\nstocks in CleanSpark\u2019s industry. By modeling how CleanSpark\u2019s stock price returns moved\n\nrelative to an overall market index and an industry index, I am able to measure its \u201cabnormal\u201d\n\nreturn, which represents the component of the return that is not attributable to market-wide or\n\nindustry-wide effects.\n\n 17. Defendants offer no criticisms of my event study methodology. Nor do they dispute\n\nthat it accurately measures the abnormal returns exhibited by CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock during\n\nthe Class Period and on the alleged misrepresentation and corrective disclosure dates. As explained\n\nfurther in Section IV.A below, my event study provides evidence of price impact \u2013 that is, the\n\nalleged misrepresentations impacted CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price during the Class Period.\n\n 18. Defendants claim my model \u201cis unable to measure damages class-wide in a manner\n\nconsistent with Plaintiff\u2019s liability theory.\u201d14 While it is premature to opine on what a loss\n\ncausation and damages analysis would demonstrate, I would identify, review, evaluate, and\n\nempirically analyze all of the events that are alleged as revealing corrective information (including\n\nby conducting an event study analysis). This, along with an analysis of the alleged misstatements\n\nand omissions in this matter, would allow me to determine the amount of artificial inflation\n\nimpounded into the stock on each day of the class period that subsequently dissipated out of the\n\nprice when the market began to learn of the truth. This amount of artificial inflation would apply\n\nto every member of the class who purchased on a given day during the Class Period.\n\n 19. In the following section, I explain how the out-of-pocket methodology, which\n\nroutinely incorporates artificial inflation estimates derived from event study analyses, is widely\n\naccepted by courts at the Class certification stage.\n\n\n14\n Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief, at pp. 23-25.\n\n 6\n\f Case\n Case\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document\n 108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page910\n of of\n 2526\n\n\n\n\nIV. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Widely Accepted by Courts at the Class\n Certification Stage and Defendants\u2019 Concerns Will be Addressed at the Damages\n Stage\n\n 20. In addition to not challenging my opinions of market efficiency or my event study\n\nmethodology or analysis, Defendants do not challenge the opinion in my Opening Report that the\n\nout-of-pocket method of calculating damages represents a standard and well-accepted\n\nmethodology under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. As I explain in my Opening Report, the\n\nout-of-pocket methodology calculates damages formulaically as the artificial inflation in the share\n\nprice at the time of purchase minus the artificial inflation in the share price at the time of sale.15\n\n 21. At this point, it is important to draw a distinction between two concepts that are\n\npart of a damages methodology: the damages methodology itself and the inputs to the damages\n\nmethodology. In my Opening Report, I presented the standard well-accepted damages\n\nmethodology. Further, I make clear in my Opening Report that quantifying artificial inflation per\n\nshare for each day in the Class Period and the dissipation of artificial inflation through corrective\n\ndisclosures \u2013 the inputs to the damages methodology \u2013 are questions separate and apart from\n\nwhether there is a common, class-wide method for computing damages. As discussed in my\n\nOpening Report, there are a number of valuation techniques that can be employed to conduct such\n\nan evaluation of inputs ultimately used in the damages methodology.16 Rather than taking issue\n\nwith the out-of-pocket methodology, Defendants express concerns over the specific calculation of\n\ninputs to this methodology. However, as explained in the following sections, none of their concerns\n\nraise individualized issues; if any such calculations are warranted at the damages stage, such\n\ncalculations will be carried out on a class-wide basis using a common methodology.\n\n\n\n15\n Opening Report, Section VI.A.\n16\n Opening Report, Section VI.A.\n\n 7\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1011ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n A. Defendants Fail to Demonstrate that the Alleged Misrepresentations Had No\n Price Impact\n\n 22. I understand that Plaintiff\u2019s allegations include the price maintenance theory of\n\nartificial inflation \u2013 that is, the alleged misrepresentations maintained artificial inflation in\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock prices.17 As a result, price impact can be demonstrated by looking\n\nat the alleged corrective disclosures and the resulting impacts on CleanSpark\u2019s stock prices. As I\n\nexplain in this section, the alleged corrective disclosures caused declines in the Company\u2019s stock\n\nprices that are statistically significant on both an individual and collective basis. Moreover,\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s stock price increased at the front-end of the Class Period. I thus demonstrate\n\nevidence of both front-end and back-end price impact of the alleged misrepresentations and\n\nassociated corrective disclosures in this case. This evidence includes: i) fundamental principles of\n\nfinance and economic analysis, ii) internal case documents, iii) analyst coverage which explicitly\n\nreferences the economic information pertaining to the alleged misrepresentations and the\n\nassociated alleged corrective disclosures, and iv) my event study analysis, which documents\n\nstatistically significant evidence of price impact in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns.\n\n 23. I understand Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating there was no price\n\nimpact by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, whether it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the\n\nalleged misrepresentations did not impact CleanSpark\u2019s stock prices.18 As shown in this section, I\n\ndocument compelling evidence of price impact of the alleged misrepresentations in this matter.\n\n\n\n\n17\n Complaint \u00b6 170.\n18\n \u201cDefendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence at\nclass certification.\u201d Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.\n\n 8\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1112ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n i. Fundamental Principles of Finance and Economic Analysis\n\n 24. A fundamental principle of finance and economics holds that the value of a security\n\nis equal to the present value of the expected future cash flows to holders of that security.19 In other\n\nwords, a security\u2019s value is based on the amount, timing, and riskiness of future cash flows it can\n\ngenerate, discounted at a rate that reflects their riskiness.20 All else being equal, a decrease in a\n\ncompany\u2019s future revenue or future earnings reflects a decrease in the cash flows to the common\n\nstockholders, and thus, causes a decrease in the value of the security. Similarly, a delay in the\n\ngeneration of cash flows causes a decrease in the value of the security because those future cash\n\nflows will be discounted over a greater length of time to the present value of the security.\n\n 25. The added power that the expansion of CleanSpark\u2019s ATL Facility would generate\n\nwould allow the facility to produce more bitcoin and thus generate more revenue.21 Therefore,\n\nthere is an economic connection between: 1) the information conveyed by the alleged false and\n\nmisleading statements about CleanSpark\u2019s ATL Facility, its expected costs and profitability, and\n\nthe timeline of its expansion; and 2) the economic information provided by the alleged corrective\n\ndisclosures \u2013 which included revelations of the relevant truth about the ATL acquisition, its\n\npotential costs and profitability, and timeline for completing the expansion project.22\n\n 26. As a result, fundamental principles of finance and economics support the\n\nconclusion that the alleged misrepresentations in this matter had an impact on CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock prices.\n\n\n\n\n19\n Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, & David Wessels, Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, John Wiley &\nSons, Sixth Edition, 2015, p. 17.\n20\n Id., at p. 42.\n21\n See \u00b6 30, infra.\n22\n Opening Report at \u00b6\u00b6 13-16.\n\n 9\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1213ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n ii. Internal Case Documents\n\n 27. In addition to fundamental principles of finance and economics, internal case\n\ndocuments further support the conclusion that the alleged misrepresentations in this matter had an\n\nimpact on CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock prices. As discussed in the following paragraphs,\n\nCleanSpark received several inquiries from the financial media, as well as from CleanSpark\n\ninvestors, which demonstrate the value relevance of the allegedly misrepresented information to\n\ninvestors.\n\n 28. First, internal documents reveal that CleanSpark received several requests for\n\ncomment on January 14, 2021 from the financial media following the release of the Culper Report,\n\nincluding from Seeking Alpha, Bloomberg, and TheFly.com, thus indicating there was media\n\ninterest and concern regarding the allegations contained in the report. For example, the following\n\nemail inquiries were sent to CleanSpark\u2019s Investor Relations department:\n\n \uf0b7 Seeking Alpha: \u201cHi - Josh Fineman with Seeking Alpha news. Trying to get CleanSpark\n comment on this new short report. Thanks much. Josh https:/\n /twitter.com/CulperResearch/status/1349797627018272773\u201d23\n \uf0b7 Bloomberg: \u201cBloomberg markets is wondering if Cleanspark would be able to comment\n on the short-selling report issued by Culper Research.\u201d24\n \uf0b7 TheFly.com: \u201cMy name is Jessica de Sa-Mota and I'm a reporter with The Fly. Culper\n Research has issued a short report on CleanSpark, calling the stock \u201cuninvestible.\u201d\n I just wanted to reach out and see if the company had any comments on this?\u201d25\n\n 29. Second, internal email communications between CleanSpark\u2019s investors and\n\nDefendant Schultz (Chairman) in the days and weeks following the release of Culper Report\n\nindicate there was substantial investor interest and concern regarding the allegations contained in\n\n\n23\n Email inquiry from Seeking Alpha, January 14, 2021 (CSBish0002064)\n24\n Email inquiry from Bloomberg, January 14, 2021 (CSBish0002071)\n25\n Email inquiry from TheFly.com, January 14, 2021 (CSBish0002072)\n\n 10\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1314ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nthe report. In addition to concerns regarding the allegations, as the price of CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock declined, investors repeatedly asked why CleanSpark management failed to publicly\n\nrespond to the allegations. Further, some investors expressed the view that CleanSpark\u2019s lack of\n\npublic commentary disavowing the allegations further enabled CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price\n\ndecline. See, for example, the following excerpts from emails between Defendant Schultz and\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s investors:26\n\n \uf0b7 In reference to the allegations in the Culper Report: \u201cWhat are your thoughts on the\n following.? all clean spark investors are terrified.\u201d27\n \uf0b7 \u201cHowever, I am more than a little freaked out by the DOZENS of lawsuit/PR\n announcements I see in my Yahoo finance app regarding CLSK.\u201d28\n \uf0b7 \u201cif Culper allegations are fabricated or wrong, why not come out publicly with proof\n or a site visit in person video recorded to give investors some good faith. I\u2019d like to know\n where you stand with this.\u201d29\n \uf0b7 \u201cI am concerned with a report that was recently released, by Culper Research. I am\n interested to know what you are going to do to combat this report. I lost thousands of\n dollars today over that report. My hope is that the report was mostly disinformation.\n What can you tell me?\u201d30\n \uf0b7 \u201cI'm reaching out because there\u2019s news about law firms\u2019 investigations about CleanSpark\n and its directors, which impacted the stock price by almost 30% in just a few days. I'm\n a firm believer and investor of CleanSpark but also a bit concerned since there\u2019s no\n formal response to the lawsuit from CleanSpark.\u201d31\n \uf0b7 \u201cI would please like to know a point of view or something you can tell me about the recent\n accusations that has taken the stock 20% down in the past two sessions. I have being\n losing lots of money\u2026 Still, i would like to know if posible why has the company not\n said anything regarding the short.\u201d32\n \uf0b7 \u201cYou guys wanna do your investors a little favor? Give us an update on Lawsuit or\n anything? Were all just losing our money. You guys don\u2019t care about us \u2026 I just feel\n like did not initially comment on short seller reports that drove stock down for almost\n26\n Bold emphasis added to investor emails excerpts.\n27\n Email inquiry from investor, January 15, 2021 (CSBish0002172)\n28\n Email inquiry from investor, February 20, 2021 (CSBish0016542)\n29\n Email inquiry from investor, January 21, 2021 (CSBish0002732)\n30\n Email inquiry from investor, January 14, 2021 (CSBish0002087)\n31\n Email inquiry from investor, January 20, 2021 (CSBish0002536)\n32\n Email inquiry from investor, January 16, 2021 (CSBish0002175)\n\n 11\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1415ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n a week straight before management said a word and that scared alot of investors away ...\n Ever since short sell report you have half the interest in your stock and it\u2019s driving\n prices down.\u201d33\n \uf0b7 \u201cTeam- At what point is a rebuttal going to come to the Culper Research report going\n to come? They are calling our millions of shares \u201cworthless\u201d I expect 48 hours is ample\n time to draft something. Worth of value! \u2026 No Matt! A simple PR response would be\n ideal here. Something to the effect of Culpeper is a short seller and all of this is base\n claims. ... putting out a PR statement defending your company and our shares would\n help a lot! Being quite shows weakness! Just my opinion .... but if the stock keeps falling\n is selling shares on the open market will not help. Defend our investment please!\u201d 34\n\n 30. The significant interest demonstrated by financial media outlets and CleanSpark\u2019s\n\ninvestors provides further evidence of the value relevance and thus price impact of the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations at issue in this case.\n\n iii. Analyst Coverage\n\n 31. In addition to internal case documents, excerpts from analyst reports support the\n\nvalue relevance of the allegations from the Culper Report insofar as they support the conclusion\n\nthat the alleged misrepresentations in this matter had an impact on CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock\n\nprices and thus firm value. Quotes from analyst reports reveal that analysts updated their valuation\n\nmodels on the basis of the CleanSpark\u2019s statements regarding energy capacity increases and the\n\nability to obtain and immediately deploy additional bitcoin mining equipment in order to improve\n\ncomputing speeds and thus the rate of bitcoin mining. Hence, on the basis of CleanSpark\u2019s\n\ndisclosures, analysts raised their revenue and profit margin projections for CleanSpark and\n\ntherefore CleanSpark\u2019s target share price. See, for example, the following excerpts from analyst\n\nreports covering CleanSpark:35\n\n\n\n\n33\n Email inquiry from investor, February 2, 2021 (CSBish0003666)\n34\n Email inquiry from investor, January 16, 2021 (CSBish0016106)\n35\n Bold emphasis added to analyst report excerpts.\n\n 12\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1516ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n \uf0b7 December 11, 2020: \u201cOur price target increase to $24.00 from $18.00 is primarily\n driven by upward revisions to our future estimates to include new revenue and\n margin contribution from bitcoin mining activity. We are now projecting FY2021\n and FY2030 revenues of $28.7M. \u2026 Bitcoin mining to be scaled immediately.\n Management intends to scale its bitcoin mining operations immediately and has\n contracted with the local municipality to expand the power to the facility from\n 20MVV (of which 9.6MVV is being utilized) to 50MVV (targeted to be completed by\n April 2021). \u2026 During the next several quarters, the company is planning to\n increase the capacity from the current 9.6MVV, operating at approximately 190PH/s,\n to 50.0MVV, operating at approximately 900-1,400PH/s.\u201d36\n \uf0b7 February 16, 2021: \u201cWe are increasing our price target on CleanSpark to $50.00\n from $24.00, driven by upward revisions to our expected contribution from the\n company\u2019s bitcoin mining operation. \u2026 We believe the company should see a full\n quarter of bitcoin contribution beginning in current March 2021 quarter, with\n production ranging between 1.5 to 2.0 bitcoins per day (going from approximately\n 200 PH/s in December to more than 315 PH/s in February 2021). The company's\n bitcoin mining outlook is calling for an additional 800 to 880 PH/s of processing\n capacity that would bring the total capacity to between 1.0 and 1.3 EH/s by early\n 2H21.\u201d37\n \uf0b7 April 20, 2021: \u201c\u2026CleanSpark announced that it is purchasing over 20,000 Bitcoin\n miners with a total of approximately 1,600 miners expected to be delivered between\n April 2021 and June 2021, and thereafter at a rate of approximately 1,600 miners\n per month from August 2021 to July 2022. CleanSpark is spending approximately\n $18.8M for the first 1,600 miners and an aggregate of approximately $136.2M for the\n 19,200 miners over the subsequent 12 months. As a result of this purchase, the\n company's capacity is set to reach more than 1.1EH/s by the summer of 2021,\n capable of producing 6-7 Bitcoins per day at current difficulty rates, and to over\n 3.2EH/s by the summer of 2022, capable of producing 18-20 Bitcoins per day at current\n difficulty rates.\u201d38\n \uf0b7 May 10, 2021: \u201cGross margins were around 81.1% compared to 41.0% in F1021\n and 39.8% in F4020, mainly supported by Bitcoin contribution. \u2026 Key takeaways.\n CleanSpark has revised its FY2021 outlook with expectations for revenues to range\n between $47M and $60M. Energy, Digital Agency, and Bitcoin Mining segment\n revenues for the fiscal year are now expected to range between $16-20M, $1M, and\n $30-40M, respectively. \u2026 Management indicated that the expected revenue range\n for Bitcoin-related contribution factors in some level of delays in receiving\n equipment. Those results could vary depending on timeliness of the new equipment\n delivered and deployed.\u201d 39\n\n\n36\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, December 11, 2020.\n37\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, February 16, 2021.\n38\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, April 20, 2021.\n39\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, May 11,2021.\n\n 13\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1617ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n \uf0b7 August 18, 2021: \u201cCleanSpark is in the process of adding mining capacity over the\n next 12-14 months, for which it has already made advance deposits. Management\n expects a total of 11,700 miners to be deployed by September 30, 2021, 19,900 by\n December 31, 2021, 25,500 by March 31, 2022, 30,000 by June 30, 2022, and 34,000\n by September 30, 2022. As a result, the total hashrate installed at the end of FY2022 is\n expected to be 3.2-3.4EH/s, enough to produce 26-28BTC/day. We are taking a\n conservative stance and modeling the capacity to reach less than 10BTC/day by\n September 2022, mainly to hedge for: (1) any potential delays in deployment\u2026\u201d40\n\n 32. Further, some of the analyst reports include a \u201csensitivity analysis\u201d of the analyst\u2019s\n\nvaluation of the firm. The sensitivity analysis typically varies two essential inputs to the analysts\u2019\n\nmodel: the discount rate and terminal growth rate.41 As seen below in the figure excerpted from an\n\nanalyst report by H.C. Wainright, as discount rates go up, firm value goes down.42\n\n\n\n\nAs noted in Section IV.A.i above, this is because a security\u2019s value is based on the amount, timing,\n\nand riskiness of future cash flows it can generate, discounted at a rate that reflects their riskiness.\n\nThat is, as risk regarding the realization of cash flows increases, the discount rate must also\n\nincrease in order to compensate investors with a lower security price for taking on extra risk.\n\n\n40\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, August 18, 2021.\n41\n The discount rate is the rate used to calculate the present value of a future stream of cash flows appropriate for the\nlevel of risk associated with the future realization (or lack thereof) of said cash flows. The terminal growth rate is the\ngrowth rate applied to a series of cash flow streams to estimate the expected future cash flows of the firm. See, e.g.,\nJoshua Rosenbaum and Joshua Pearl, Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers &\nAcquisitions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken) (2009), Chapter 3.\n42\n H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, December 11, 2020.\n\n 14\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1718ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nSimilarly, as the terminal growth rate goes down in the figure, firm value goes down. This is\n\nbecause a decrease in a company\u2019s future revenue or future earnings reflects a decrease in the cash\n\nflows to the common stockholders, and thus, causes a decrease in the value of the security. That\n\nis, as expected growth rates in future earnings or cash flows decrease, investors must be\n\ncompensated with a lower security price given lower future expected growth.\n\n iv. Event Study Analysis\n\n 33. Defendants mischaracterize my testimony about my event study analysis to imply\n\nthat it indicates a lack of price impact.43 In addition to my testimony indicating there is more than\n\none reasonable and conventional cutoff for assessing statistical significance, I testified that\n\nstatistical significance is a continuum reflecting whether it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations had price impact:\n\n \u201cSo this is a level of statistical significance. So it\u2019s showing whether or not this is\n happening, this occurrence, this phenomenon that we\u2019re documenting is by random\n chance or not. And so it\u2019s the ability to reject that this is occurring by random chance. That\n this is a pattern that\u2019s observable in the data statistically speaking that is different than\n random chance. So the lower the p-value, the greater the statistical significance and the\n strength of the relationship.\u201d44\n\n 34. Moreover, as clearly explained in both my Opening Report and my testimony, my\n\ndiscussion of statistical significance pertained to my Cammer Factor Five test of market\n\nefficiency.45 Defendants do not dispute that my event study analysis supports my conclusion that\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period. As I\n\nexplain below, my event study analysis also provides strong evidence that the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations impacted the prices of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock.\n\n\n43\n See, e.g., Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief, at 23-24.\n44\n See, e.g., Bozanic Deposition Transcript, pp. 142-144.\n45\n Opening Report, Section V.E.\n\n 15\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1819ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n 35. My event study demonstrates that it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations had price impact. For example, the alleged misrepresentations at the start of the\n\nClass Period on December 10, 2020 are associated with a positive stock price increase, with a p-\n\nvalue of 0.104 and statistical significance at the 89.6% level. Moreover, I understand Plaintiffs\n\nallege that Defendants\u2019 scheme and misrepresentations maintained artificial inflation in\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock prices as of the start of the Class Period.46 In cases alleging inflation\n\nmaintenance, price impact can be assessed by evaluating the back-end impact of corrective\n\ndisclosures on stock prices. As detailed in Table 1 and discussed further below, the alleged\n\ncorrective disclosures resulted in significant declines in CleanSpark\u2019s stock prices. These events\n\nthus provide further evidence of price impact.\n\n Table 1. Event Study Results and Price Impact\n\n Abnormal\n Event Date Event T-Statistic P-Value Significance\n Return\n 1/14/2021 Culper Report -13.5% -1.58 0.116 88.4%\n 1/15/2021 Culper Tweet -11.3% -1.33 0.188 81.2%\n\n 1/14 + 1/15 Cumulative -23.2% -1.93 0.056 94.4%\n\n 2/12/2021 Press Release -5.7% -0.80 0.428 57.2%\n 8/17/2021 Press Release -10.9% -2.74 0.007 99.3%\n\n 2/12 + 8/17 Cumulative -16.0% -1.94 0.055 94.5%\n\n\n\n 36. Table 1 summarizes some of my Opening Report\u2019s event study findings and\n\nprovides further calculations. First, on an individual basis, each alleged corrective disclosure listed\n\n\n\n46\n Complaint \u00b6 170: \u201cDefendants (i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements\nof material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and (iii)\nengaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the\nCompany\u2019s securities in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for CleanSpark\u2019s securities in violation\nof Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.\u201d\n\n 16\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page1920ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nin the table is statistically significant at better than the 50% level. In other words, it is \u201cmore likely\n\nthan not\u201d that the declines were related to information released on these dates, as opposed to\n\nrandom price movements.\n\n 37. Second, the January 14, 2021 drop is related to the Culper Report, as is the drop on\n\nthe following day since Culper tweeted out the report along with a list of questions regarding\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s business practices on January 15, 2021. Hence, these two days reflect the market\u2019s\n\nresponse to the same corrective event entering the market: first, the release of the report and then,\n\nsecond, the tweet which brought greater visibility to the report. Considering this, it is reasonable\n\nto combine returns across those days to assess the cumulative 2-day market response to both the\n\nrelease and the dissemination of the Culper Report. As shown in Table 1, the 2-day abnormal\n\nreturn for January 14 and 15, 2021 is -23.2%, with a p-value of 0.056 and significance of 94.4%.\n\nThis provides strong evidence of price impact.\n\n 38. Third, the February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 drops are related to corrective\n\ndisclosures regarding the delayed expansion timeline at the ATL facility from \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d to\n\n\u201cthis fall\u201d.47 Hence, these two days reflect the market\u2019s response to the corrective information\n\nentering the market regarding expansion delays at the ATL facility. Considering this, it is\n\nreasonable to combine returns across those days to assess the cumulative 2-day market response\n\nto delaying the expansion timeline from the originally announced April 2021 date to \u201cmid-year\n\n2021\u201d and again to \u201cthis fall.\u201d As shown in Table 1 above, the 2-day abnormal return for February\n\n\n\n\n47\n \u201cThe capacity increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year 2021.\u201d\n(https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000068/ex99_1.htm) and \u201cCleanSpark continues to\nwork on expanding its total energy capacity to accelerate the growth of its bitcoin mining operations in Atlanta this\nfall.\u201d (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000436/ex99_1.htm). Emphasis added.\n\n 17\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2021ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 is -16%, with a p-value of 0.055 and significance of 94.5%. This\n\nagain provides strong evidence of price impact.\n\n 39. As documented by my event study analysis, it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the\n\nalleged misrepresentations had price impact. This conclusion is corroborated by the other evidence\n\nI discuss above, including fundamental principles of finance and economic analysis, analyst\n\ncoverage, and internal case documents.\n\n B. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Capable of Addressing Confounding\n Information\n\n 40. Addressing potential confounding information is a loss causation and damages\n\nissue that is standard practice in economic analysis. As explained in my Opening Report, there are\n\nmany potential ways to disaggregate confounding information; to the extent any exists, one can\n\nutilize a variety of well-accepted valuation techniques including, but not limited to, event studies,\n\nvaluation analysis, published academic research studies, analyst research, or other case-specific\n\ndocuments. This is an issue of fact that would need to be considered as part of any loss causation\n\nand damages analysis. However, Defendants, without support, suggest that disaggregation is not\n\npossible. If such a disaggregation analysis becomes necessary, the standard damages methodology\n\nreadily incorporates such issues and will be dependent on the same analysis conducted on a class-\n\nwide basis.48\n\n 41. Defendants have not conducted any analysis, nor put forward any evidence, that\n\nconfounding information in fact impacted CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price movements on any\n\nof the alleged corrective disclosure dates. To the extent that any such changes ultimately require\n\n\n\n\n48\n Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2183 (2011) (holding that securities fraud plaintiffs\nneed not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification).\n\n 18\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2122ofof2526\n\n\n\n\ndisaggregation, such analysis is appropriately conducted during the loss causation and damages\n\nstage of a case and will be carried out in a manner that is common across all Class members.\n\n C. The Out-of-Pocket Methodology is Capable of Addressing Materializations\n of Risks\n\n 42. As noted in my Opening Report, the \u201cComplaint alleges that the truth regarding the\n\nATL acquisition and CleanSpark\u2019s projections relating to the ATL expansion project was partially\n\nrevealed, and/or the concealed risks materialized\u2026\u201d over several alleged corrective disclosure\n\nevents.49 Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief criticizes the out-of-pocket damages methodology by claiming\n\nthat I do \u201c\u2026not even purport to explain in [my Opening Report] what the materialized risk was,\n\nmuch less how that would be factored into [my] damages model.\u201d50 As an initial matter, the\n\nComplaint explains Plaintiff\u2019s risk-based allegations as follows:\n\n \u201cWhile the Culper Report revealed to the market certain key facts concerning\n CleanSpark\u2019s acquisition of ATL and thereby partially corrected the misleading\n impression created by Defendants\u2019 statements, the Culper Report failed to identify\n additional misleading aspects of Defendants\u2019 statements concerning ATL and\n additional undisclosed risks that materialized in the months that followed. As\n detailed below, Defendants failed to disclose conditions at the ATL facility and\n other facts that created material risks concerning CleanSpark\u2019s expansion plan.\n Those undisclosed facts and conditions prevented CleanSpark from completing the\n expansion plan (and obtaining the projected hash rates and power expansion\n benchmarks) within the contemplated timeframe. These failures had a devastating\n effect on CleanSpark\u2019s stock price and thereby damaged investors.\u201d51\n\n 43. The out-of-pocket methodology discussed in my Opening Report fits Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ntheory of liability in this matter insofar as the market learned the truth about the ATL Facility\n\nthrough a series of corrective disclosures and/or materialization of risk events. This method is\n\nregularly relied upon by experts at the class certification stage (and beyond) as a method for\n\n\n49\n Opening Report \u00b6 15.\n50\n Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief, at p. 25.\n51\n Complaint \u00b6 54.\n\n 19\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2223ofof2526\n\n\n\n\ncalculating class-wide damages in matters involving materialization of risk corrective disclosure\n\nevents.52\n\n 44. Generally speaking, corrective disclosure events can correct prior misstatements\n\nand/or omissions related to risks as well as those that are unrelated to risks. The out-of-pocket\n\nmethodology described in my Opening Report capably handles both types of alleged\n\nmisrepresentations. The attempt by Defendants to bifurcate Plaintiff\u2019s single theory of liability\n\nthus creates an artificial and unnecessary distinction for how such corrective disclosures would be\n\ntreated in a damages methodology.\n\n 45. To the extent that any portion of a stock price decline following a corrective\n\ndisclosure event is unrelated to Plaintiff\u2019s allegations, including the materialization of concealed\n\nrisk, this portion can be disaggregated using the same techniques described in my Opening Report.\n\nUnder the out-of-pocket methodology, individual damages are calculated based on differences in\n\nartificial inflation in stock prices at the time of purchase versus the time of sale. As a result,\n\ncalculation of the inputs to the out-of-pocket methodology is formulaic and common across class\n\nmembers. In summary, the fact that Plaintiff\u2019s theory of liability potentially includes\n\nmaterialization of risks that were disclosed to the market through a series of corrective disclosure\n\nevents does not prevent me from quantifying artificial inflation throughout the Class Period and\n\nmeasuring damages on a class-wide basis at the damages stage.\n\n\n\n\n52\n See, e.g., Memorandum Opinion, Civil Action No. RDB-17-0388 filed September 29, 2022, In Re Under Armour\nSecurities Litigation, p. 34; Consolidated Third Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,\nCivil Action No. RDB-17-0388 filed October 14, 2020, In Re Under Armour Securities Litigation, at \u00b6 377: \u201cThe truth\nwas not revealed to the market all at once, but, rather, the truth began to emerge, and the risk caused by Defendants\u2019\nfraud materialized, through partial revelations of truthful information,\u201d and at \u00b6 404: \u201cThese warnings were not\nmeaningfully different from year-to-year, but, instead, were merely boilerplate language that failed to develop with\ntime as the very risks they sought to warn of began to materialize\u201d (emphasis added); Memorandum Opinion and\nOrder filed March 29, 2018, in Washtenaw County Employees\u2019 Retirement System v. Walgreen Co., et al., No. 15-cv-\n3187 (N.D. Ill.).\n\n 20\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2324ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n V. Conclusion\n\n 46. In summary, Defendants\u2019 concerns are flawed and unpersuasive. I have provided\n\na reasonable and concrete damages methodology, and I have also explained how the out-of-pocket\n\ndamages methodology is widely employed in cases like this one precisely because it is capable of\n\nreliably calculating damages on a class-wide basis in a manner consistent with Plaintiff\u2019s theory\n\nof liability.\n\n\n\n I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2425ofof2526\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A\n Documents Considered\nCase Documents:\n \uf0b7 Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc. 36).\n \uf0b7 Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated January 10, 2025.\n \uf0b7 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated February 27, 2025.\n \uf0b7 Defendants\u2019 Opposition to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Class Certification, dated March 14, 2025\n (Doc. 92).\n \uf0b7 Declaration of David J. Partida, dated March 14, 2025 (Doc. 93).\n \uf0b7 Email Inquiries from Financial Media referenced herein.\n \uf0b7 Email Inquiries from Investors referenced herein.\n\n\nCourt Decisions and Securities Law:\n \uf0b7 Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2183 (2011).\n \uf0b7 Memorandum Opinion, Civil Action No. RDB-17-0388 filed September 29, 2022, In Re\n Under Armour Securities Litigation.\n \uf0b7 Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 77 F.4th 74 (2023).\n\n\nCleanSpark SEC Filings\n \uf0b7 Press Release re 4Q 2020 Financial Results\n \uf0b7 Press Release re 2Q 2021 Financial Results\n\n\nAnalyst Reports:\n \uf0b7 H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, dated December 11, 2020.\n \uf0b7 H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, dated February 16, 2021.\n \uf0b7 H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, dated April 20, 2021.\n \uf0b7 H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, dated May 11, 2021.\n \uf0b7 H.C. Wainwright Analyst Report, dated August 18, 2021.\n\n\nOther:\n \uf0b7 Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, & David Wessels, Measuring and Managing the Value of\n Companies, John Wiley & Sons, Sixth Edition, 2015.\n\n\n A-1\n\fCase\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document\n Document108-3\n 96 Filed\n Filed05/02/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page2526ofof2526\n\n\n\n\n\uf0b7 Joshua Rosenbaum and Joshua Pearl, Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged\n Buyouts, and Mergers & Acquisitions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken) (2009).\n\uf0b7 All documents cited within this report and Opening Report.\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:30.563130-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727941","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit C - Expert Reply Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated May 2, 2025","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528956/","id":484528956,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/4/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:56.291510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:07.105629-07:00","sha1":"32675fa990a605af3183bc257aa81c7f359a3af5","page_count":90,"file_size":727607,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 90\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT D\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 90\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n CLASS ACTION\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n July 18, 2025\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 90\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nI. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3\nII. Qualifications and Compensation .......................................................................................... 4\nIII. Summary of Opinions ............................................................................................................ 6\nIV. Overview of CleanSpark and Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations........................................................... 12\n A. Overview of CleanSpark ............................................................................................. 12\n B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations ................................................................................................. 13\nV. Market Efficiency and Damages on a Class-Wide Basis..................................................... 16\nVI. Importance of the Alleged Misstatements and Omissions ................................................... 20\n A. Defendants\u2019 Public Statements ................................................................................... 22\n B. Analyst Commentary .................................................................................................. 26\n C. Economic and Valuation Principles ............................................................................ 32\n D. Event Study ................................................................................................................. 34\nVII. Loss Causation ..................................................................................................................... 37\n A. Investor Losses were Foreseeable ............................................................................... 38\n B. The Corrective Information Caused Economic Losses .............................................. 39\nVIII. The Corrective Disclosure Events ....................................................................................... 41\n A. The Culper Report and related Tweets (January 14-15, 2021) ................................... 41\n B. Capacity Expansion Delays ........................................................................................ 57\nIX. Artificial Inflation per Share and Damages for CleanSpark Common Stock ...................... 81\n A. Artificial Inflation per Share ....................................................................................... 81\n B. Damages ...................................................................................................................... 84\n C. Adaptation to Alternative Findings ............................................................................. 87\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 90\n\n\n\n\n I. Introduction\n\n 1. I have previously filed expert reports in this matter (collectively, my \u201cPrior\n\nReports\u201d) and incorporate them here by reference in their entirety.1 On January 10, 2025, I\n\nsubmitted an expert report in this matter (my \u201cEfficiency Report\u201d) in which I concluded that: a)\n\nthe market for shares of CleanSpark Common Stock was efficient throughout the Class Period;\n\nand b) damages in this matter for CleanSpark Common Stock can be calculated on a class-wide\n\nbasis subject to a common methodology.2 On May 2, 2025, I submitted another expert report in\n\nthis matter (my \u201cEfficiency Reply Report\u201d) in response to Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief. In my\n\nEfficiency Reply Report, I concluded that nothing in Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief disturbed the\n\nopinions expressed in my Efficiency Report.3 Nothing I have reviewed or analyzed as part of\n\nthis report has caused me to change any of the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports and I\n\ncontinue to hold those opinions. The materials I have relied upon in forming my opinions in the\n\ncurrent report are summarized in Appendix B, attached hereto.\n\n 2. Counsel for Plaintiff in this matter (\u201cCounsel\u201d) has asked me to assess and offer\n\nopinions on: (1) whether the misstatements and omissions alleged in the Complaint in this matter\n\nwere economically material;4 (2) whether investor losses were proximately caused by the\n\nmisstatements and/or omissions made by Defendants as contended by Plaintiff in the operative\n\nComplaint and as may be proved at trial (i.e., loss causation); (3) the quantification of any\n\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms in this report have the same meaning as in my Prior Reports,\nall emphasis in this report is added, and all times cited in this report are in Eastern Time.\n2\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6 3.\n3\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6 6.\n4\n I understand that \u201cmateriality\u201d has a legal definition, which I am not attempting to assess in the current\nreport. Instead, I assess whether the alleged misstatements and omissions were economically material,\ni.e., whether they were likely to be considered value relevant to investors and hence affect the market\nvalue of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price.\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 90\n\n\n\n\nartificial inflation per share for CleanSpark Common Stock for each day of the Class Period\n\ncaused by the alleged misstatements and/or omissions; and (4) the appropriate method to\n\nquantify Rule 10b-5 and \u00a720(a) damages for CleanSpark Common Stock in this matter.\n\n 3. The analysis and opinions contained in this report are based on information\n\navailable as of the date of this report. I reserve the right to amend, refine, or supplement this\n\nreport in the event that I become aware of additional information, evidence, arguments, or\n\nanalyses which bear on my work in this matter.\n\n II. Qualifications and Compensation\n\n 4. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Pennsylvania State University\n\nand am a tenured, full Professor of Accounting at Florida State University. I also hold the\n\nWilliam Hillison Professorship of Accounting. I teach Ph.D. and Master\u2019s-level courses, present\n\nmy research at universities and conferences both domestic and abroad, deliver guest lectures,\n\nparticipate in academic seminars, attend academic conferences, peer review academic work,\n\norganize academic conferences, and conduct research on areas related to accounting, finance,\n\nstatistics, economics, and law.\n\n 5. My research focuses on topics related to corporate disclosure, debt contracting,\n\nfinancial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement. More\n\nspecifically, my research has examined periodic corporate disclosures (e.g., 10-K\u2019s, earnings\n\npress releases, etc.), earnings guidance, earnings management, earnings manipulation, financial\n\nstatement irregularities, debt contracts (e.g., private bank loans and public bonds), debt\n\ncovenants, securitized debt, credit analysts, equity analysts, SEC comment letters, SEC requests\n\nfor comment, and SEC investigations.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 6. I have been engaged in university-level teaching and academic research for over 15\n\nyears and continue to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting, economics, and\n\nfinance. At the undergraduate level, I have taught courses on financial accounting, investments,\n\nvaluation, and financial statement analysis. In addition, I have taught data analytics, valuation,\n\nand financial statement analysis at the Master\u2019s level as well as academic research seminars on\n\nempirical research methods in accounting at the doctoral level. I am an Editorial Board member\n\nof several peer-reviewed journals, and am an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting.\n\n 7. Before my current roles, I was a tenured, Associate Professor of Accounting and the\n\nDirector of the Ph.D. Program in Accounting at Florida State University. Prior to then, I was an\n\nAssistant Professor of Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a Research Fellow at\n\nThe National Center for the Middle Market.\n\n 8. Prior to working for Ohio State, I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\nfrom the Pennsylvania State University. Before my graduate work at Penn State, I was employed\n\nby Wells Fargo Bank as a Financial Consultant and Product Manager. I received an M.A. from\n\nthe University of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.\n\n 9. I have published research in leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields of finance,\n\naccounting, and economics, including: Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting\n\nand Economics, The Accounting Review, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Review of\n\nQuantitative Finance and Accounting, and Journal of Financial Reporting, inter alia. My\n\ncurriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A, further details my publication record. I have\n\npresented my academic research at over 50 academic institutions, as listed in my curriculum\n\nvitae. I have also received several awards and honors from my peers both nationally and globally\n\nrelated to my research, peer reviewing activities, and doctoral research supervision.\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 10. I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,\n\nCounsel for Plaintiff. My time is billed at an hourly rate of $900 per hour for work on this\n\nmatter. I am being assisted in this matter by staff from Cleveland Analytics, LLC who have\n\nworked under my direction and supervision. My compensation and that of the staff of Cleveland\n\nAnalytics, LLC is in no way contingent on the outcome of this case or upon any opinions that I\n\nexpress.\n\n 11. My work is ongoing and I reserve the right to update my analyses and opinions\n\nbased upon new information, discovery, expert reports, or other information that comes to my\n\nattention.\n\nIII. Summary of Opinions\n\n 12. As stated in my Prior Reports, the market for shares of CleanSpark Common\n\nStock was efficient throughout the Class Period, meaning that widely available public\n\ninformation is quickly incorporated into stock prices, and damages in this matter for CleanSpark\n\nCommon Stock can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a common methodology. I\n\ncontinue to hold the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports and reiterate them herein.\n\n 13. My opinions regarding economic materiality, loss causation, and damages in this\n\nmatter arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule\n\n10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, are premised upon Defendants being found to have\n\nknowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations or omissions during the Class Period\n\nregarding CleanSpark\u2019s ability to expand their energy and hashrate capacity at the ATL Facility\n\nin the timeline stated and to operate the facility at low cost through advantageous contract terms\n\nwith the local municipality. Broadly, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misrepresented that\n\nCleanSpark could \u201cexpand total power capacity and improve the resiliency of ATL\u2019s existing\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 90\n\n\n\n\nBitcoin mining operation\u201d in the timeline stated upon the acquisition announcement and leverage\n\nits \u201cproprietary microgrid technologies and trade secrets\u201d in order to \u201cmaximize energy\n\nsavings\u201d.5 Instead, Defendants \u201cmade incremental revisions to the timeline for the expansion\n\nproject, continually pushing back the expected completion date.\u201d6\n\n 14. However, Plaintiffs assert that as of the start of the Class Period, Defendants\n\nknew, or recklessly disregarded that there were certain operational challenges before CleanSpark\n\ncould materially ramp up its bitcoin production by April 2021, including: \u201c(i) Defendants had not\n\nprepared a detailed timeline for project completion, (ii) no detailed architectural or engineering\n\ndrawings for the facility expansion project had been completed, (iii) no contract with a general\n\ncontractor had been executed, (iv) no contract for the build-out of the mining units had been\n\nexecuted, (v) CleanSpark and ATL had not even started the process of applying for construction\n\npermits; and (vi) these undisclosed factors rendered Defendant\u2019s projection of an April 2021\n\ncompletion date for the power capacity expansion to be completely unrealistic and lacking any\n\nreasonable basis,\u201d 7 thus allowing Defendants to misleadingly represent that the \u201cexpansion will\n\nbegin promptly and be completed in April 2021,\u201d and that the \u201cCompany intends to more than\n\nquadruple the number of ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) mining units in operation\n\nduring the expansion.\u201d8\n\n 15. I conclude that the alleged misstatements and omissions in this matter as set forth\n\nin the Complaint were economically material in that they conveyed information that altered the\n\ntotal mix of information available to investors. I base my opinion on the importance of this\n\n\n5\n Complaint, \u00b6 3.\n6\n Id., \u00b6 10.\n7\n Id., \u00b6 119.\n8\n See \u201cCleanSpark Agrees to Acquire Bitcoin Miner ATL Data Center,\u201d CleanSpark, December 10, 2020.\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 90\n\n\n\n\ninformation on: (1) Defendants\u2019 own public statements surrounding the acquisition of the ATL\n\nFacility regarding the anticipated energy and hashrate expansion and related timeline; (2) news\n\narticles broadly disseminated to the public discussing the anticipated energy and hashrate\n\nexpansion and related timeline; (3) analyst commentary demonstrating that the market relied\n\nupon Defendants\u2019 statements concerning the anticipated energy and hashrate expansion and\n\nrelated timeline; (4) the application of basic valuation principles to CleanSpark\u2019s business; and\n\n(5) my event study analysis, that establishes statistically significant declines in the price of\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock on the Corrective Disclosure Events identified and defined below.\n\n 16. I identified an event as a corrective disclosure of the relevant truth if it revealed\n\nrelevant information about energy and hashrate expansion risks that confronted CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nexpansion timeline, energy contract with the local municipality, and whether its proprietary\n\nenergy technology could further lower its bitcoin mining energy costs \u2013 all of which have a\n\ndirect impact on the Company\u2019s expected profitability. I also considered the allegations\n\ncontained within the Complaint. Four events meet these criteria. Based on the event study I\n\nperformed, there was a statistically significant decline in the market price of CleanSpark\n\nCommon Stock (after controlling for market and industry movements) in the wake of the release\n\nof information from these events. The corrective disclosure events partially dissipated artificial\n\ninflation from the market prices of CleanSpark Common Stock on the following dates\n\n(collectively, the \u201cCorrective Disclosure Events\u201d):\n\n January 14, 2021: Culper Research published a report alleging that CleanSpark\n had misrepresented its customer and contracts, further alleging that the cost-\n advantaged energy contract was short lived due to omissions.\n\n January 15, 2021: Culper Research published a Tweet communicating to the\n market it had sent Chairman Matthew Shultz several questions about the\n allegations in the report that went unanswered.\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 90\n\n\n\n\n February 12, 2021: CleanSpark announced Q1 2021 earnings and disclosed that\n the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion project would not be completed until mid-year 2021\n instead of April 2021 as stated upon acquisition of the ATL Facility.\n\n August 17, 2021: CleanSpark announced Q3 2021 earnings and disclosed that the\n ATL Facility\u2019s expansion project would not be completed until fall of 2021.\n\n 17. The Complaint alleges that Defendants\u2019 public statements gave investors the\n\nmisleading impression that CleanSpark would be able to increase energy capacity, ramp up\n\nbitcoin mining production at the ATL facility, acquire energy on cost-advantaged terms, further\n\nlower that cost of energy through its proprietary technology, and to do so by April 2021\n\nfollowing the December 2020 acquisition of the ATL Facility. These misleading public\n\nstatements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of CleanSpark Common Stock during\n\nthe Class Period. The alleged misrepresentations and omissions are economically linked to the\n\nforeseeable investor losses that occurred on the Corrective Disclosure Events when the artificial\n\nprice inflation was dissipated. If Defendants disclosed misleading information regarding their\n\nability to increase energy and hashrate capacity at the ATL Facility on cost advantaged terms by\n\nApril 2021, then it was foreseeable at the time of the alleged misstatements and omissions that\n\nwhen the relevant truth was revealed the price of CleanSpark Common Stock would decline. In\n\nother words: (1) the alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investor losses; and (2)\n\ninvestors who purchased CleanSpark Common Stock at prices that were affected by the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions suffered losses when the relevant truth was revealed on the\n\nCorrective Disclosure Events.\n\n 18. On the Corrective Disclosure Events, I reviewed relevant news, analyst reports,\n\npress releases, financial results, and conference call transcripts, among other documents. Based\n\non this review, coupled with my event study analysis, I conclude that the corrective information\n\ncaused the price of CleanSpark Common Stock to decline on the Corrective Disclosure Events. I\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 90\n\n\n\n\nalso analyzed whether there was information released on the Corrective Disclosure Events that\n\nwas unrelated to the alleged fraud (i.e., \u201cconfounding\u201d information). As discussed in more detail\n\nin Section VIII below, and consistent with a conservative approach to calculating damages, I\n\nidentified and removed from the CleanSpark-specific price decline following the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events any movement that was unrelated to the alleged fraud, i.e., caused by\n\nconfounding information. Based on this loss causation analysis, I conclude that the total fraud-\n\nrelated price decline associated with the Corrective Disclosure Events is $11.69 per share, as\n\nshown below:\n\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share Dissipated\n on the Corrective Disclosure Events\n\n Artificial Inflation Per\n Date Share Dissipated\n\n January 14, 2021 $4.48\n\n January 15, 2021 $4.03\n\n February 12, 2021 $1.68\n\n August 17, 2021 $1.50\n\n Total $11.69\n\n 19. As set forth above, I understand that Plaintiffs expect to prove that during the Class\n\nPeriod Defendants materially misled investors insofar as CleanSpark would be able to increase\n\nenergy capacity, ramp up bitcoin mining production at the ATL facility, acquire energy on cost-\n\nadvantaged terms, further lower that cost of energy through its proprietary technology, and to do\n\nso by April 2021 following the December 2020 acquisition of the ATL Facility. Further,\n\nPlaintiffs allege that Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that CleanSpark had not\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 12 of 90\n\n\n\n\nprepared a detailed timeline for project completion, detailed architectural or engineering\n\ndrawings for the ATL Facility project expansion, a contract with a general contractor, a contract\n\nfor the build-out of the mining units, and nor had CleanSpark started the process of applying for\n\nconstruction permits\u2014omissions that rendered Defendants\u2019 projection of an April 2021\n\ncompletion date for the energy and hashrate expansion to be unrealistic and unreasonable. This\n\nallowed Defendants to misleadingly represent that CleanSpark could significantly increase\n\nenergy and hashrate capacity and to do so expediently. I am not aware of evidence\n\ndemonstrating that the economic impact of the alleged misstatements and omissions would have\n\nbeen different had a disclosure of the relevant truth been made earlier in the Class Period.\n\nTherefore, I have employed the constant dollar methodology to evaluate artificial inflation per\n\nshare of CleanSpark Common Stock caused by Defendants\u2019 alleged fraud. This is summarized\n\nin the table below:\n\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share During the Class Period\n\n Artificial Inflation\n Date Range Per Share\n\n December 10, 2020 - January 13, 2021 $11.69\n\n January 14, 2021 $7.21\n\n January 15, 2021 - February 11, 2021 $3.17\n\n February 12, 2021 - August 16, 2021 $1.49\n\n\n\n\n 20. The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section IV provides an\n\noverview of CleanSpark and the allegations in this matter. Section V reiterates my opinions in\n\nmy Prior Reports related to market efficiency and how damages can be calculated on a class-\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 13 of 90\n\n\n\n\nwide basis subject to a common methodology. Section VI summarizes my approach to analyzing\n\nthe value-relevance of the allegedly misrepresented and omitted facts in this case. Section VII\n\ndiscusses loss causation principles. Section VIII presents my analysis of the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events. Finally, Section IX presents the resulting artificial inflation per share and\n\ndamages methodology for CleanSpark Common Stock.\n\nIV. Overview of CleanSpark and Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n\n A. Overview of CleanSpark\n\n 21. CleanSpark is headquartered in Nevada and has bitcoin mining facilities\n\nthroughout the United States.9 The Company\u2019s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Exchange\n\nunder the ticker CLSK.10 Prior to the Class Period, CleanSpark was a provider of \u201cadvanced\n\nsoftware and controls technology solutions to solve modern energy challenges\u201d and \u201ca suite of\n\nsoftware solutions that provide end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy market\n\ncommunications and energy management solutions.\u201d11 During the Class Period, CleanSpark\n\npivoted to purportedly become a \u201cleading bitcoin mining and diversified energy company\u201d\n\naccording to its 2021 10-K.12 Reinforcing this pivot in business strategy, CleanSpark\u2019s website\n\ntouts the company to be \u201cAmerica\u2019s Bitcoin Miner\u201d and its CEO stated in December of 2021 that\n\n\u201cCleanSpark is a bitcoin miner. Bitcoin mining is our primary business segment in terms of\n\nrevenue. Our most efficient in terms of cost and margin and our most important in terms of\n\nmaximizing value for our shareholders.\u201d13\n\n\n\n9\n Complaint, \u00b6 21; See also CleanSpark Investor Relations, available at: https://investors.cleanspark.com.\n10\n Id., \u00b6 21\n11\n Id., \u00b6 25\n12\n Id., \u00b6 26\n13\n Id., \u00b6 27; See also CleanSpark\u2019s website, available at: https://www.cleanspark.com.\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 14 of 90\n\n\n\n\n B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n\n 22. Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false\n\nand misleading statements concerning the expected timeline to expand operations to more than\n\ndouble the existing energy capacity between December 2020 and April 2021 at the ATL Facility\n\n(from 20 to 50 megawatts or a 150% increase in energy capacity) and thus rapidly enhance\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s expected profitability by scaling up its hashrate capacity (from 190 PH/s to 900-\n\n1400 PH/s or a 374%-637% increase in hashrate capacity).14 The Complaint further alleges that\n\nDefendants misled investors and made materially false and misleading statements touting that the\n\nATL Facility was supplied energy at cost advantaged rates and that CleanSpark\u2019s proprietary\n\nenergy management software would further reduce its cost of energy.15\n\n 23. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that the Class Period begins on December 10, 2020,\n\nwhen the acquisition of the ATL Facility was announced in a press release:\n\n \u201cAs part of the first phase, the Company has contracted with the local\n municipality to expand the power to the facility from 20MW\n [megawatts] to 50MW. It is expected that this expansion will begin\n promptly and be completed in April 2021.\n ...\n Additionally, the Company intends to more than quadruple the\n number of ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) mining\n units in operation during the expansion.\n \u2026\n The Company expects to demonstrate that, by using our technologies,\n we can reduce the cost of energy to below $0.0285 per kw/h.\u201d16\n\n\n14\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 3-4, 9-12, 36, 38, 54, 118.\n15\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 118-119, 130-131.\n16\n Id., \u00b6 118. To put CleanSpark\u2019s claimed cost of energy of $0.0285 per kw/h into perspective, as of\nJanuary 2021, the average energy cost to mine bitcoin in the U.S. was $0.12 cents per kw/h, i.e., the\naverage cost in the U.S. was over 4x greater than CleanSpark\u2019s claimed cost of energy. Stated differently,\nCleanSpark\u2019s claimed energy costs were roughly \u00bc of the U.S. industry average. See \u201cCleanSpark's CEO\nDiscusses The Company\u2019s Expansion Into Bitcoin,\u201d Benzinga, January 20, 2021, 8:07 AM. Further, to\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 15 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 24. As another example, in a press release from December 31, 2020, the Company\n\nmade the following allegedly false and misleading statement and omission:\n\n \u201cWe are working diligently to expand the data center capacity\n allowing us to further increase these initial estimates, but the\n Company\u2019s guidance will remain somewhat conservative until the\n expansion has been completed and we have sufficient data to forecast\n a firm outlook.\u201d17\n\n 25. Plaintiffs allege that the above statements were false and misleading because at\n\nthe time they were made, because Defendants had not prepared a detailed timeline for the\n\ncompletion of the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion project, detailed architectural or engineering\n\ndrawings for the expansion had not been completed, a contract with a general contractor for the\n\nexpansion had not been executed, a contract for the build-out of the mining units for the\n\nexpansion had not been executed, and applications for construction permits for the expansion had\n\nnot been submitted.18 The above-mentioned statements are only examples of the many false and\n\nmisleading statements and omissions that Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint. Appendix C\n\ncontains a list of the alleged false and misleading statements and omissions I was asked to\n\nassume occurred.\n\n\n 26. Plaintiffs allege that the relevant truth regarding the ATL acquisition and\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s projections relating to the ATL expansion project was partially revealed, and/or the\n\nconcealed risks materialized, on or about: January 14-15, 2021, February 12, 2021, and August\n\n\n\n\nunderstand the importance of this metric for the financial success of CleanSpark, according to Defendant\nand CEO Zachary Bradford, \u201cThe cost of bitcoin mining is almost 100% on the energy side.\u201d See \u201cWater\nTower Research Fireside Chat Series,\u201d Water Tower Research, February 18, 2021.\n17\n Complaint, \u00b6 122.\n18\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 123, 125.\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 16 of 90\n\n\n\n\n17, 2021.19 This includes the publication and Twitter dissemination of a report by Culper Research\n\non January 14, 2021, which was followed with a tweet by Culper Research on January 15, 2021.20\n\nThe report and tweets raised concerns about the ATL acquisition, as ATL had undergone several\n\nname changes, a bankruptcy, and a failed acquisition attempt by Marathon Patent Group\n\n(\u201cMarathon\u201d).21 Most significantly, it was revealed that Marathon pulled out of the proposed deal\n\nbecause the energy agreement with the municipality had too few years left to make the acquisition\n\n\u201ceconomically viable.\u201d22 The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented ATL facility\u2019s\n\noperating potential by omitting material facts related to the acquisition and timeline for completing\n\nthe expansion project.23\n\n 27. Plaintiffs also allege that the relevant truth was partially revealed on February 12,\n\n2021 when Defendants announced Q1 2021 earnings and disclosed that the ATL Facility\u2019s\n\nexpansion project would not be completed until mid-year 2021 instead of April 2021.24 The\n\nComplaint further alleges that the relevant truth was revealed on August 17, 2021 when\n\nDefendants\u2019 announced Q3 2021 earnings and disclosed that the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion project\n\nwould not be completed until fall of 2021.25 As a result of the repeated delays in expansion plans,\n\nCleanSpark was unable to deliver on its expected capacity goals by April 2021 and therefore paid\n\na third-party facility to deploy a portion of CleanSpark\u2019s bitcoin mining equipment instead.26\n\n\n\n19\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 6-7, 12, 88-89, 110-112, 152. I understand the Complaint alleges additional corrective\ndisclosures which Plaintiff is no longer pursuing.\n20\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 45-46; 51.\n21\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 45-50.\n22\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 47-48.\n23\n Id., \u00b6 54.\n24\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 88-90.\n25\n Id., \u00b6 110.\n26\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 110-111.\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 17 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 28. As a result of CleanSpark\u2019s alleged misstatements and omissions, investors\n\nallegedly purchased CleanSpark Common Stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class\n\nPeriod and suffered economic losses when the price of CleanSpark Common Stock declined\n\nupon the revelation of the relevant truth.27\n\n V. Market Efficiency and Damages on a Class-Wide Basis\n\n 29. In my Efficiency Report, I empirically analyzed the factors related to market\n\nefficiency that courts have previously examined during the Class Period for CleanSpark\n\nCommon Stock. Specifically, my Efficiency Report demonstrated that: (1) the average weekly\n\ntrading volume of CleanSpark Common Stock during the Class Period was 11.86 million shares,\n\nwhich represents 41.9% turnover per week, easily exceeding the Cammer threshold and\n\ncomparing favorably against other exchange-traded securities (Cammer Factor 1);28 (2) securities\n\nanalysts followed CleanSpark, and there was also substantial press coverage among other\n\nsources of publicly available information regarding the Company (Cammer Factor 2);29 (3)\n\nCleanSpark had at least 73 market makers and brokers providing similar activity over the Class\n\nPeriod and CleanSpark Common Stock traded on the NASDAQ, thus satisfying the \u201cmarket\n\nmaker\u201d factor (Cammer Factor 3);30 (4) CleanSpark filed Form S-3s before, during, and after the\n\nClass Period and CleanSpark made all required filings with the SEC on a timely manner during\n\nthe Class Period (Cammer Factor 4);31 and (5) there was a clear cause-and-effect relationship\n\nbetween new Company-specific information and the market price of CleanSpark Common Stock\n\n\n\n27\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 138-140, 151-152.\n28\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6\u00b6 29-31.\n29\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 32-38.\n30\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 39-42.\n31\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 43-45.\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 18 of 90\n\n\n\n\nduring the Class Period (Cammer Factor 5).32 The analysis in my Report also demonstrates that\n\n(6) the market capitalization of CleanSpark Common Stock averaged $625.4 million over the\n\nClass Period (Krogman Factor 1);33 and (7) CleanSpark Common Stock also had an average bid-\n\nask spread of 0.35% during the Class Period (Krogman Factor 2).34 Lastly, my Report further\n\nshows that (8) on average, insiders held approximately 5.02% to 7.01% of CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock during the Class Period, thus approximately at least 93% of outstanding shares\n\nwere held by non-insiders (Krogman Factor 3)35 and (9) between 69 and 115 institutions held\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock at some point during the Class Period.36 Taken together, these\n\nmetrics provide strong economic evidence that support my opinion that CleanSpark Common\n\nStock traded in an efficient market throughout the entire Class Period.37\n\n 30. Finally, I described in my Efficiency Report how the \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method of\n\ncalculating damages represents a standard and well-accepted methodology under Section 10(b)\n\nof the Exchange Act.38 I concluded that CleanSpark Common Stock damages in this matter can\n\nbe calculated on a class-wide basis utilizing a common methodology.39\n\n 31. In my Efficiency Reply Report, I concluded that nothing in Defendants\u2019 Opp.\n\nBrief disturbs the opinions expressed in my Efficiency Report.40 Defendants do not dispute my\n\n\n\n\n32\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, Section V.E.\n33\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 65-67.\n34\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 68-72.\n35\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 73-74.\n36\n Id., \u00b6 42.\n37\n Id., \u00b6 92.\n38\n Id., \u00b6 77.\n39\n Id., \u00b6 92.\n40\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6\u00b6 6-13.\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 19 of 90\n\n\n\n\nconclusion that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the\n\nentirety of the Class Period. In my Efficiency Report, I tested the market efficiency of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock by evaluating the Cammer and Krogman factors.41 Defendants do\n\nnot dispute my analyses of or my conclusions regarding any of these factors. Defendants also do\n\nnot offer any criticism of the event study regression specified in my Efficiency Report.\n\nMoreover, Defendants do not put forward their own event study, nor do they dispute that I\n\nperformed a valid event study regression.\n\n 32. As explained in my Efficiency Reply Report, Defendants claim that the out-of-\n\npocket damages methodology I have put forward is flawed for several reasons, because\n\n\u201cindividual causation, injury, and damages issues will predominate.\u201d42 First, Defendants claim a\n\nlack of front-end price impact around the alleged misrepresentations. Second, Defendants claim a\n\nlack of back-end price impact around the alleged corrective disclosures. Third, Defendants claim\n\nI have failed to identify a method to determine the amount of confounding information that\n\ncaused a portion of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price declines around the corrective\n\ndisclosures. Fourth, Defendants claim I have failed to explain how the out-of-pocket damages\n\nmethodology would address Plaintiff\u2019s allegations regarding materializations of the risk.43\n\n 33. As stated in my Efficiency Reply Report, Defendants\u2019 concerns are\n\nunpersuasive.44 As discussed in my Prior Reports: \u201cAll of these loss causation calculations can\n\nbe performed on a class-wide basis and are not dependent upon individual Class member\n\n\n\n\n41\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, Section V.\n42\n Id., \u00b6 9.\n43\n Defendants Opp. Brief, at pp. 22-25.\n44\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6 10.\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 20 of 90\n\n\n\n\nidentities or circumstances.\u201d45 Thus, none of the purported issues Defendants\u2019 raise would lead\n\nto individualized questions about loss causation and damages. Rather, the out-of-pocket damages\n\nmethodology, which is common across all Class members, will reasonably address the\n\ncalculation of artificial inflation and any disaggregation of confounding information at the loss\n\ncausation and damages stage, based on a merits-based inquiry.46\n\n 34. Further, what Defendants claim regarding the amount of stock price changes and\n\npotential need for disaggregation has nothing to do with how the out-of-pocket damages\n\nframework fits Plaintiff\u2019s liability theory or its uniform applicability to all class members.\n\nRather, Defendants\u2019 speculative concerns relate to circumstances that may later implicate the\n\nprecise amount of artificial inflation that a jury or finder of fact attributes to Defendants\u2019\n\nmisconduct. As noted in my Prior Reports, parsing out any confounding information will be\n\nconducted on a class-wide basis with common information at the loss causation and damages\n\nstage, and there are well-accepted valuation techniques to address these questions at that stage\n\nbased on a detailed merits-based inquiry.47\n\n 35. Lastly, in my Reply Report, I demonstrate evidence of the price impact of the\n\nalleged misrepresentations via the associated corrective disclosures in this case.48 This evidence\n\nincludes: i) fundamental principles of finance and economic analysis, ii) internal case documents,\n\niii) analyst coverage which explicitly references the economic information pertaining to the\n\nalleged misrepresentations, and iv) my event study analysis, which documents statistically\n\nsignificant evidence of price impact in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns.\n\n\n45\n See, for example, Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6 85.\n46\n Id., Section VI.\n47\n Id., see, for example, \u00b6 80.\n48\n Bozanic Reply Report, Section IV.A.\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 21 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 36. I continue to hold the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports.\n\nVI. Importance of the Alleged Misstatements and Omissions\n\n 37. As a financial economist, I consider economic materiality to relate to information,\n\nnews, announcements, or other events that would impact the valuation of a company and its\n\nsecurities, and thus, investors\u2019 demand for those securities. As such, my opinions in this report\n\nregarding economic materiality are based upon my analysis of such information as it pertains to\n\nfinance, economics, and valuation, and are not intended to represent legal analyses or\n\nconclusions. An element of the loss causation analysis involves an examination of fundamental\n\nvaluation principles, public statements, as well as analysts\u2019 commentary in order to assess\n\nwhether the subject matter of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions is economically\n\nmaterial, and thus, value relevant to investors. While I understand that materiality has a legal\n\ndefinition in matters such as this one, for the purposes of my report, the term \u201ceconomic\n\nmateriality\u201d means the importance of information to the market (and thus, investors), such that it\n\nwould affect the valuation of a security and investors\u2019 decisions to buy or sell the security.\n\n 38. Therefore, the relevant question is whether the allegedly misrepresented and\n\nomitted information\u2014that the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion of its energy and hashrate capacity\n\nwould occur by April 2021 and double the existing energy capacity at the facility (from 20 to 50\n\nmegawatts) and more than quadruple the existing hashrate capacity at the facility (from 190 PH/s\n\nto 900-1400 PH/s); that the ATL Facility was supplied energy at cost advantaged rates, and that\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s proprietary energy management software would further reduce those energy costs;\n\nand that the reduced energy costs in tandem with the increased operational scale from the energy\n\nand hashrate capacity expansion would rapidly increase CleanSpark\u2019s expected bitcoin mining\n\nprofitability\u2014would have been important to investors. For purposes of evaluating whether the\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 22 of 90\n\n\n\n\nalleged misstatements and omissions are material from an economic and financial perspective, I\n\nalso consider what information was concealed and would have been disclosed in a hypothetical\n\n\u201cbut-for\u201d disclosure. In this matter, based on the Complaint\u2019s allegations, I understand that the\n\ncorrective disclosures revealed the relevant truth about the Company\u2019s expected timeline for the\n\nenergy and hashrate expansion, its long term ability to obtain energy at cost advantaged rates,\n\nand thus its potential to rapidly increase the Company\u2019s expected profitability from increased\n\noperational scale.49\n\n 39. For the purposes of my report, I assume that the misrepresentations and omissions\n\nthe Complaint alleges in this matter misinformed investors regarding CleanSpark\u2019s expected\n\noperational capacity, expected energy costs, and the anticipated timeline to rapidly increase\n\nexpected profitability. I conclude that the misrepresentations and omissions alleged in this\n\nmatter were economically material to investors in CleanSpark Common Stock. I base my\n\nopinion of the importance of this information on: (1) Defendants\u2019 own public statements\n\nportraying the ATL Facility\u2019s potential to rapidly increase expected profitability on the basis of\n\nincreased operational capacity and lower energy costs; (2) analyst commentary demonstrating\n\nthat the market relied upon Defendants\u2019 statements concerning the ability to increase operational\n\ncapacity, the ability to secure power at low cost, and the anticipated timeline to rapidly increase\n\nexpected profitability through scale; (3) the application of basic valuation principles to\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s business; and (4) my event study analysis that establishes statistically significant\n\ndeclines in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock on the Corrective Disclosure Events.\n\n\n\n\n49\n I am not suggesting the specific wording of any hypothetical but-for disclosure. Instead, I am\ndescribing the relevant economic factors that any such disclosure would convey based upon my\nunderstanding of the Complaint\u2019s allegations.\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 23 of 90\n\n\n\n\n A. Defendants\u2019 Public Statements\n\n 40. CleanSpark considered information about expected operational capacity, expected\n\nenergy costs, and the anticipated timeline to rapidly increase expected profitability through scale\n\nas important drivers of CleanSpark\u2019s value and the valuation of its stock. This is demonstrated\n\nthrough statements made by Defendants in CleanSpark\u2019s press releases, shareholder letters, SEC\n\nfilings, as well as during Company conference calls.\n\n 41. For example, the importance to CleanSpark and value relevance for investors of\n\ninformation on these topics is evident from a December 10, 2020 press release when CleanSpark\n\nannounced the acquisition of the ATL Facility:\n\n \u201cAs part of the first phase, the Company has contracted with the local\n municipality to expand the power to the facility from 20MW to\n 50MW. It is expected that this expansion will begin promptly and be\n completed in April 2021. \u2026 Additionally, the Company intends to\n more than quadruple the number of ASIC (application specific\n integrated circuit) mining units in operation during the expansion.\n \u2026\n Zachary Bradford, CleanSpark\u2019s CEO said: \u2018There are currently 3,471\n bitcoin mining units (\u201cASICs\u201d) in daily operation on site, processing\n approximately 190 PH/s which are using approximately 9.6 MW of\n capacity. We anticipate that upon completion of the equipment and\n energy expansion, the facility is expected to produce between 0.9-1.4\n EH/s, depending on the final configuration and ASICs deployed. We\n expect that this will result in multiple bitcoins being produced daily\n at some of the lowest energy costs in the nation for this type of\n enterprise. The Company expects to demonstrate that, by using our\n technologies, we can reduce the cost of energy to below $0.0285 per\n kw/h.\u2019\u201d50\n\n 42. Further, the importance of the Company\u2019s pivot to bitcoin mining for investors \u2013\n\nand need to keep margins high by keeping energy costs low and thus profitability for\n\nshareholders maximized \u2013 is reinforced by CleanSpark\u2019s CEO and Defendant Bradford at the\n\n\n50\n Supra, Footnote 8.\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 24 of 90\n\n\n\n\nstart of the Class Period on December 10, 2020 where he stated in a conference call to analysts\n\nthat:\n\n \u201cthere is no other industry where you can literally turn energy into\n cash. And that's what we're doing here. We are taking something\n whose sole or nearly sole cost of production is energy and we're\n using our expertise to turn that into money.\u201d51\n\n 43. On the same call, Defendant Bradford reiterated the Company\u2019s expectations for\n\nthe acquisition regarding the ability to expand power at the facility, to do so at cost-advantaged\n\nrates, to further lower those costs through the Company\u2019s proprietary energy management\n\nsoftware, and to have the energy expansion complete by April 2021:\n\n \u201cAnd so, what we have is we do have an agreement with the city to\n expand the facility all the way up to 50 megawatts from 20\n megawatts right now. And we \u2013 it\u2019s a very, very good and\n advantageous contract for us.\n \u2026\n In summary, we feel very comfortable saying that we believe we can\n push the total energy cost per kilowatt at the location below 2.85\n cents. And that\u2019s something that we\u2019re going at pretty aggressively,\n and know we can accomplish based upon some of the plans we have\n in place, which again \u2013 what that further does, it expands the profit\n margins on the \u2013 again energy to cash business segment that were \u2013\n we just acquired.\n \u2026\n So that will be after we hit the 50 megawatts, we\u2019ll be adding on top\n of. So our expansion from 20 to 50 should happen over the next call\n it 3, 3.5 months. So we expect it to be complete by the end of April.\u201d52\n\n 44. Throughout the Class Period, CleanSpark regularly updated investors on the\n\nexpansion timeline, further demonstrating that the Company understood the importance of\n\n\n\n\n51\n \u201cWater Tower Research Virtual Conference,\u201d Bloomberg, December 10, 2020.\n52\n Id.\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 25 of 90\n\n\n\n\nkeeping investors informed on these milestones. For example, on February 12, 2021,\n\nCleanSpark announced in a press release:\n\n \u201cThe Company has contracted with the local municipality to bring\n 30MW of additional power to a property adjacent to ATL property to\n support additional CleanSpark Bitcoin mining operations. This will\n bring the total power available for mining and data centers for\n CleanSpark subsidiaries from 20MW to 50MW. The capacity\n increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year\n 2021.\u201d 53\n\n 45. Similarly, on March 2, 2021, the Company issued press release with another\n\nupdate for investors on the expansion timeline, which underscores the relation between available\n\nmining capacity and Company profitability:\n\n \u201cZach Bradford, CleanSpark\u2019s Chief Executive Officer stated, \u2018We\n continue to aggressively pursue the growth of our hash rate capacity\n and expect to reach 1 to 1.3 EH/s in total production capacity this\n summer.\n \u2026\n \u2018Time is money\u2019 in this sector, and these orders allow us to\n immediately put the 30 MW of increased power into use as soon as it\n comes online.\u2019\u201d54\n\n 46. In addition, on June 21, 2021, CEO and Defendant Bradford was interviewed by\n\nShawn Severson at Water Tower Research where Bradford noted the importance of securing\n\npower at low cost, and how the Company\u2019s value depends in part on whether the rigs are hosted\n\nat the Company\u2019s own facilities:\n\n \u201cIn addition, if you don\u2019t own your facility and you\u2019re hosting all of\n your machines somewhere else, you\u2019re really building somebody\n else\u2019s business. There are groups like Marathon that have made a\n choice to host everything elsewhere and again, that makes the other\n companies more valuable, but then you're at their whim if the contract\n\n53\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Reports Quarterly Financial Results for the Three-Months Ended December 31,\n2020,\u201d CleanSpark, February 12, 2021.\n54\n \u201cCleanSpark Secures Additional Bitcoin Miners for Delivery and Deployment Early Summer,\u201d\nCleanSpark, March 2, 2021.\n\n 24\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 26 of 90\n\n\n\n\n terms are more advantageous from another party, and they want to\n switch, you can be without a home, which means you can\u2019t mine.\n \u2026\n Bernardo has always been an advocate with Zach and myself that it\u2019s\n not about the number of miners you have and it's not about how much\n capital you raise to buy equipment, what it comes down to in this\n space is the ability to secure the power.\n \u2026\n The efficiency of our operating team is such that we\u2019re mining bitcoin\n at what we believe to be some of the lowest cost per coin in the\n industry.\u201d55\n\n 47. On July 14, 2021, Defendant Bradford was interviewed again by Shawn Severson\n\nat Water Tower Research where Bradford provided another update on the expansion timeline:\n\n \u201c\u2026onsite expansion there is progressing really well, and we're\n bringing additional machines on as soon as the power comes online.\n So, since we last spoke, I think we've added probably close to 150\n petahash. And so right now we're sitting about 470 petahash\u2026\u201d56\n\n \u2026\n We\u2019ve talked a lot about our energy expansion in Georgia, and as I\n said is progressing well, and we\u2019re on track for late summer to bring\n that capacity online\u2026\n \u2026\n So, by this September also we're going to be at 50 megawatts of total\n power at our current facilities.\u201d57\n\n 48. As evident from Defendants\u2019 statements described above, CleanSpark considered\n\nits expected operational capacity (from 20 to 50 megawatts of available energy and from 190\n\n\n\n\n55\n \u201cA Business Update with CleanSpark CEO Zach Bradford and Executive Chairman Matt Schultz,\u201d\nWater Tower Research, June 21, 2021.\n56\n The transcript has been corrected to read \u201cpetahash\u201d instead of \u201cper hash\u201d.\n57\n \u201cWater Tower Research Virtual Conference,\u201d Bloomberg, July 14, 2021.\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 27 of 90\n\n\n\n\nPH/s to 0.9-1.4 EH/s of hash rate capacity)58, expected energy costs (less than 2.85 cents per\n\nkw/h, between the Company\u2019s contract with the municipality and the Company\u2019s claims that its\n\nproprietary technology could further lower those costs), and the anticipated timeline to rapidly\n\nincrease expected profitability (April 2021) as important for the Company\u2019s success and\n\nfinancial performance. Thus, Defendants\u2019 alleged misstatements and omissions, which relate to\n\nthe Company\u2019s inability to achieve its project milestones as expected in terms of capacity and\n\nprofitability, would be economically material to investors.\n\n B. Analyst Commentary\n\n 49. As further evidence of the importance of Defendants\u2019 alleged misstatements\n\nand/or omissions regarding expected operational capacity and the anticipated timeline to rapidly\n\nincrease expected profitability through increased operational scale, securities analysts following\n\nthe Company routinely monitored progress towards increased energy and hashrate capacity at the\n\nATL Facility, and how these factors contributed to CleanSpark\u2019s future earnings and revenue\n\ngrowth. It is evident from the analyst reports written, as well as from discussions during\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s conference calls, that analysts were focused on these factors and relied on\n\nDefendants\u2019 statements regarding operational capacity when forming opinions about the\n\nCompany. Viewed as vital to CleanSpark\u2019s success, energy and hashrate capacity were closely\n\nexamined by analysts as the Company\u2019s ability to successfully scale bitcoin mining was viewed\n\nas indicative of future financial success for the Company.\n\n\n\n\n58\n Complaint, \u00b6 31: \u201cThe computing power of bitcoin mining equipment is often evaluated by measuring\nthe number of calculations, or \u2018hashes,\u2019 per second. A \u201cterahash\u201d is one trillion hashes. One petahash is\nequivalent to one thousand terahashes, and one exahash is equivalent to 1000 petahashes. As detailed\nbelow, a Bitcoin miner\u2019s total hashrate (which is a proxy for how quickly the mining hardware can solve\na problem and thereby produce bitcoins) may be expressed in terms of petahashes per second (PH/s) or\nexahashes per second (EH/s).\u201d\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 28 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 50. For example, when CleanSpark announced the acquisition of the ATL facility in\n\nDecember 2020, analysts at H.C. Wainwright noted the importance of the increase in energy\n\ncapacity to 50 megawatts and the immediate scaling of bitcoin mining up to 1.4 EH/s (1,400\n\nPH/s) of hashrate capacity by April 2021, and thus raised CleanSpark\u2019s price target by 33% from\n\n$18 to $24:\n\n \u201cBitcoin mining to be scaled immediately. Management intends to\n scale its bitcoin mining operations immediately and has contracted\n with the local municipality to expand the power to the facility from\n 20MVV (of which 9.6MVV is being utilized) to 50MVV (targeted to\n be completed by April 2021).\n \u2026\n \u2026the company is planning to increase the capacity from the current\n 9.6MVV, operating at approximately 190PH/s, to 50.0MVV,\n operating at approximately 900-1,400PH/s.\n \u2026\n Key takeaways. We do not view this acquisition as a pivot away\n from the company's core efforts to expand its energy analytics and\n software offerings. Part of the rationale offered for this acquisition was\n to demonstrate and validate the suite of energy solutions the company\n can offer to manage a high energy intensity application, where\n keeping power consumption costs low can impact profitability in a\n significant manner.\n \u2026\n Our price target increase to $24.00 from $18.00 is primarily driven\n by upward revisions to our future estimates to include new revenue\n and margin contribution from bitcoin mining activity.\u201d59\n\n 51. Similarly, as market prices for bitcoin improved in February 2021, analysts at\n\nH.C. Wainwright observed how CleanSpark\u2019s planned ramp up in mining capacity would allow\n\nit to capitalize on bitcoin\u2019s price upswing, thus raising its price target by 108% from $24 to $50:\n\n \u201cWe believe the company should see a full quarter of bitcoin\n contribution beginning in current March 2021 quarter, with production\n ranging between 1.5 to 2.0 bitcoins per day (going from approximately\n\n59\n \u201cBitcoin Mining Acquisition Drives Estimates Higher; Raising Price Target to $24.00,\u201d H.C.\nWainwright, December 11, 2020.\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 29 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 200 PH/s in December to more than 315 PH/s in February 2021). The\n company's bitcoin mining outlook is calling for an additional 800 to\n 880 PH/s of processing capacity that would bring the total capacity\n to between 1.0 and 1.3 EH/s by early 2H21.\n \u2026\n We are increasing our price target on CleanSpark to $50.00 from\n $24.00, driven by upward revisions to our expected contribution\n from the company\u2019s bitcoin mining operation. With bitcoin prices\n trading in a range between $28,000 and $49,000 over the last month,\n we believe our assumptions are overly conservative.\u201d60\n\n 52. In April 2021, despite continued increases in the price of bitcoin, CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nstock price hovered around $17.50 while H.C. Wainwright kept their target price at $50. Though\n\nnot revising their price target in this report, analysts were less optimistic about CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nstock price given that capacity had not increased as expected. Thus, since CleanSpark was not\n\nable to expand energy capacity to 50MW nor increase hashrate capacity to 0.9-1.4 EH/s by April\n\n2021, analysts remained conservative with their modeling assumptions despite the upswing in\n\nbitcoin prices:\n\n On April 15, CleanSpark announced that it is purchasing over 20,000\n Bitcoin miners with a total of approximately 1,600 miners expected to\n be delivered between April 2021 and June 2021, and thereafter at a\n rate of approximately 1,600 miners per month from August 2021 to\n July 2022. CleanSpark is spending approximately $18.8M for the first\n 1,600 miners and an aggregate of approximately $136.2M for the\n 19,200 miners over the subsequent 12 months. As a result of this\n purchase, the company's capacity is set to reach more than 1.1EH/s\n by the summer of 2021, capable of producing 6-7 Bitcoins per day at\n current difficulty rates\u2026\n \u2026\n Our assumptions remain conservative relative to outlook. Bitcoin\n price has fluctuated between $51,000 and $65,000 in the first half of\n April 2021; relative to this, our financial model for the company\n currently assumes Bitcoin prices of $30,000-33,785 between now and\n FY2022 (ending September 2022).\n\n\n60\n \u201cIncreasing PT to $50.00 on Upwards Revision From Bitcoin Contribution; F1Q21 Results Update,\u201d\nH.C. Wainwright, February 16, 2021.\n\n 28\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 30 of 90\n\n\n\n\n \u2026\n We believe CleanSpark\u2019s execution on the microgrid and Bitcoin\n mining fronts could position the company to exceed our expectations\n for FY2021, as our assumptions now appear relatively conservative.\n The stock has pulled back since its January 2021 highs\u2026\u201d61\n\n 53. On May 10, 2021, analysts at H.C. Wainright issued a report following\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s 2Q 2021 earnings announcement on May 6, 2021 and accompanying revised FY\n\n2021 revenue outlook. As with their report the month prior, analysts at H.C. Wainwright noted\n\nthat, despite the increased margins from bitcoin mining, they would again remain conservative\n\nrelative to management\u2019s outlook, indicating that management\u2019s outlook depends on the\n\nCompany\u2019s ability to increase capacity, and thus actual revenues could be lower consequent to\n\nexpansion delays:\n\n \u201cGross margins were around 81.1% compared to 41.0% in F1Q21\n and 39.8% in F4Q20, mainly supported by Bitcoin contribution.\n \u2026\n CleanSpark has revised its FY2021 outlook with expectations for\n revenues to range between $47M and $60M. Energy, Digital Agency,\n and Bitcoin Mining segment revenues for the fiscal year are now\n expected to range between $16-20M, $1M, and $30-40M,\n respectively.\n \u2026\n Our revenue expectations for FY2021 are at the lower end of the\n guided range as we are being more conservative in our view of\n Bitcoin prices. Management indicated that the expected revenue\n range for Bitcoin-related contribution factors in some level of delays\n in receiving equipment. Those results could vary depending on\n timeliness of the new equipment delivered and deployed.\u201d62\n\n\n\n\n61\n \u201cOutlook Strengthened on Planned Increase in Bitcoin Mining Capacity; Maintain Buy,\u201d H.C.\nWainwright, April 20, 2021.\n62\n \u201cPace of Growth Remains Accelerated; F2Q21 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, May 10, 2021.\n\n 29\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 31 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 54. On May 11, 2021, analysts at Water Tower Research noted the importance of\n\nbitcoin mining for the Company\u2019s financial success in stating that CleanSpark reached\n\nprofitability for the first time as a result of bitcoin mining:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark reported a record 2021, with revenues doubling for the\n second consecutive quarter along with achieving profitability for the\n first time ever largely driven by the company\u2019s bitcoin mining\n operation.\n\n CleanSpark reported another record-breaking quarter in 2Q21, with\n revenues doubling for the second consecutive quarter along with\n achieving profitability for the first time ever. Similar to 1Q21, the\n company\u2019s bitcoin mining operation primarily drove revenues and\n profitability.\u201d63\n\n 55. Two days after the end of the Class Period, analysts at H.C. Wainwright again\n\ncautioned that their outlook and estimates remained conservative in light of continued delays\n\nwith the capacity expansion:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark is in the process of adding mining capacity over the next\n 12-14 months, for which it has already made advance deposits.\n Management expects a total of 11,700 miners to be deployed by\n September 30, 2021, 19,900 by December 31, 2021, 25,500 by March\n 31, 2022, 30,000 by June 30, 2022, and 34,000 by September 30,\n 2022. We are taking a conservative stance and modeling the capacity\n to reach less than 10BTC/day by September 2022, mainly to hedge\n for: (1) any potential delays in deployment\u2026\u201d64\n\n 56. Further, in September 2021, analysts at Water Tower Research noted that\n\nCleanSpark still had not met its stated range of 0.9-1.4 EH/s (1,400 PH/s) of bitcoin mining\n\ncapacity by April 2021 as indicated in the December 10, 2021 acquisition announcement:\n\n\n\n\n63\n \u201cRecord 2Q21 Results: Revenues +122% Y/Y Fueled by Bitcoin Mining Success; Improved FY2I\nOutlook,\u201d Water Tower Research, May 11, 2021.\n64\n \u201cPoised for Significant Ramp in Hashrate During FY2022; F3Q21 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright,\nAugust 18, 2021.\n\n 30\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 32 of 90\n\n\n\n\n \u201cAs of August 17, 2021, CleanSpark\u2019s hashrate capacity exceeded\n 820 PH/s or 6-7 bitcoins per day, an increase of ~100% from 46 days\n ago.\u201d65\n\n 57. Finally, in a report on September 21, 2021, and similar to the prior month\u2019s\n\nreport, analysts at Water Tower Research noted that CleanSpark still had not met either its\n\nenergy or hashrate capacity goals. In an interview with Defendant Bradford, Bradford disclosed\n\nthat CleanSpark would host its miners/rigs at another company\u2019s facility (i.e., Coinmint) given\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s continued delays in both energy expansion and hashrate capacity:\n\n \u201cWith Coinmint, CleanSpark will bring additional bitcoin mining\n capacity online and should help the company increase its overall\n hash rate capacity to its goals of 1.2 EH/s. CleanSpark will utilize\n Coinmint\u2019s available miners immediately while its ATL facility\n continues to undergo its 30 MW expansion to 50 MW of capacity.\n\n Interview with Bradford: \u2018We\u2019ve talked a lot about our energy\n expansion in Georgia, and as I said, it's progressing well. We\u2019re on\n track for late summer to bring all of that capacity online, but we\n have machines that are showing up now. Rather than wait for the\n energy capacity to come fully online in 45 days or so, we're going to\n send rigs to Coinmint.\u2019\u201d66\n\n 58. As documented above, analysts focused on the operational capacity milestones\n\nachieved by CleanSpark, specifically its ability to increase energy capacity to 50 megawatts and\n\nhashrate capacity to 0.9-1.4 EH/s in order to rapidly increase expected margins and profitability\n\nthrough scale. As such, they relied upon these elements when providing investment advice. The\n\nforegoing provides compelling evidence that the alleged misstatements and omissions about\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s operational capacity and cost efficiency were important, value relevant, and\n\neconomically material to investors in CleanSpark Common Stock. Therefore, it stands to reason\n\n\n\n65\n \u201cBitcoin Valuation Update: What is the Market Missing?,\u201d Water Tower Research, August 26, 2021.\n66\n \u201cBitcoin Mining Deep Dive with CleanSpark CEO Zach Bradford,\u201d Water Tower Research, September\n21, 2021.\n\n 31\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 33 of 90\n\n\n\n\nthat the Company\u2019s misrepresentations and omissions, which relate to the Company\u2019s inability to\n\nachieve its project milestones as expected in terms of capacity, margins, and profitability, would\n\nbe economically material to investors.\n\n C. Economic and Valuation Principles\n\n 59. A fundamental principle of financial economics holds that the value of a security\n\nis equal to the present value of the expected future cash flows to holders of that security.67 In\n\nother words, a security\u2019s value is the sum of the estimated future cash flows discounted at a rate\n\nthat reflects their riskiness.68 All else equal, a decrease in a company\u2019s future revenue or future\n\nearnings reflects a decrease in the cash flows to the common stockholders, and thus, causes a\n\ndecrease in the value of the security. Because CleanSpark pivoted its business strategy during\n\nthe Class Period away from energy software services and towards high-margin bitcoin mining,\n\nthis fundamental valuation principle helps to further explain why CleanSpark\u2019s progress towards\n\nexpanding operational capacity at the ATL Facility would impact future revenues and earnings,\n\nand thus be value relevant and economically material to investors.\n\n 60. During the Class Period, CleanSpark\u2019s ability to expand energy and hashrate\n\ncapacity and acquire energy at low cost were meaningful to the Company\u2019s successful pivot to\n\nbitcoin mining and thus enhanced profitability. As discussed above in Section VI.A., CleanSpark\n\nunderstood the importance of its ability to quickly scale bitcoin mining operations and mine at\n\nlow cost at the ATL facility and how both impacted the Company\u2019s financial success. It is also\n\nevident from analyst commentary above in Section VI.B. that the market was encouraged by\n\n\n\n\n67\n Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, & David Wessels, \u201cMeasuring and Managing the Value of Companies,\u201d\nJohn Wiley & Sons, Sixth Edition, 2015, p. 17.\n68\n Id., p. 42.\n\n 32\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 34 of 90\n\n\n\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s pivot to bitcoin mining, the Company\u2019s anticipated energy costs related to bitcoin\n\nmining, and the expected expansion timeline for bitcoin mining.\n\n 61. CleanSpark\u2019s bitcoin mining profitability can be expressed generally as revenues\n\nless expenses. The driver of revenues is the aggregate amount of bitcoin mining69 processing\n\ncapacity or total hashrate70 across all mining rigs71 deployed. In addition to housing the mining\n\nrigs in a facility, the facility must have sufficient infrastructure to receive power from an energy\n\nsupplier (e.g., such as a municipality) to run the number of rigs to be deployed. Accordingly, the\n\nprimary fixed costs or expenses of bitcoin mining would be the rigs themselves and the facility\n\nhousing the rigs. In addition, the primary variable cost or expense in mining bitcoin is the total\n\namount of energy consumed to power the mining rigs that process bitcoin.\n\n 62. In light of the preceding discussion, on the revenue side, an investor would view\n\ninformation about CleanSpark\u2019s ability or lack thereof to increase energy and hashrate capacity\n\nat the ATL Facility as information related to expected future cash flows to be generated by the\n\nCompany. Similarly, on the expense side, an investor would view information about\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s ability or lack thereof to acquire energy from the municipality at cost advantaged\n\nrates and then further reduce those costs through the Company\u2019s proprietary technology as\n\ninformation related to expected future cash flows to be generated by the Company.\n\n\n\n\n69\n Complaint, \u00b6 29: \u201cBitcoin \u2018mining\u2019 refers to the process that verifies Bitcoin transactions and releases\nbitcoins into circulation. Mining involves solving complex cryptographic problems to discover a new\n\u2018block,\u2019 or a group of data. Once this block is discovered or \u2018filled,\u2019 it is given a timestamp and strung\ntogether in a distributed database known as a \u2018blockchain.\u2019\u201d\n70\n Id., \u00b6 31: \u201cThe computing power of bitcoin mining equipment is often evaluated by measuring the\nnumber of calculations, or \u2018hashes,\u2019 per second.\u201d\n71\n Id., \u00b6 30: \u201cMiners need either a graphics processing unit (GPU) or an application-specific integrated\ncircuit (ASIC) to set up a mining rig; however, nearly all miners use ASIC machines.\u201d\n\n 33\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 35 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 63. Basic finance theory demonstrates that, all else equal, a reduction in a company\u2019s\n\nrevenues, profit margins, and earnings will correspondingly reduce the cash flows available to\n\ncommon stockholders. And a reduction in cash flows directly translates into a reduction in\n\ncompany value based on basic financial valuation principles. Because Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions directly impacted the timing, level, and risk of expected future\n\ncash flows (and thus, the value investors put on the stock), it is foreseeable that they would affect\n\nthe price of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock, and Plaintiffs and other investors would suffer losses\n\nwhen it was revealed that those misrepresentations and omissions were misleading. If Plaintiffs\n\nultimately prove their allegations, then based on fundamental valuation principles, investors\n\nwould have viewed the concealed information and the alleged misstatements and omissions to be\n\nvalue relevant and thus, material, from an economic perspective.\n\n D. Event Study\n\n 64. In order to study and opine on the stock price movements for CleanSpark over the\n\nClass Period and on relevant days, I performed an event study. Event studies are widely used by\n\neconomists to measure the reaction of a security to the disclosure of new, issuer-specific\n\ninformation, including in connection with assessments of market efficiency, loss causation, and\n\ndamages in securities litigation.72 As Professor Fama has explained:\n\n There is a large event-study literature on issues in corporate finance.\n The results indicate that on average stock prices adjust quickly to\n information about investment decisions, dividend changes, changes in\n capital structure, and corporate-control transactions. This evidence tilts\n me toward the conclusion that prices adjust efficiently to firm-specific\n information. More important, the research uncovers empirical\n regularities, many surprising, that enrich our understanding of\n\n\n72\n A. Craig MacKinlay, 1997, \u201cEvent Studies in Economics and Finance,\u201d Journal of Economic Literature\n13.\n\n 34\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 36 of 90\n\n\n\n\n investment, financing, and corporate-control events, and give rise to\n interesting theoretical work.73\n\n 65. To determine whether CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price movements on any\n\ngiven date are statistically significant, I performed an event study using generally accepted\n\neconomic methods, specifying a regression model over a selected time period to observe the\n\ntypical relationship between the price of the relevant security and market and industry indices.\n\n 66. Through this regression model, an economist can model the predicted daily return\n\nof the relevant security, based on market and industry returns. By subtracting the predicted return\n\nfrom the actual return, an economist can calculate the \u201cabnormal\u201d return in the company\u2019s daily\n\nstock price movement, which represents the component of the daily stock price return that is not\n\nattributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements, but rather, is attributable to company-\n\nspecific news. Finally, as part of an event study analysis, an economist tests whether the\n\ndeviation from expected price movements (the \u201cabnormal return\u201d) is \u201cstatistically significant,\u201d\n\ni.e., sufficiently large compared to the typical volatility such that simple random movement can\n\nbe rejected as the cause.\n\n 67. I applied these widely used and generally accepted econometric methodologies to\n\nperform my event study here. Specifically, in order to isolate the impact of company-specific\n\nnews on CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price during the Class Period, I performed regression\n\nanalyses to measure the relationship between CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns and: (1)\n\nchanges in market-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks; and (2) changes in\n\nindustry-wide factors that would be expected to impact stocks in CleanSpark\u2019s industry. By\n\nmodeling how CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price returns moved relative to an overall market\n\n\n\n73\n Eugene F. Fama, 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II,\u201d Journal of Finance 46, at 1607.\n\n 35\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 37 of 90\n\n\n\n\nindex and an industry index, I was also able to measure the response of CleanSpark\u2019s Common\n\nStock to announcements of company-specific news.\n\n 68. I previously performed an event study in my Efficiency Report to evaluate\n\nwhether CleanSpark Common Stock responded to relevant information and together with other\n\nsupporting factors as listed in my Efficiency Report, I reached the conclusion that CleanSpark\n\nCommon Stock traded in an efficient market.74 After carefully reviewing and considering the\n\nrelevant information environment for purposes of assessing loss causation and damages in this\n\nreport, I have utilized the same event study methodology as that performed in my prior\n\nEfficiency Report. For brevity, I repeat the key parameters of this event study below, but refer to\n\nmy Efficiency Report for a more lengthy discussion of my event study process.75 My event\n\nstudy incorporates a rolling 120-day estimation window (i.e., approximately six calendar\n\nmonths) before the Analysis Period, the NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index (the \u201cMarket\n\nIndex\u201d), and the S&P Software & Services Select Industry Index as well as the Bloomberg\n\nBitcoin Index (the \u201cIndustry Indices\u201d). Exhibit 1, attached hereto, graphs the coefficients on\n\nthese controls for CleanSpark Common Stock. Exhibit 2, attached hereto, plots the standard\n\ndeviation of the regression errors, also known as Root Mean Squared Error, over the estimation\n\nwindow for CleanSpark Common Stock.\n\n 69. Exhibit 3, attached hereto, reports the event study results for the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events for CleanSpark Common Stock. Overall, the Corrective Disclosure Events\n\ncaused stock price movements that were statistically significant at better than the 50% level; i.e.,\n\nit is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the declines were related to information released on these dates,\n\n\n74\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6 92. The event study I employ in this report remains unchanged from my\nEfficiency Report.\n75\n Id., Section V.E.\n\n 36\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 38 of 90\n\n\n\n\nas opposed to random price movements. Exhibit 4, attached hereto, reports the cumulative price\n\nimpact analysis of the Corrective Disclosure Events. Overall, the cumulative impact of the\n\nCorrective Disclosure Events caused stock price movements that were statistically significant at\n\nbetter than the 94% level or better.76 The statistical significance of these stock price movements\n\ndue to information related to the Company\u2019s expected timeline for energy and hashrate capacity\n\nexpansion, ability to obtain energy at cost advantaged rates, and the potential to rapidly increase\n\nits expected profitability through scale provides direct evidence of the importance of the alleged\n\nmisstatements and omissions. For the reasons discussed above, a reasonable investor would\n\nhave viewed the alleged misrepresentations and omissions as having significantly altered the\n\ntotal mix of information available. Thus, I conclude that the alleged misstatements and\n\nomissions in this case were important, value relevant, and economically material to investors.\n\nVII. Loss Causation\n\n 70. I consider loss causation in this matter in the context of a two-prong test: first,\n\nwould Plaintiffs and the Class have avoided an economic loss \u201cbut for\u201d the Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\nviolations? And second, was the economic loss a \u201cforeseeable consequence\u201d of Defendants\u2019\n\nalleged violations? In evaluating these two factors, I can assess the economic impact of the\n\nallegations and I determine whether there is economic evidence to link any stock price declines\n\nto the revelation of the prior alleged misstatements or omissions such that the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations or omissions were a substantial factor in the stock price declines.\n\n 71. First, I address why there is a foreseeable causal link between Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions and the Corrective Disclosure Events. Second, I explain how\n\n\n\n\n76\n Exhibit 4 herein duplicates Table 1 from my Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6 35.\n\n 37\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 39 of 90\n\n\n\n\nthe event study methodology I employ demonstrates that the Corrective Disclosure Events\n\ncaused economic losses to the Class.\n\n A. Investor Losses were Foreseeable\n\n 72. As explained above, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made material\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period regarding CleanSpark\u2019s expected\n\noperational capacity, expected energy costs, and the anticipated timeline to rapidly increase\n\nexpected profitability. There is a clear economic link between the alleged misrepresentations and\n\nomissions and the foreseeable investor losses that occurred following the Corrective Disclosure\n\nEvents.\n\n 73. A generally accepted economic principle is that the value of a security is directly\n\nrelated to expectations about the future cash flows to holders of that security.77 As discussed\n\nabove in Section VI.C, there is an economic link between the Company\u2019s future earnings and\n\nanticipated future cash flows and its expected i) mining capacity (i.e., bitcoin mining revenue is\n\ndirectly related to the number and combined speed of mining rigs deployed) and ii) cost\n\nefficiency (i.e., bitcoin mining profitability is directly related to the cost of energy used to mine\n\nbitcoin). Because of the link between anticipated future cash flows and the market value of\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock, there is thus a clear economic link between CleanSpark\u2019s expected\n\nbitcoin mining capacity, expected cost efficiency, and the market value of CleanSpark Common\n\nStock.\n\n\n77\n See, e.g., David I. Tabak & Frederick C. Dunbar, \u201cMateriality and Magnitude: Event Studies in the\nCourtroom,\u201d In Litigation Services Handbook, The Role of the Financial Expert, John Wiley & Sons,\nThird Edition, 2001 (\u201cthe price of an efficiently traded stock is equal to the present value of the\ndiscounted future stream of free cash flow\u201d); see also Aswath Damodaran, \u201cInvestment Valuation: Tools\nand Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset,\u201d John Wiley & Sons, 1996, at pp. 9-10 (\u201cThis\n[DCF] approach has its foundation in the \u2018present value\u2019 rule, where the value of any asset is the present\nvalue of expected future cashflows on it.\u201d).\n\n 38\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 40 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 74. If, as the Complaint alleges, Defendants misrepresented the ATL facility\u2019s\n\noperating potential by omitting material facts related to the acquisition and timeline for\n\ncompleting the energy and bitcoin mining expansion project, then it was foreseeable at the time\n\nof the alleged misstatements and/or omissions that when the relevant truth would eventually\n\nbecome known, the market value of CleanSpark Common Stock would fall. As such, investors\n\nwho purchased CleanSpark Common Stock while Defendants concealed this information,\n\nsuffered losses as the relevant truth was revealed. Therefore, the misrepresentations and\n\nomissions represent the but-for cause of the economic losses that Plaintiffs and other Class\n\nmembers suffered.\n\n 75. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is a direct and foreseeable causal link\n\nbetween the alleged material misrepresentations and omissions and the subsequent economic\n\nlosses that occurred following the Corrective Disclosure Events.\n\n B. The Corrective Information Caused Economic Losses\n\n 76. Economists assessing loss causation commonly employ event studies to evaluate\n\nwhether there is economic evidence to link corrective information regarding prior misstatements\n\nand/or omissions to price declines in the subject security. Based on the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions and my understanding of loss causation principles, news that\n\ndirectly or indirectly revealed the relevant truth regarding the facts allegedly misrepresented\n\nand/or concealed from investors (i.e., whether the ATL Facility\u2019s expansion of energy and\n\nhashrate capacity would occur by April 2021 and double the existing energy capacity at the ATL\n\nFacility, from 20 to 50 megawatts, and more than quadruple the existing hashrate capacity at the\n\nATL Facility, from 190 PH/s to 900-1400 PH/s; whether CleanSpark\u2019s ATL Facility was\n\nsupplied energy at cost advantaged rates, and whether its proprietary energy management\n\n\n 39\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 41 of 90\n\n\n\n\nsoftware would further reduce the Company\u2019s cost of energy; and whether the reduced energy\n\ncosts in tandem with the energy and hashrate expansion would rapidly increase CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nexpected bitcoin mining profitability) represents corrective information. Below, I describe the\n\nevents that meet this standard.\n\n 77. In identifying the Corrective Disclosure Events, I gathered and reviewed news\n\nabout CleanSpark during the Class Period. Among other items, my news search included a\n\nvariety of articles obtained from Factiva, numerous analyst reports issued by equity research\n\nfirms that covered CleanSpark, SEC filings, press releases, conference call transcripts, and\n\ninterviews with Defendants. My evaluation of what information represents corrective\n\ninformation did not depend on the market response, but rather whether new information was\n\nrevealed that was allegedly misrepresented or concealed in this matter from investors. I then\n\nrelied upon the event study, as described above, to determine whether the market\u2019s reaction to\n\nthe corrective information was statistically significant.\n\n 78. Exhibit 3 summarizes the results of the event study I conducted on the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events, demonstrating that each alleged corrective disclosure listed in the table\n\nexhibits a negative price reaction, and is statistically significant at the 50% level or better.78 In\n\nother words, it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the declines were related to information released on\n\nthese dates, as opposed to random price movements. In addition to single day abnormal returns,\n\n\n\n78\n I also considered inflation creating events, i.e., inflation creating information that may have caused the\nprice of CleanSpark Common Stock to increase. After the start of the Class Period, only the February 18,\n2021 alleged misrepresentation was followed by a positive and statistically significant stock return.\nHowever, as shown in Appendix C, the alleged February 18, 2021 misrepresentation (\u201cNow we expect\neverything to be online, both the power, new miners, and expect to reach about 1.3 exahashes or 1300\npetahashes, by midsummer.\u201d) repeated similar information relative to the prior February 12, 2021 alleged\nmisrepresentation (\u201cWe expect this to bring the total capacity under CleanSpark\u2019s subsidiaries to between\n1.0 to 1.3 EH/s by mid-summer\u201d). Therefore, while the February 18, 2021 event could maintain inflation,\nbased on my analysis, it did not introduce additional inflation.\n\n 40\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 42 of 90\n\n\n\n\n as discussed in my Efficiency Reply Report, I also consider two day cumulative abnormal\n\n returns.79 Exhibit 4 summarizes the cumulative price impact analysis of the Corrective\n\n Disclosure Events. Overall, the cumulative impact of the Corrective Disclosure Events caused\n\n stock price movements that were statistically significant at better than the 94% level or better. In\n\n the following section, I describe each of the Corrective Disclosure Events, specifically how new\n\n Company-specific information released to the market was corrective of Defendants\u2019 material\n\n misrepresentations and omissions and the impact that the release of this information had on the\n\n price of CleanSpark Common Stock.\n\nVIII. The Corrective Disclosure Events\n\n A. The Culper Report and related Tweets (January 14-15, 2021)\n\n 79. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published and distributed an investment\n\n report80 (the \u201cCulper Report\u201d) via Twitter81 at 2:16 PM written by an anonymous analyst titled\n\n \u201cCleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can.\u201d Nine other tweets followed within five minutes of\n\n the original tweet that distributed the report to form a thread that summarized points made in the\n\n report.82 The Culper Report was followed up the next day with another Tweet containing several\n\n questions purportedly emailed to Chairman and Defendant Matthew Schultz regarding the\n\n report.83 The report discussed Culper Research\u2019s opinion that CleanSpark\u2019s acquisition of the\n\n ATL Facility was \u201canother gutless promotion attempt\u201d as the report alleged CleanSpark \u201c\u2026has\n\n\n 79\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, Section IV.\n 80\n See \u201cCleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can,\u201d Culper Research, January 14, 2021 (\u201cCulper\n Report\u201d), available at: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cc91fda7-4669-4d1b-81ce-\n a0b8d77f25ab/downloads/Culper_CLSK_1-14-2021.pdf.\n 81\n See https://twitter.com/CulperResearch/status/1349797488199348225 and related enumerated tweets in\n the thread.\n 82\n See Appendix B for the January 14, 2021 @CulperResearch Tweet Thread.\n 83\n Complaint, \u00b6 51. See also: https://twitter.com/CulperResearch/status/1350080600661581825\n\n 41\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 43 of 90\n\n\n\n\nvastly overstated or simply fabricated key elements of its business, including purported\n\ncustomers and contracts.\u201d For example, in terms of contracts, Culper Research wrote:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark touts that cost to mine is under $6,000 per coin, yet we\n believe the Company hasn\u2019t disclosed the potentially catastrophic\n information that this artificially low power cost may be set to expire\n in less than 3 years.\u201d84\n\n 80. Since power consumption is the primary direct cost to mine bitcoin85, the Culper\n\nReport questioned the financial viability of the ATL acquisition in terms of the cost-advantaged\n\ncontract terms CleanSpark alleged to have with the local municipality for electricity.\n\nSpecifically, the Culper Report notes that another company, Marathon, had previously attempted\n\nto purchase the ATL facility (when it was branded as Fastblock Mining) but then, after\n\nconducting its due diligence, Marathon pulled out of the deal specifically because the short\n\nduration of the power agreement did not make it economically viable:\n\n \u201cIn August 2020, miner Marathon Patent Group announced its\n intention to acquire ATL, then known as Fastblock Mining. Marathon\n abandoned the acquisition in September 2020, after stating that it\n was \u201cnot economically feasible\u201d to buy the asset due to its soon-\n expiring power agreement. In our view, this suggests that CleanSpark\n has simply rebranded an otherwise failed, podunk operation in service\n of a gutless promotion attempt.\u201d 86\n\n \u201cMarathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:MARA) (\"Marathon\" or\n \"Company\"), today announced that as of September 11th, 2020, the\n Company has withdrawn its offer to acquire Fastblock Mining.\n During its due diligence process, the Company discovered that the\n Power Agreement pursuant to which Fastblock would provide power\n at a subsidized rate of $0.0285KwH, would expire in three years.\u201d87\n\n\n84\n Culper Report.\n85\n According to Defendant and CEO Zachary Bradford, \u201cThe cost of bitcoin mining is almost 100% on\nthe energy side.\u201d See, Footnote 16, Supra.\n86\n Culper Report.\n87\n \u201cMarathon Patent Group Withdraws Offer to Acquire Fastblock Mining; Companies Unable to Reach\nLong-Term Power Agreement at Acceptable Rates,\u201d Marathon Holdings, September 17, 2020, 4:15 PM.\n\n 42\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 44 of 90\n\n\n\n\nThis information and analysis provided by Culper Research in the Culper Report regarding\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s energy contract terms was new information to the market, and relates directly to\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding Defendants\u2019 due diligence and\n\nexpected profitability underlying the ATL acquisition.\n\n 81. Beyond casting doubt on the viability of the ATL Facility acquisition on the basis\n\nof alleged costs to mine bitcoin and thus the Facility\u2019s profitability, the Culper Report provided\n\nadditional new information to the market relating to Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and\n\nomissions regarding CleanSpark\u2019s \u201csoftware technologies and trade secrets to maximize energy\n\nsavings\u201d and thus its purported ability to \u201cdeliver high power reliability is expected to\n\ndemonstrably increase profitability\u201d88 through the microgrid solutions it offers, stating that:\n\n\n \u201cCleanSpark claims that ATL will act to demonstrate the Company\u2019s\n clean energy capabilities, as it plans to build a microgrid \u201con top of\u201d\n the data center, hence lowering its costs. To us, CleanSpark\u2019s\n promises regarding this yet-to-be-constructed microgrid at ATL ring\n reminiscent of its short-lived foray into marijuana, when the\n Company also claimed to provide tremendous value to a cannabis\n operator, Green Dragon. As profiled later in this report, we believe\n CleanSpark\u2019s Green Dragon claims were bold-faced-lies that have\n merely been recycled for ATL\u2026\n \u2026\n In October 2017, CleanSpark claimed that \u2018Green Dragon\u2026has\n contracted CleanSpark as their microgrid solutions provider.\u2019\n CleanSpark further claimed that it could \u2018immediately reduce the\n monthly electricity bill of the indoor grow facility by 82%.\u2019 Then\u2026it\n claimed that it had \u2018designed a 'best-in-class' solution for the\n Cannabis market to meet the significant and growing energy demands\n of the industry.\u2019 We reached out to Green Dragon, hoping to learn\n more about their experience with CleanSpark and this supposed \u2018best-\n in-class solution.\u2019 Instead, Green Dragon\u2019s founder told us that he\n was never a customer of CleanSpark\u2019s, and was \u2018stunned\u2019 to learn\n that he had been named as such by the Company...\n\n\n\n88\n Supra, Footnote 8.\n\n 43\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 45 of 90\n\n\n\n\n \u2026\n\n Indeed, we think CleanSpark\u2019s entire \u2018business\u2019 has been built upon\n lies and deceit, and its real business is not in fabricating energy\n savings for customers, but in selling dreams to promote its worthless\n stock to investors. In August 2020, CleanSpark announced it would\n provide microgrids to \u2018more than 400 unique residential resort\n properties,\u2019 of which 252 are at Valle Divino, Mexico. We visited\n Valle Divino, and despite these claims, the site was an empty\n wasteland\u2026\u201d89\n\n 82. In calling into question the profitability of the ATL Facility acquisition on the\n\nbasis of CleanSpark\u2019s alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding i) projected costs to\n\nmine bitcoin in terms of energy usage (i.e., understating expenses), ii) ability to \u201cmaximize\n\nenergy savings\u201d through its \u201csoftware technologies and trade secrets,\u201d (i.e., understating\n\nexpenses), iii) ability to expand power (i.e., overstating revenues), and iv) ability to expand\n\nhashrate capacity (i.e., overstating revenues), the Culper Report provided new information to the\n\nmarket relating to Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding ATL\u2019s expected\n\nprofitability and thus overall market value, stating that:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark\u2019s apparent lies and omissions aside, we think investors\n buying the stock for the Company\u2019s mining capabilities are paying\n Porsche 911 prices for what amounts to a broken-down Toyota\n Corolla. ATL\u2019s current capacity of just 3,471 ASICs, or 245 PH/s, is\n less than 10% of the mining power claimed by RIOT Blockchain\n (RIOT) or Marathon Patent Group (MARA). We view the\n Company\u2019s claims to future energy savings at ATL as empty promises\n which read eerily similar to those made regarding its once-touted fake\n customer, Green Dragon.\u201d90\n\n 83. The Culper Report claimed that, at a market cap at the time of roughly $1 billion,\n\nCleanSpark was overvalued by roughly 600% to 900% relative to RIOT and MARA. This is\n\n\n\n\n89\n Culper Report.\n90\n Id.\n\n 44\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 46 of 90\n\n\n\n\nbecause CleanSpark\u2019s hashrate capacity with the ATL Facility\u2019s existing bitcoin mining assets\n\ndeployed was approximately only 10% of that of the above-mentioned competitors\u2014yet\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s market value at the time of the Culper Report was roughly 65% of those\n\ncompetitors, largely due to the threefold runup in share price from the trading day before the\n\nATL acquisition to the trading day before the release of the Culper Report (from $13.09 to\n\n$39.34, or 301%) .\n\n 84. As shown by my event study referenced in Section VI.B above, there was a\n\nsignificant decline in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock following the release of the Culper\n\nReport on January 14, 2021.\n\n 85. News outlets reported on the price decline in CleanSpark Common Stock and also\n\nnoted the Culper Report. For instance:\n\n TheFly.com: \u201cCulper Research issues short report on CleanSpark,\n calls stock \u2018uninvestible.\u2019 Culper Research issued a report it which the\n firm states it is short CleanSpark, which it accuses of being \u2018an insider\n enrichment scheme which, at every turn of its promotion, has vastly\n overstated or simply fabricated key elements of its business,\n including purported customers and contracts.\u2019 The firm believes\n \u2018CEO Zach Bradford and Chairman S. Matthew Schultz have\n habitually lied to investors and cannot be trusted, and CleanSpark\n stock is uninvestible,\u2019 Culper added.\u201d91\n\n Benzinga: \u201cCleanSpark Inc (NASDAQ: CLSK) shares are trading\n lower Thursday following a short report from Culper Research. The\n report claims \u2018CleanSpark has habitually lied about its supposed\n customers and contracts, many of which we\u2019ve found simply do not\n exist. Cleanspark\u2019s stock traded lower by 10.3% to $35.28 at the time\n of publication.\u2019\u201d92\n\n\n\n\n91\n \u201cCulper Research issues short report on CleanSpark\u2026,\u201d TheFly.com, January 14, 2021, 2:20 PM.\n92\n \u201cWhy CleanSpark\u2019s Stock Is Trading Lower Today,\u201d Benzinga, January 14, 2021, 3:54 PM.\n\n 45\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 47 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 86. Based on my event study, after controlling for market and industry effects,\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock price declined on January 14, 2021 by 13.5%, or $5.29 per share\n\n(see Exhibit 3). This price decline is statistically significant at the 88.4% confidence level.\n\nAdditionally, there was relatively high trading volume of CleanSpark Common Stock on this\n\ndate of 4.40 million shares traded, which is approximately 84% greater than the average daily\n\ntrading volume during the Class Period of 2.39 million shares.\n\n 87. Further, on January 15, 2021, when Culper Research posted a tweet with\n\nquestions for Defendant Schultz regarding the report, CleanSpark Common Stock price declined\n\nby 11.3%, or $4.03 per share after controlling for market and industry effects (see Exhibit 3).\n\nThis price decline is statistically significant at the 81.2% confidence level. Additionally, there\n\nwas relatively high trading volume of CleanSpark Common Stock on this date of 4.66 million\n\nshares traded, which is approximately 95% greater than the average daily trading volume during\n\nthe Class Period.\n\n 88. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, on an individual basis, the January 14, 2021\n\nCulper Report and the January 15, 2021 tweet are each statistically significant at the 80%\n\nconfidence level or better (88.4% and 81.2%, respectively). In other words, it is \u201cmore likely\n\nthan not\u201d that the declines were related to information released on these dates, as opposed to\n\nrandom price movements. Because these two days reflect the market\u2019s response to the same\n\ncorrective event entering the market, as discussed in my Efficiency Reply Report, it is reasonable\n\nto combine returns across those days to assess the cumulative two day market response to both\n\nthe release and dissemination of the report. As shown in Exhibit 4, the two day abnormal return\n\nfor January 14 and 15, 2021 of -23.2% is statistically significant at the 94.4% confidence level.93\n\n\n93\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6 37.\n\n 46\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 48 of 90\n\n\n\n\nThe statistically significant price decline in CleanSpark Common Stock demonstrates that the\n\nmarket reacted quickly and significantly on January 14-15, 2021 to new material public\n\ninformation. As discussed below, the only new material public information learned by the market\n\non January 14-15, 2021 was contained in the Culper Report published by Culper Research.\n\n 89. As discussed above, if Defendants made misleading statements about\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s ability to expand power and hashrate capacity in the stated timeline, its projected\n\ncosts to mine bitcoin, and its ability to \u201cmaximize energy savings\u201d through its proprietary\n\ntechnology, then the Culper Report revealed a portion of the relevant truth concealed by the\n\nalleged misstatements and omissions. The information in the Culper Report is corrective of the\n\nalleged misstatements and omissions because it revealed how CleanSpark had understated its\n\nmining costs, overstated its ability to further reduce energy costs through its \u201csoftware\n\ntechnologies and trade secrets,\u201d and overstated its ability to increase energy and hash rate\n\ncapacity at the ATL Facility in the timeline stated.\n\n 90. I carefully evaluated whether there was any other news outside of the corrective\n\ninformation that could explain the observed CleanSpark Common Stock price decline on January\n\n14-15, 2021. I located two news articles of potential investor interest. First, on January 14, 2021,\n\na news article by ComputerWeekly reported that CleanSpark had filed an 8-K on December 30,\n\n2020, and provided a link to the referenced filing.94 The SEC did receive an 8-K from\n\nCleanSpark on December 31, 2020 that contained a Letter to Shareholders, and the filing was\n\naccepted by the SEC at 9:35AM the same day.95 As such, the information contained in the filing\n\n\n94\n \u201cCleanspark Inc. Cleanspark, Inc. Files SEC Form 8-K, Current Report: (Dec. 31, 2020),\u201d\nComputerWeekly, January 14, 2021.\n95\n See SEC Edgar, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357720000516/0001663577-20-000516-\nindex.html\n\n 47\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 49 of 90\n\n\n\n\nhad already been reflected in market price before the release of the Culper Report. Second, also\n\non January 14, 2021, the Jordan News Agency reported on a new residential microgrid contract\n\nentered into by CleanSpark.96 The information contained in the news article had also already\n\nbeen incorporated into market price before the release of the Culper report, as the same story was\n\nreported the day prior, January 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM, by Dow Jones Institutional News.97\n\n 91. While the abnormal decline on January 14-15, 2021 is, in my opinion,\n\npredominantly attributable to the new information contained in the Culper Report, the report and\n\nits dissemination via Twitter made several points focused on select key issues. First, the tweet\n\nthread on January 14, 2021 was premised on the following two points: a statement that Culper\n\nResearch had concluded to short CleanSpark (tweet #1 in the thread), and a statement supporting\n\ntheir inference that they were recommending a short position on the basis that CleanSpark \u201clied\n\nabout its supposed customers and contracts\u201d (tweet #2 in the thread). The remaining enumerated\n\npoints in the January 14 tweet thread (#3-10), which reflected the discussions in the Culper\n\nReport, reflected evidence used by Culper to support its inference and conclusion.\n\n 92. In the tweet that followed the next day on January 15, 2021, Culper Research\n\nindicated that it had emailed Defendant and Chairman Matthew Schultz several questions\n\nregarding the Culper Report that went unanswered by CleanSpark. Of the eight enumerated\n\npoints in the follow-up tweet on January 15, 2021, seven were points related to those in the\n\n\n\n\n96\n \u201cCleanSpark Announces Additional Residential Microgrid Contract,\u201d Jordan News Agency, January 14,\n2021.\n97\n \u201cPress Release: CleanSpark Announces Additional Residential Microgrid Contract,\u201d Dow Jones\nInstitutional News, January 13, 2021, 9:25 AM.\n\n 48\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 50 of 90\n\n\n\n\noriginal tweet thread. Following academic literature on disclosure salience98, I focus my attention\n\non two features of the tweets: order and repetition.\n\n 93. First, Culper Research, by virtue of summarizing the Culper Report via Twitter,\n\nhad chosen to emphasize the points from the report that substantiated the report\u2019s premise\n\n(recommending a short position in CleanSpark) and conclusion (CleanSpark \u201clied about its\n\nsupposed customers and contracts\u201d) and thus considered important for investors. Second, the\n\npoints that repeated across tweets were also points of emphasis for investors. Therefore, I\n\nconsider points that were not repeated across tweets as less emphasized and thus less relevant for\n\nCulper Research and investors. As such, tweet #4 from the original tweet thread (re Shoreline\n\nSchools) and bullet #8 from the follow-up tweet on January 15, 2021 (re Defendant Bradford\n\nserving as an auditor of a cannabis penny stock) would be considered less relevant for investors.\n\nI now turn to an analysis and discussion of the thematic content of the enumerated points.\n\n 94. There are three main types of evidence provided by Culper Research: those\n\nrelated to fictitious revenues, those related to expense understatement, and those related to\n\nrelated-party transactions. Since each type could factor into CleanSpark\u2019s profitability, and\n\nwould thus be material to investors considering investing in the stock, I discuss each in kind\n\nbelow.\n\n 95. First, if CleanSpark overstated and/or fabricated revenues, the Company\u2019s\n\nanticipated future cash flows and profitability would be overstated. Second, if CleanSpark\n\nunderstated expenses, again, the Company\u2019s anticipated future cash flows and profitability would\n\n\n\n\n98\n For example, Cheng et al. (2021) study \u201cwhether earlier discussion of earnings information, and earlier\ndiscussion of qualitatively positive or negative information, is associated with stronger responses to that\ninformation.\u201d They find \u201ca positive relation between investor response to information and the\nprioritization of that information in the earnings announcement.\u201d\n\n 49\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 51 of 90\n\n\n\n\nbe overstated. Third, CleanSpark\u2019s many related-party transactions could support an inference of\n\nfraud; however, absent evidence of fraud, the they do not directly indicate the presence of\n\nmisconduct. Per the accounting firm KMPG: \u201cWhile related party transactions (RPTs) are not\n\ninherently problematic, they do raise concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest, fraud,\n\nsiphoning-off, money laundering and corruption.\u201d99 As investors are less likely to be concerned\n\nwith RPTs as opposed to overstating revenues and/or understating expenses \u2013 both of which have\n\na direct impact on company cash flows, profitability, and value \u2013 I therefore focus my attention\n\non the remaining enumerated bullets across tweets.\n\n 96. Of the enumerated bullets that remain, two were related to executive\n\ncompensation and guidance (tweet #10 in the initial tweet thread and bullet #5 in the follow-up\n\ntweet). Similar to the RPTs above, while increases in executive compensation would decrease\n\ncash flow, absent evidence of fraud, executive compensation is unlikely to be as material to\n\ninvestors as overstating revenues and/or understating expenses. And while the guidance shortfall\n\nseems large, investors and analysts typically do not benchmark current performance using stale\n\nbenchmarks which, in this case, was comparing 2017 projections to 2020 results.\n\n 97. Given the discussion above, the points that remain across tweets that investors\n\nwould likely find value relevant are: 3 points re the ATL Facility (tweet #9 in the original tweet\n\nthread; bullets #6 and #7 in the follow-up tweet), 2 points re Green Dragon (tweet #5 in the\n\noriginal tweet thread; bullet #1 in the follow-up tweet), and 2 points re the Valle Divino site\n\n(tweet #3 in the original tweet thread; bullet #2 in the follow-up tweet). While the Green Dragon\n\nand Valle Divino points pertained to allegations of fictitious revenues, the ATL points\n\nquestioned both the expected revenue generating ability of ATL\u2019s assets (which would reduce\n\n\n99\n \u201cForensic lens on related parties and transactions,\u201d KPMG, December 2024.\n\n 50\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 52 of 90\n\n\n\n\nanticipated earnings and cash flows) as well as the lower-than-industry standard re expected\n\nenergy expenses incurred to generate those revenues (which would also reduce anticipated\n\nearnings and cash flows). My opinion is that the Green Dragon and Valle Divino points were\n\nmeant to cast doubt on the financial viability of the ATL Facility in light of the claims made by\n\nCleanSpark regarding its expected capacity and profitability.\n\n 98. My assessment of the information conveyed by the January 14-15, 2021 tweets is\n\nreinforced by the structure of the Culper Report itself insofar as the report emphasized\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s claims regarding its customers and contracts, specifically with respect to its claims\n\nregarding the ATL Facility, Valle Divino site, and Green Dragon grow facility. Following the\n\ndisclosure salience literature, the order in which the points were made in the report are such that\n\nthe most relevant (and thus salient) points can be quickly gleaned by an investor in order to\n\ninfluence investor judgement and decision making with respect to investing in CleanSpark.\n\nSimilar to the second tweet in the original tweet thread, the first paragraph of the Culper Report\n\nwas premised on the assertion that CleanSpark \u201clied about its supposed customers and\n\ncontracts.\u201d\n\n 99. The initial substantive paragraph (i.e., the second paragraph on page 2) in the\n\nCulper Report in support of Culper\u2019s assertion was in regards to the acquisition of the ATL\n\nfacility. In that paragraph, the Culper Report cast doubt on CleanSpark\u2019s claimed costs to mine\n\nbitcoin, pointing to a cost-advantaged power agreement that was set to expire in three years:\n\n\u201cCleanSpark touts that cost to mine is under $6,000 per coin, yet we believe the Company hasn't\n\ndisclosed the potentially catastrophic information that this artificially low power cost may be\n\nset to expire in less than 3 years.\u201d To further undermine the credibility of the CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nclaims regarding the ATL acquisition, the Culper Report quickly pointed investors (see the end\n\n\n\n 51\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 53 of 90\n\n\n\n\nof second paragraph on p. 2 of the report, as well as the two paragraphs which follow) to two\n\nother ventures where Culper alleged CleanSpark made similarly dubious claims: Green Dragon\n\nand Valle Divino.\n\n 100. The Green Dragon agreement was intended to provide microgrid solutions for the\n\ncannabis company\u2019s indoor marijuana grow facility in order to reduce energy costs at that\n\nfacility. Specifically, and similar to the ATL Facility, CleanSpark claimed it could immediately\n\nand dramatically reduce energy costs at the Green Dragon facility through its microgrid solutions\n\nand advanced controls: \u201cThe first phase of the Green Dragon microgrid will employ solar,\n\nenergy storage, and advanced controls to immediately reduce the monthly electricity bill of the\n\nindoor grow facility by 82%.\u201d100 However, according to the claims in the Culper Report:\n\n\u201c\u2026CleanSpark once claimed that it \u2018designed a \u2018best-in-class\u2019\u2019 microgrid solution for a cannabis\n\noperator, Green Dragon, yet we reached out to Green Dragon, which stated that it never saw the\n\npress release and has never paid CleanSpark for any services whatsoever. We also include\n\nthose emails in this report.\u201d\n\n 101. The Valle Divino development site was part of a broader agreement with\n\nInternational Land Alliance (ILA) to provide \u201cmicrogrid power solutions to more than 400\n\nunique residential resort properties\u201d which include both the Valle Divino and Plaza\n\nBajamar sites.101 According to the August 2020 press release: \u201cThe first energy systems\n\ndeployed within the unique development will be located on two residential villas currently in the\n\nfinal stages of construction. Commissioning of these initial energy projects is expected to occur\n\n\n\n100\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides a Best-in-Class Microgrid Solution to the Marijuana Industry,\u201d CleanSpark,\nOctober 3, 2017.\n101\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. and International Land Alliance Announce Microgrid Development Agreement,\u201d\nCleanSpark, August 19, 2020.\n\n 52\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 54 of 90\n\n\n\n\non or before September 30, 2020.\u201d Yet, according the claims in the Culper Report published in\n\nJanuary 2021: \u201cWe visited the site of the supposed Valle Divino development ourselves, led by\n\nILAL\u2019s own representatives. What we saw was zero construction, merely empty desert,\n\nrepresentative of the Company's many empty promises\u2026\u201d\n\n 102. In light of the preceding, it is possible to argue that the Culper\u2019s Report claims\n\nregarding Green Dragon and Valle Divino are unrelated to the revelation of the relevant truth\n\nregarding the misrepresentation and omissions alleged by Plaintiffs in this case. However,\n\nbitcoin mining became a new enterprise for CleanSpark upon the acquisition of the ATL Facility.\n\nWith the pivot towards bitcoin mining, and with CleanSpark touting its ability to i) increase\n\nenergy capacity, ii) increase hashrate capacity, iii) secure energy at 1/4 of the industry rate102,\n\nand iv) further reduce those costs of energy using its proprietary technology, these claims would\n\nneed to be carefully viewed by investors in light of the Culper Report\u2019s allegations regarding\n\nfictitious contracts at Green Dragon and Valle Divino since, if true, would undermine\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s claims regarding the ATL Facility\u2019s potential to increase the Company\u2019s\n\nprofitability and value. In addition, the Green Dragon and ILA / Valle Divino contracts were\n\nannounced on October 3, 2017103 and November 5, 2019104 \u2013 well before the start of the Class\n\nPeriod. Therefore, information regarding the realizations or lack therefore of potential revenues\n\nto be earned from these contracts was likely already reflected in market price.\n\n 103. However, to adopt a conservative approach, I assume that news related to the\n\nGreen Dragon and ILA / Valle Divino contracts as revealed by the Culper Report are unrelated to\n\n\n102\n See Footnote 16, Supra: \u201c\u2026the average energy cost to mine bitcoin in the U.S. was $0.12 cents per\nkw/h, i.e., the average cost in the U.S. was over 4x greater than CleanSpark\u2019s claimed cost of energy.\u201d\n103\n Supra, Footnote 100.\n104\n \u201cCleanSpark (CLSK) Announces Exclusive Contract For Energy Software Solutions With\nInternational Land Alliance (ILAL),\u201d CleanSpark, November 5, 2019.\n\n 53\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 55 of 90\n\n\n\n\nthe alleged fraud, even though they may, if true, support an inference that CleanSpark\u2019s claims re\n\nthe ATL Facility could be fraudulent. Given this, it is reasonable to consider the information\n\nregarding Green Dragon and Valle Divino contained in the Culper Report as potentially\n\nconfounding information that should be disaggregated from the price decline on January 14-15,\n\n2021. I am not aware of any evidence specifically quantifying the impact of the allegations\n\nregarding Green Dragon and Valle Divino on the January 14-15, 2021 stock price declines\n\ncompared to the rest of the information contained in the Culper Report. As a result, I adopt a\n\nconservative methodology described in the remainder of this section to remove the impact of\n\npotential confounding information on the January 14-15, 2021 stock price declines.\n\n 104. With respect to the Valle Divino, I reviewed the sequence of events following the\n\nCulper Report, which alleged that the development did not exist (i.e., \u201cwe saw was zero\n\nconstruction, merely empty desert\u201d). If investors initially reacted negatively to that specific\n\nallegation, I would expect subsequent disclosures affirming housing construction and microgrid\n\ndevelopment activity at the Valle Divino site to lead to a partial stock price reversal, which\n\nwould indicate that the Culper Report\u2019s claims regarding the Valle Divino site were value\n\nrelevant for investors. To isolate the market response to this claim, I identified two news events\n\ndisclosed in the months following the Culper Report which discussed the status of the Valle\n\nDivino site.\n\n 105. Before the market opened on September 15, 2021, ILA issued a press release\n\nwhich provided an update on the Valle Divino site.105 Specifically, ILA stated that \u201cthe planned\n\nconstruction [will] start...within the next 60 days\u2026\u201d My event study referenced in Section VI.B\n\n\n\n105\n \u201cInternational Land Alliance Provides Update on Valle Divino Development,\u201d GlobeNewswire,\nSeptember 15, 2021, 09:00 AM.\n\n 54\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 56 of 90\n\n\n\n\nabove allows me to evaluate CleanSpark\u2019s common stock price reaction to the ILA\n\nannouncement on September 15, 2021. In response to this news, the price of CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock decreased by 0.31% (-$0.04 per share), after controlling for market and industry\n\neffects. The negative return suggests that the September 15, 2021 announcement from ILA\n\nregarding Valle Divino did not meaningfully reverse investor skepticism regarding the existence\n\nof or progress at the Valle Divino development. However, as I discuss next, a subsequent\n\ndisclosure from ILA regarding Valle Divino was associated with a reversal, indicating that\n\ninvestors potentially found updates that challenged the Culper Report\u2019s allegations re Valle\n\nDivino as value relevant.\n\n 106. After the market closed on October 19, 2021, ILA issued a press release which\n\nprovided another update on the Valle Divino site.106 Specifically, ILA stated that it \u201c\u2026broke\n\nground on the Valle Divino development in July 2020 and completed its first stage of\n\nconstruction in January 2021 and started reservations of residential lots\u2026\u201d and that \u201cThe\n\nconstruction phase is now underway\u2026\u201d My event study referenced in Section VI.B above\n\nallows me to evaluate CleanSpark\u2019s common stock price reaction to the ILA announcement on\n\nOctober 20, 2021. Based on my event study, in response to this news, the price of CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock increased by 4.83% ($0.81 per share) after controlling for market and industry\n\neffects. This stock price reversal regarding the Culper Report\u2019s allegations regarding the Valle\n\nDivino site indicates that investors potentially found updates that challenged those allegations as\n\nvalue relevant.\n\n\n\n\n106\n \u201cInternational Land Alliance Commences Construction at Valle Divino Development,\u201d\nGlobeNewswire, October 19, 2021, 08:30 AM.\n\n 55\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 57 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 107. Thus, the stock price movement on October 20, 2021 serves as a reasonable proxy\n\nto measure the impact of the information related to the ILA / Valle Divino agreement on the\n\nprice of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock. Based on the foregoing, I estimate that the potentially\n\nconfounding information in the Culper Report regarding the Valle Divino site amounted to $0.81\n\nper share.\n\n 108. Regarding Green Dragon, I reviewed the sequence of events leading up to the\n\nCulper Report, which alleged that Green Dragon had never been a customer of CleanSpark (i.e.,\n\nGreen Dragon \u201cnever paid CleanSpark for any services whatsoever\u201d). If investors had viewed\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s prior disclosures about the Green Dragon contract as positively value relevant, I\n\nwould expect those disclosures to generate positive stock price reactions. I identified four news\n\nevents disclosed in the months prior to the Culper Report which discussed the Green Dragon\n\nagreement. Before market open on October 3, 2017, CleanSpark issued a press release\n\nannouncing the agreement to provide a microgrid solution to Green Dragon.107 In response to the\n\nannouncement, the stock declined by 18.84% on a raw return basis. Additionally, I identified\n\ndiscussion regarding Green Dragon in CleanSpark\u2019s January 16, 2018 10-K filing,108 March 9,\n\n2018 SEC correspondence,109 and April 5, 2018 10-K/A.110 On each of these dates, the stock\n\nprice did not increase. This lack of stock price movement suggests that investors did not view the\n\nGreen Dragon agreement as positively value relevant, and thus there is no stock price component\n\n\n\n\n107\n Supra, Footnote 100.\n108\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357718000019/mainbody.htm\n109\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357718000123/filename1.htm\n110\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357718000185/mainbody3.htm\n\n 56\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 58 of 90\n\n\n\n\nattributable to the potentially confounding information in the Culper Report regarding Green\n\nDragon that would need to be disaggregated from the price decline on January 14-15, 2021\n\nfollowing the release of the Culper Report.\n\n 109. Based on the foregoing, I conclude it is reasonable to assume that investors\n\nweighed the importance of information regarding the Valle Divino development site at $0.81\n\ncents per share. After removing the impact of this information from CleanSpark\u2019s abnormal\n\nstock price decline on January 14-15, 2021, I calculate that the remaining corrective information\n\nfrom the Culper Report caused a decline of $8.51 per share ($9.32 - $0.81 = $8.51) and estimate\n\nthat $8.51 of artificial inflation was dissipated from CleanSpark Common Stock on January 14-\n\n15, 2021.\n\n B. Capacity Expansion Delays\n\n i. February 12, 2021 Press Release\n\n 110. On February 12, 2021 at 9:25AM, CleanSpark issued a press release111 discussing\n\nits quarterly financial results112 (released after market at 8:33PM the day prior), for the 3 months\n\nending December 31, 2020. The press release touted that CleanSpark \u201cmore than doubled its\n\ncomparable quarterly revenues,\u201d that \u201cGross Margin increased to 41%...compared to 10%...the\n\nprior year,\u201d and that the Company had \u201cdecreased its revenue concentration risk.\u201d Despite these\n\nimprovements, CleanSpark reported earnings per share of -$0.32, reflecting a net loss of $7.2\n\nmillion for the quarter, from quarterly revenues of $2.26 million. Further, the quarterly financial\n\n\n\n\n111\n Supra, Footnote 53.\n112\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000066/clsk10q.htm\n\n 57\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 59 of 90\n\n\n\n\nresults indicated that \u201cThe Company also owns and operates a fleet of Bitcoin miners producing\n\nover 200 PH/s. Mining capacity is expected to increase to over 300 PH/s in early 2021.\u201d113\n\n 111. The press release and financial results further discussed that CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nrevenues for the period came from three segments: Energy, Digital Agency, and Digital\n\nCurrency mining.114 While the first two segments existed the same quarter the year prior (i.e.,\n\nlegacy segments), the last segment \u2013 Digital Currency \u2013 was a new segment this period as a\n\nresult of the Company\u2019s entrance into bitcoin mining consequent to the ATL Facility acquisition\n\nin December 2020. The legacy segments posted combined revenue of $1.524 million for the full\n\n3 month period (a period-over-period increase of $0.547 million) and the nascent Digital\n\nCurrency segment posted revenues of $0.733 million, reflecting 31 bitcoins mined, for the 21\n\ndays between December 10, 2020 (\u201cthe first full-day of mining following the acquisition\u201d) and\n\nDecember 31, 2020.115\n\n 112. Converting each revenue stream \u2013 legacy vs. nascent \u2013 to an average daily\n\nrevenue stream within the period, the legacy segments earned $16,749 revenue per day on\n\naverage, whereas the nascent bitcoin segment earned more than twice that at $34,924 revenue\n\nper day on average. Moreover, per the press release, and for only 21 revenue generating days in\n\nthe period, \u201cThis segment contributed $0.73 million or 32% of consolidated revenue in three-\n\n\n\n113\n Upon the acquisition of the ATL Facility, CleanSpark disclosed it obtained 190PH/s in hashrate\ncapacity (See Footnote 8, Supra), which increased to 200PH/s as of December 18, 2021 after the addition\nof 38 new ASICs. See \u201cCleanSpark Provides Update on Bitcoin Mining Operations and Expansion,\u201d\nCleanSpark, December 18, 2020.\n114\n Per the quarterly financial results: \u201cEnergy Segment \u2013 Consisting of our CleanSpark, LLC, CleanSpark\nCritical Power Systems, Inc., and GridFabric, LLC lines of business, this segment provides services,\nequipment, and software to the energy industry. Digital Agency Segment \u2013 p2kLabs, Inc. provides design,\nsoftware development, and other technology-based consulting services. Digital Currency Mining\nSegment \u2013 Consisting of ATL Data Centers, LLC, this segment mines digital assets, namely Bitcoin.\u201d\n115\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d CleanSpark, January 5, 2021.\n\n 58\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 60 of 90\n\n\n\n\nmonths ended December 31, 2020.\u201d Given the relative earnings streams between the segments,\n\ninvestors would find updates regarding energy and hashrate capacity expansion at the nascent\n\nbitcoin segment material and value relevant.\n\n 113. In the press release, CleanSpark provided operational highlights for the period as\n\nwell as outlook regarding the energy and mining capacity at its ATL Facility. With respect to the\n\noperational highlights, the Company stated:\n\n \u201cWe completed the acquisition of ATL Data Center in an all-stock\n transaction. The Company has contracted with the local municipality\n to bring 30MW of additional power to a property adjacent to ATL\n property to support additional CleanSpark Bitcoin mining operations.\n This will bring the total power available for mining and data centers\n for CleanSpark subsidiaries from 20MW to 50MW. The capacity\n increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year\n 2021.\u201d\n\nWith respect to energy and mining capacity outlook, the Company stated:\n\n \u201cWe continue to work diligently to expand the Company\u2019s total\n energy capacity and Bitcoin mining capacity. We expect to reach\n more than 315 PH/s within the month of February. We also expect to\n have the initial power capacity increase completed over the next two\n quarters and anticipate bringing additional mining equipment online\n in parallel with the available power. We believe the improvements will\n add an additional 800 to 880 PH/s of processing capacity over the\n coming quarters. We expect this to bring the total capacity under\n CleanSpark\u2019s subsidiaries to between 1.0 to 1.3 EH/s by mid-\n summer. Given the current difficulty rates, this is expected to result in\n the production of 6-9 Bitcoins per day. At the current price of Bitcoin\n ($47,000) this would result in $115 to $150 million per year in Bitcoin\n mining revenue. As stated, our goal is to mine Bitcoins at the lowest\n rates nationwide and we expect to achieve greater than 80% gross\n profit margin on our Bitcoin mining activities.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 59\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 61 of 90\n\n\n\n\nThis information provided by CleanSpark regarding its revised timeline (i.e., from the April 2021\n\ntimeline disclosed in its press release for the ATL Facility acquisition116 to \u201cmid-year\u201d or \u201cmid-\n\nsummer\u201d) for energy and hashrate capacity was new information to the market, and relates\n\ndirectly to Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding Defendants\u2019 expected\n\nprofitability underlying the ATL acquisition. As shown by my event study referenced in Section\n\nVI.B above, there was a decline in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock following the\n\nearnings release on February 12, 2021.\n\n 114. News outlets reported on CleanSpark\u2019s performance for the period, initially\n\nreiterating the Company\u2019s outlook. For instance, Reuters News reports as of 6:18am that day:\n\n Reuters News:\n \u201c* QUARTERLY REVENUE ROSE 130 PERCENT TO $2.26\n MILLION\n * QUARTERLY LOSS PER SHARE $0.32\n * SEES FY REVENUE $30 MILLION\n * EXPECT TO RECOGNIZE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE\n REVENUE FROM BITCOIN MINING REVENUES IN FUTURE\n QUARTERS\n * EXPECT TO REACH MORE THAN 315 PH/S WITHIN MONTH\n OF FEBRUARY.\u201d117\n\n\n\n\n116\n \u201cAs part of the first phase, the Company has contracted with the local municipality to expand the\npower to the facility from 20MW to 50MW. It is expected that this expansion will begin promptly and\nbe completed in April 2021. In addition to this initial utility-level expansion, CleanSpark will begin\nmodeling solutions with its proprietary mVSO software and subsequently add renewable energy\ngenerating assets and energy storage to the site, which will be operated by the Company's patented\nmPulse controls. Additionally, the Company intends to more than quadruple the number of ASIC\n(application specific integrated circuit) mining units in operation during the expansion.\u201d See Footnote\n8, Supra.\n117\n \u201cBRIEF-CleanSpark Says Quarterly Revenue Rose 130 Percent To $2.26 Million,\u201d Reuters News,\nFebruary 12, 2021, 6:18 AM.\n\n 60\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 62 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 115. Later that morning, news outlets began to provide additional narrative regarding\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s performance for the period, some of which highlighted analyst expectations. For\n\nexample, Reuters News reports, in two distinct articles (one of which was an earnings preview),\n\nas of 7:51AM that day:\n\n Reuters News:\n \u201c*The analyst mean estimate for CleanSpark Inc is for a loss of 12\n cents per share. \u2026\n * The mean earnings estimate of analysts had risen by about 20.0%\n in the last three months.\u201d118\n\n \u201c* The company is expected to report a rise in revenue to $2.83\n million from $977 thousand in the same quarter last year.\n * The current quarter consensus estimate of -12 cents per share\n implies a gain of 70.00 percent from the same quarter last year when\n the company reported -40 cents per share.\u201d119\n\n 116. The above-mentioned estimates highlighted by the Reuters article rely on an\n\nanalyst report issued by H.C. Wainwright on December 21, 2020.120 In this report, analysts at\n\nH.C. Wainwright estimated a loss of $0.12 per share on $2.826 million of revenue for the first\n\nquarter of CleanSpark\u2019s fiscal year.121 Hence, CleanSpark\u2019s quarterly earnings (actual loss of\n\n$0.32 cents per share vs. loss of $0.12 cents expected) and revenue (actual revenue of $2.26\n\nmillion vs. $2.83 expected) results were below analyst expectations.\n\n\n\n\n118\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc expected to post a loss of 12 cents a share - Earnings Preview,\u201d Reuters News,\nFebruary 12, 2021, 7:51AM.\n119\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc: A loss of 12 cents per share anticipated for first quarter,\u201d Reuters News, February 12,\n2021, 7:51AM.\n120\n \u201cSet Up for Continued Strength in FY2021; F4Q20 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, dated\nDecember 21, 2020.\n121\n CleanSpark has a September 30 fiscal year end, and thus the fourth calendar quarter of the year is\nCleanSpark\u2019s first fiscal quarter.\n\n 61\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 63 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 117. Based on my event study, after controlling for market and industry effects,\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock price declined on February 12, 2021 by 5.7%, or $1.68 per share\n\n(see Exhibit 3). While this single day price decline is statistically significant at the 57.2%\n\nconfidence level, as discussed below, the cumulative abnormal return for the two expansion\n\ndelays is statistically significant at the 94.5% confidence level. Additionally, there was relatively\n\nhigh trading volume of CleanSpark Common Stock on February 12, 2021 of 2.58 million shares\n\ntraded, which is approximately 8.0% greater than the average daily trading volume during the\n\nClass Period of 2.39 million shares.\n\n 118. Both the February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 Corrective Disclosures (the\n\nlatter of which I discuss in the next section) and associated price drops are related to the delayed\n\nexpansion timeline at the ATL facility from \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d to \u201cthis fall\u201d.122 Hence, these two\n\ndays reflect the market\u2019s response to the corrective information entering the market regarding\n\nexpansion delays at the ATL facility. Considering this, and as discussed in my Efficiency Reply\n\nReport, it is reasonable to combine returns across those days to assess the cumulative two day\n\nmarket response to delaying the expansion timeline from the originally announced April 2021\n\ndate to \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d and again to \u201cthis fall.\u201d As shown in Exhibit 4, the two day cumulative\n\nabnormal return for February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 is -16% and is statistically\n\nsignificant at the 94.5% confidence level. This provides strong evidence of price impact. Further,\n\nas discussed below, the predominant new material public information learned by the market on\n\n\n\n\n122\n \u201cThe capacity increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year 2021.\u201d (Supra,\nFootnote 53) and \u201cCleanSpark continues to work on expanding its total energy capacity to accelerate the\ngrowth of its bitcoin mining operations in Atlanta this fall.\u201d (\u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Reports Financial Results\nfor its Third Quarter Ended June 30, 2021,\u201d CleanSpark, August 17, 2021).\n\n 62\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 64 of 90\n\n\n\n\nFebruary 12, 2021 (as well as August 17, 2021) was contained in the earnings press release filed\n\nthat day.\n\n 119. If Defendants made misleading statements about CleanSpark\u2019s expected timeline\n\nto expand power and hashrate capacity, then the February 12, 2021 press release revealed a\n\nportion of the relevant truth concealed by the alleged misstatements and omissions. The\n\ninformation in the February 12, 2021 press release is corrective of the alleged misstatements and\n\nomissions because it revealed how CleanSpark had overstated its ability to increase energy and\n\nhash rate capacity at the ATL Facility in the timeline stated.\n\n 120. I carefully evaluated whether there was any other news outside of the corrective\n\ninformation that could explain the observed CleanSpark Common Stock price decline on\n\nFebruary 12, 2021. As mentioned previously, on February 11, 2021 at 8:33PM, CleanSpark\n\nreleased its quarterly financial results for the period October 1, 2020 through December 31,\n\n2020.123 Then, on February 12, 2021 at 9:25AM, CleanSpark issued a press release discussing its\n\nquarterly financial results.124 Despite a press release reporting seemingly positive news for\n\ninvestors (e.g., period-over-period increases in revenue as well as gross margins, both of which\n\nare primarily attributable to the new bitcoin mining segment), the return on CleanSpark\u2019s\n\ncommon stock was negative that day on a loss of $0.32 per share. Therefore, in addition to the\n\ncorrective information contained in the February 12, 2021 press release relating to energy\n\ncapacity and expansion delays, I considered other value relevant information regarding the\n\nCompany that could explain the observed stock price decline.\n\n\n\n\n123\n Supra, Footnote 112.\n124\n Supra, Footnote 53.\n\n 63\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 65 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 121. While the abnormal decline on February 12, 2021 is, in my opinion, attributable\n\nto the new information regarding expansion delays contained in the February 12, 2021 press\n\nrelease, I examined CleanSpark\u2019s financial statements for the period October 1, 2020 through\n\nDecember 31, 2020, released after market hours on February 11, 2021, to better understand other\n\npotential drivers of the observed stock price decline.\n\n 122. Total revenues grew by 231% (from $976,824 to $2,257,570) period-over-period,\n\nor roughly $1.28 million. Further, it is apparent from the Consolidated Statement of Operations\n\nthat the legacy segments (i.e., Energy and Digital Agency) did not exhibit the same growth as the\n\nnascent bitcoin segment (i.e., Digital Currency mining). As discussed above, the legacy segments\n\nearned $16,749 revenue per day on average, whereas the nascent bitcoin segment earned $34,924\n\nrevenue per day on average \u2013 more than double the legacy segments combined. Moreover, per\n\nthe press release, \u201cThis segment contributed $0.73 million or 32% of consolidated revenue in\n\nthree-months ended December 31, 2020.\u201d \u2013 on only 21 revenue generating days in the fiscal\n\nperiod. Despite the strong revenue posted by the bitcoin segment, the legacy statements still\n\nexperienced growth, albeit to a much lesser extent. As discussed further below, while revenue\n\ngrowth was positive, it failed to meet market expectations.\n\n 123. While the total cost of revenues increased by 51% (from $882,721 to $1,332,890)\n\nperiod-over-period, or roughly $450K, total revenues grew at four times the growth rate of the\n\ntotal costs of revenues. From an economic standpoint, as revenues increase, expenses typically\n\nincrease, especially expenses that vary with production output, yet total revenue growth far\n\noutpaced the growth in total costs of revenues. CleanSpark reported that total operating expense\n\nincreased by 230% (from $3,085,564 to $7,094,778) period-over-period, or roughly $4 million.\n\nFor example, some of the largest increases in expenses this period related to payroll ($3.3\n\n\n\n 64\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 66 of 90\n\n\n\n\nmillion) and derivatives ($1 million). However, no analysts or media articles in the week\n\nfollowing the February 12, 2021 press release connected the increases in expenses related to\n\neither payroll or derivative securities to the observed price decline. Thus, unlike revenue growth,\n\nthe increase in operating expenses was not economically material to investor expectations\n\nregarding Company profitability and value. As discussed below, CleanSpark\u2019s valuation and\n\ngrowth expectations following the ATL acquisition are predicated on investor expectations\n\nregarding CleanSpark\u2019s stated plans regarding energy and hashrate capacity expansion at their\n\nnascent bitcoin segment (i.e., revenue growth), not the legacy segments nor operating expenses.\n\n 124. On December 11, 2020 \u2013 the day after the ATL Acquisition \u2013 H.C. Wainwright\n\nissued an analyst report on CleanSpark.125 In that report, analysts at H.C. Wainwright increased\n\ntheir target prices for CleanSpark by 33%, from $18 to $24. Analysts attributed the increase in\n\ntarget price to the ATL Acquisition: \u201cOur price target increase to $24.00 from $18.00 is\n\nprimarily driven by upward revisions to our future estimates to include new revenue and\n\nmargin contribution from bitcoin mining activity.\u201d Furthermore, analyst optimism was\n\npredicated not only on the acquisition and the productive assets the acquisition conveyed at the\n\ntime, but also CleanSpark\u2019s stated plans to dramatically increase the scale of bitcoin mining\n\nfivefold, and to do so within months of the December 2020 acquisition, i.e., by April 2021:\n\n \u201cBitcoin mining to be scaled immediately. Management intends to\n scale its bitcoin mining operations immediately and has contracted\n with the local municipality to expand the power to the facility from\n 20MVV (of which 9.6MVV is being utilized) to 50MVV (targeted to\n be completed by April 2021). According to management, 3,471 units\n are currently generating approximately 1.40 bitcoin per day utilizing\n approximately 190 peta hashes per second (PH/s) capacity.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n125\n Supra, Footnote 59.\n\n 65\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 67 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 125. On December 21, 2020, H.C. Wainwright issued another analyst report on\n\nCleanSpark, bolstering the expectations set in the prior report. As noted previously, analysts at\n\nH.C. Wainwright estimated a loss of $0.12 per share on $2.826 million of revenue for the first\n\nquarter of CleanSpark\u2019s fiscal year in this report.126 Hence, CleanSpark\u2019s quarterly earnings\n\n(actual loss of $0.32 cents per share vs. loss of $0.12 cents expected) and revenue (actual\n\nrevenue of $2.26 million vs. $2.83 expected) results were below analyst expectations \u2013\n\nexpectations that included anticipated revenue growth from the ATL Facility. Additionally,\n\nwhile analysts at H.C. Wainwright noted an increase in operating expenses due to staffing\n\nincreases (i.e., \u201c\u2026operating expenses have trended higher based on hiring ramp\u2026\u201d), the \u201ckey\n\ntakeaways\u201d in the report focused on current bitcoin mining production and future expansion\n\nplans: \u201cThe company issued a press release on December 18, 2020, highlighting that it has\n\nplaced an order for 500 new mining units, while adding 38 new S19 units to operation last week.\n\nCleanSpark had generated 10 bitcoins as of the announcement.\u201d\n\n 126. In consideration of the preceding, I conclude that CleanSpark\u2019s valuation and\n\ngrowth expectations following the ATL acquisition were predicated on investor expectations\n\nregarding CleanSpark\u2019s stated plans regarding energy and hashrate capacity and expansion at\n\ntheir nascent bitcoin segment, not the legacy segments nor the increase in operating expenses.\n\nMy view is reinforced by the CleanSpark\u2019s periodic updates regarding the ATL Facility (e.g.,\n\nenergy capacity, miners deployed, hashrate achieved, and amount of bitcoin processed) which\n\nshows that Defendants realized the value relevance the expansion plans had on CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nshare price and market capitalization.\n\n\n\n126\n CleanSpark has a September 30 fiscal year end, and thus the fourth calendar quarter of the year is\nCleanSpark\u2019s first fiscal quarter.\n\n 66\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 68 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 127. Throughout the Class Period, CleanSpark made periodic updates regarding its\n\nhashrate capacity and the amount of bitcoin mined. Specifically, CleanSpark touted an increase\n\nfrom 200PH/s to 315PH/s by the addition of new ASICs while it waited for the energy expansion\n\nto be completed. As the months went by following the ATL Acquisition, in the absence of a\n\nmaterial expansion in energy, the lack of energy capacity would prohibit the deployment of\n\nbitcoin mining equipment to obtain the promised hashrate of at least five times the hashrate\n\ncapacity at acquisition. Investors would have found the lack of meaningful progress towards the\n\nexpansion concerning as the inability to deploy miners would have a direct impact on revenue\n\ngrowth. Indeed, as of February 24, 2021127, it was unclear what hashrate capacity beyond 200\n\nPH/s the Company had in place, thus reducing investor confidence in the Company\u2019s disclosures\n\nand increasing investor skepticism regarding statements pertaining to the expansion plans,\n\nleaving investors to estimate the actual hashrate in the absence of a Company disclosure to the\n\ncontrary.\n\n 128. Based on the foregoing, and assuming that Plaintiffs prove their allegations, I find\n\nno economic evidence of information unrelated to the Complaint\u2019s claims that needs to be\n\ndisaggregated from the price decline on February 12, 2021. Thus, I attribute the full abnormal\n\ndollar decline to the corrective information released on February 12, 2021 and estimate that\n\n$1.68 of artificial inflation per share was dissipated from CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock.\n\n\n a. The February 12, 2021 Disclosure Provided New,\n Value-relevant Information\n\n\n\n\n127\n \u201cCleanSpark Completes Strategic Acquisition of Solar Watt Solutions,\u201d CleanSpark, February 24,\n2021.\n\n 67\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 69 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 129. I also considered whether the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure provided\n\ninvestors with new information. On January 5th, 2021 CleanSpark issued a press release at\n\n9:25AM. From the press release, investors learned from the first substantive paragraph that:\n\n \u201cFrom December 10, 2020 the first full-day of mining following the acquisition,\n through the end of the calendar year, CleanSpark produced just over 31 Bitcoins\n from its mining activities. Production since the first of the year has exceeded 4.3\n Bitcoins. Bitcoin prices have rapidly escalated to as high as $34,366 over the\n holiday weekend. The Company's Bitcoin mining activities have resulted in\n roughly $873,000 of revenue since the closing of the transaction.\u201d128\n\nIn the press release, CEO Bradford was quoted as saying:\n\n \u201cWe anticipate completion of our near-term expansion within the coming weeks\n adding 1,500 more ASICs miners in January.\u201d\n\n 130. The same day, CEO Bradford had an interview with the TDA Network. The TDA\n\nNetwork (now shuttered) was a streaming news service provided by TD Ameritrade (now part of\n\nCharles Schwab) and primarily served TD Ameritrade clients but is freely available via\n\nconventional streaming platforms.129 CleanSpark tweeted a clip of the 11 minute interview.130\n\nAt the start of the interview, the interviewer asked Bradford the following:\n\n \u201c\u2026since you acquired ATL Data Centers, you\u2019ve produced 31 bitcoins. Let\u2019s\n rewind it way back because you were here in October and we were talking about\n solar grids and your guys\u2019 technologies for managing grids. What happened?\u201d\n\nTo which Bradford responded: \u201cHey, we are still in the exact same business.\u201d Later in the\n\ninterview, around the 2:20 mark, after Bradford was asked about how CleanSpark was applying\n\nits technology at the ATL Facility, he answered in part:\n\n\n128\n Supra, Footnote 115.\n129\n \u201cThe TD Ameritrade Network is a direct-to-consumer, broadband-delivered broadcast channel,\ndistributing original, live news broadcasts and educational content produced by TD Ameritrade Media\nProductions Company...\u201d See, for example, \u201cTD Ameritrade: Network to Broadcast Live from Nasdaq\nMonday,\u201d BusinessWire, September 14, 2018.\n130\n https://twitter.com/CleanSpark_Inc/status/1346599574639497217\n\n 68\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 70 of 90\n\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re in the early stages of making those improvements. We\u2019ve already started.\n We\u2019re expanding the facility from 20MW up to 50 MW. We expect that that\u2019ll be\n done late spring / early July. \u2026 We\u2019re still in the early stages of the energy\n expansion but we\u2019re also really focused on not letting our expansion interrupt the\n mining. Mining is revenue, and we like the revenue we\u2019re seeing right now.\u201d\n\nTowards the end of the interview, Bradford was asked:\n\n \u201c\u2026the last time we spoke, you guys just raised like $40M dollars I believe, and I\n imagine at the time investors and money that was coming into the business was\n with the idea of it going towards the solar grids and such. I mean, how do\n investors feel about the bitcoin pivot?\u201d\n\nTo which he responded with: \u201cI want to reinforce that it definitely isn\u2019t a pivot.\u201d\n\n 131. Prior to the January 5th pre-market press release and post-market interview,\n\ninvestors knew from the ATL Facility acquisition announcement that:\n\n \u201cAs part of the first phase, the Company has contracted with the local municipality\n to expand the power to the facility from 20MW to 50MW. It is expected that this\n expansion will begin promptly and be completed in April 2021. In addition to this\n initial utility-level expansion, CleanSpark will begin modeling solutions with its\n proprietary mVSO software and subsequently add renewable energy generating\n assets and energy storage to the site, which will be operated by the Company\u2019s\n patented mPulse controls. Additionally, the Company intends to more than\n quadruple the number of ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) mining\n units in operation during the expansion.\u201d131\n\nFrom the above disclosures, I make several observations.\n\n 132. First, as of December 10, 2020, investors learned of the ATL Acquisition along\n\nwith its current (on the basis of the miners acquired) and future potential (on the basis of\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s expansion plans) to grow revenue to CleanSpark\u2019s operations. Specifically,\n\ninvestors became aware of CleanSpark\u2019s expansion plans and that this expansion would begin\n\npromptly and be completed by April 2021. Further, CleanSpark stated that \u201cduring the\n\n\n\n\n131\n Supra, Footnote 8.\n\n 69\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 71 of 90\n\n\n\n\nexpansion\u201d power capacity would double (from 20MW to 50MW) and hashrate capacity would\n\nquadruple (from 190 PH/s to 900-1400 PH/s).\n\n 133. Second, less than a month after the announcement on January 5th, 2021\n\nCleanSpark issued a press release that was widely distributed via Globe Newswire before market\n\nopen.132 From this press release, investors learned that CleanSpark \u201cproduced just over 31\n\nBitcoins from its mining activities\u201d in December 2020, and that is had earned $873K in bitcoin\n\nmining revenue since the acquisition (representing 21 days in December and 5 days in January).\n\nRelative to the same period the prior year, this incremental gain in bitcoin mining revenue from\n\nonly 26 days of bitcoin mining was almost 90% of the quarterly revenues from all other\n\nsegments combined for the quarter ended December 31, 2019. In addition to the positive\n\nrevenue news, Bradford provided an expansion update: \u201cWe anticipate completion of our near-\n\nterm expansion within the coming weeks adding 1,500 more ASICs miners in January.\u201d There\n\nwas no mention of any expansion delays in the press release broadly disseminated via Globe\n\nNewswire. With four months to go until delivering on its April 2021 energy and hashrate\n\ncapacity increase promise, investors had little cause for concern at this stage, but rather\n\ncontinued optimism with respect to CleanSpark\u2019s revenue prospects.\n\n 134. Third, in the after-market interview later that day, the interviewer was perplexed\n\nwhy Bradford was not discussing solar grids and related technologies as Bradford had done a\n\nfew months prior. When asked about how CleanSpark was applying its technologies to the ATL\n\nFacility, Bradford stated the expansion was expected to be \u201cdone late spring / early July.\u201d The\n\ninterviewer did not dig further nor question this statement, as \u201clate spring\u201d could reasonably\n\nbe interpreted as \u2018on schedule\u2019 by investors. Reinforcing the interviewer\u2019s confusion, Bradford\n\n\n132\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d GlobeNewswire, January 5, 2021, 9:25 AM.\n\n 70\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 72 of 90\n\n\n\n\nwas asked why CleanSpark pivoted to bitcoin mining after the $40M capital injection that some\n\ninvestors may have expected to be invested in solar grids, to which Bradford responds \u201cit\n\ndefinitely isn\u2019t a pivot.\u201d\n\n 135. Fourth, on the basis of choosing an online, streaming-only financial media\n\nplatform, not choosing a more mainstream financial media outlet (such as CNBC or Bloomberg),\n\nnot distributing a press release over newswire, not posting a press release on its website, and not\n\nfiling a press release with the SEC, CleanSpark did not highlight expansion delays during the\n\ninterview, nor widely distribute this statement afterwards. Indeed, a review of news articles and\n\nanalyst reports in the week following the January 5th, 2021 event reveals no mention of an\n\nexpansion delay but rather a focus by the financial media on the 31 bitcoins produced to date\n\nand the accompanying incremental revenue gain. For example:\n\n TheFly.com: \u201cFrom December 10, 2020 the first full-day of mining following the\n acquisition, through the end of the calendar year, CleanSpark produced just over\n 31 Bitcoins from its mining activities. Production since the first of the year has\n exceeded 4.3 Bitcoins. \u2026 The Company's Bitcoin mining activities have resulted\n in roughly $873,000 of revenue since the closing of the transaction.\u201d133\n\nWith four months to go until the expected April 2021 completion date, investors at this point in\n\ntime were less concerned with \u201clate spring / early July\u201d but instead were more focused on the 31\n\nbitcoins and $873K in revenue produced from the widely disseminated pre-market press release.\n\n 136. Next, five weeks later, before market open on February 12, 2021 at 6:15AM,\n\nCleanSpark issued a press releases via its website, PR Newswire, and Dow Jones Institutional\n\nNews regarding financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020.134 This press release\n\n\n133\n \u201cCleanSpark produces just over 31 bitcoin from mining...\u2026,\u201d TheFly.com, January 5, 2021, 9:27 AM.\n134\n Supra, Footnote 53. See, also: \u201cPress Release: CleanSpark, Inc. Reports Quarterly Financial Results\nfor the Three-Months Ended December 31, 2020,\u201d Dow Jones Institutional News, February 12, 2021,\n6:15 AM and \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Reports Quarterly Financial Results for the Three-Months Ended\nDecember 31, 2020,\u201d PR Newswire, February 12, 2021, 6:15 AM.\n\n 71\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 73 of 90\n\n\n\n\nwas also filed with the SEC later that day at 9:25AM.135 In this press release, under Operational\n\nHighlights, investors learned that \u201cThis will bring the total power available for mining and data\n\ncenters for CleanSpark subsidiaries from 20MW to 50MW. The capacity increase is underway\n\nand is expected to be complete by mid-year 2021.\u201d Further, under the Management Outlook\n\nsection, investors also learned that \u201cWe believe the improvements will add an additional 800 to\n\n880 PH/s of processing capacity over the coming quarters. We expect this to bring the total\n\ncapacity under CleanSpark\u2019s subsidiaries to between 1.0 to 1.3 EH/s by mid-summer.\u201d\n\n 137. Lastly, unlike the January 5th, 2021 interview \u2013 which was not distributed via\n\npress release, the Company\u2019s website, nor filed with the SEC \u2013 CleanSpark distributed the\n\nFebruary 12, 2021 press release widely: via two newswires, its website, and the SEC. Moreover,\n\nunlike the passing mention (i.e., it was not responsive the interviewer\u2019s question nor prefaced\n\nwith any fanfare) by Bradford of \u201clate spring / early July\u201d in the TDA Network streaming\n\ninterview, CleanSpark was explicit not once but several times in the press release that, as of\n\nFebruary 12, 2021, it now saw the expansion timeline moving out several quarters, i.e., \u201cover\n\nthe next two quarters\u201d with respect to energy capacity and \u201cover the coming quarters\u201d with\n\nrespect to hashrate capacity. CleanSpark then tied explicit milestones with more detailed\n\nlanguage for investors: energy capacity will increase by \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d and hashrate capacity\n\nby \u201cmid-summer\u201d 2021. The timeline disclosures in the February 12, 2021 press release were\n\nmuch more prominent, explicit, and widely distributed among traditional channels for investors\n\nto consume. Further, this consistent with the disclosure salience literature insofar as investors\n\nwill more readily interpret and impound news from disclosures that are more prominently\n\n\n\n\n135\n Supra, Footnote 112.\n\n 72\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 74 of 90\n\n\n\n\nfeatured.136 Finally, unlike the January 5th, 2021 interview, which could have been interpreted by\n\na reasonable investor as still being within the April 2021 timeframe, the February 12, 2021\n\ndisclosures made it exceedingly clear to investors for the first time that CleanSpark would miss\n\nthe April 2021 timeframe for both energy and hashrate capacity expansion, thus underscoring\n\nthe value relevance to investors of the February 12, 2021 disclosure with regards to expansion\n\ndelays.\n\n ii. August 17, 2021 Press Release\n\n 138. On August 17, 2021 at 9:39AM, CleanSpark issued a press release137 discussing\n\nits quarterly financial results138 (released after market at 5:18PM the day prior) for the 3 months\n\nending June 30, 2021. The press release touted that revenues \u201cwere $11.9 million, an increase of\n\n$8.5 million, or 250%, from $3.4 million for the same prior year period\u201d and that the loss per\n\nshare was an \u201cimprovement of $0.28 per share\u201d over the same period the prior year. Despite\n\nthese improvements, CleanSpark reported earnings per share of -$0.49, reflecting a net loss of\n\n$16.7 million for the quarter, from quarterly revenues of $11.9 million.\n\n 139. In the press release, CleanSpark provided operational highlights for the period as\n\nwell as outlook regarding the energy and mining capacity at its ATL Facility. With respect to the\n\noperational highlights, the Company stated:\n\n \u201cCurrent hashrate capacity now exceeds 820 PH/s, which is nearly\n double the capacity just 46 days ago. The Company anticipates\n achieving 1.0 EH/s in production capacity within the coming month\n when the balance of the mining rigs scheduled to be hashing in August\n are installed.\u201d\n\n\n\n136\n Supra, Footnote 98.\n137\n Supra, Footnote 122.\n138\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000429/clsk10q.htm\n\n 73\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 75 of 90\n\n\n\n\nWith respect to energy and mining capacity outlook, the Company stated:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark continues to work on expanding its total energy\n capacity to accelerate the growth of its bitcoin mining operations in\n Atlanta this fall. The expansion will bring this site\u2019s total capacity to\n 50 MW.\u201d\n\n 140. Similar statements were made by Defendant Bradford during the earnings call\n\nheld after market hours on August 16, 2021:139\n\n \u201cOur current hash rate capacity now exceeds 820 PH/s as of today,\n which is nearly double our capacity just 46 days ago.\n \u2026\n We continue to work on expanding the Company's total energy\n capacity to accelerate the growth of our Bitcoin mining operations in\n Atlanta this fall. The expansion will bring the site's total capacity to\n 50 megawatts. In addition to this expansion, our partnership with\n Coinmint has allowed us to continue our growth while construction is\n ongoing. All the new mining rigs received this summer, were promptly\n deployed with Coinmint.\u201d\n\nThis information provided by CleanSpark regarding its revised timeline (i.e., originally from the\n\nApril 2021 timeline disclosed in its December 10, 2020 press release for the ATL Facility\n\nacquisition140 to \u201cmid-year\u201d or \u201cmid-summer\u201d in the its February 12, 2021 press release141 to\n\nnow \u201cthis fall\u201d) for energy and hashrate capacity was new information to the market, and relates\n\ndirectly to Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding Defendants\u2019 expected\n\nprofitability underlying the ATL acquisition. As shown by my event study referenced in Section\n\nVI.B above, there was a decline in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock following the\n\nearnings release on August 17, 2021.\n\n\n\n\n139\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Q3 2021 Results Conference Call,\u201d Bloomberg, dated August 16, 2021.\n140\n Supra, Footnote 8.\n141\n Supra, Footnote 53.\n\n 74\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 76 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 141. News outlets reported on CleanSpark\u2019s performance for the period. For instance,\n\nthe Associated Press reports as of 6:13pm on August 16, 2021:\n\n Associated Press Newswires:\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) on Monday reported a loss of $16.7 million\n in its fiscal third quarter. On a per-share basis, the Woods Cross,\n Utah-based company said it had a loss of 49 cents.\u201d142\n\n 142. Later that evening, news outlets began to provide additional narrative regarding\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s performance for the period, some of which highlighted analyst expectations. For\n\nexample, Reuters News reports, in two distinct articles (one of which was an earnings summary),\n\nas of 7:22PM that day:\n\n Reuters News:\n \u201c*CleanSpark Inc reported a quarterly adjusted loss of 38 cents per\n share for the quarter ended in June. The mean expectation of two\n analysts for the quarter was for earnings of 7 cents per share.\n *Revenue rose 246.5% to $11.92 million from a year ago; analysts\n expected $15.20 million.\n *CleanSpark Inc's reported EPS for the quarter was a loss of 49\n cents.\u201d143\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc in the third quarter were lower than the Refinitiv\n mean estimate of profits. The company reported losses of -38 cents\n per share, 39 cents higher than the same quarter last year when the\n company reported EPS of -77 cents. Profits of 7 cents per share were\n anticipated by the two analysts providing estimates for the\n quarter.\u201d144\n\n 143. The above-mentioned estimates highlighted by the Reuters article rely on two\n\nanalysts following the Company from which a consensus (i.e., an average estimate) is obtained.\n\n\n\n142\n \u201cCleanSpark: Fiscal Q3 Earnings Snapshot,\u201d Associated Press Newswires, August 16, 2021, 6:13 PM.\n143\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc reports results for the quarter ended in June - Earnings Summary,\u201d Reuters News,\nAugust 16, 2021, 7:22 PM.\n144\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc: Losses of 38 cents announced for third quarter,\u201d Reuters News, August 16, 2021,\n7:22 PM.\n\n 75\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 77 of 90\n\n\n\n\nWith revenue coming on at $11.92 million for the period, an analyst report by BTIG on August\n\n16, 2021145 indicates that actual revenues for the period came in 22% below the analyst\n\nconsensus estimate of roughly $15 million: \u201crevenue of ~$12M which was below consensus of\n\n$15M.\u201d In addition, analysts at BTIG noted that management had lowered its revenue guidance\n\nexpectations: \u201cManagement narrowed guidance with FY21 revenue now expected at $49M-\n\n$63M (previously $47M-$67M) with the mid-point at $56M (down from $57M) versus\n\nConsensus of ~$52M.\u201d Analysts at BTIG further noted CleanSpark\u2019s hashrate capacity as of\n\nAugust 16, 2021 is \u201cset to ramp up\u201d since CleanSpark had not achieved the \u201c0.9-1.4 EH/s\u201d\n\nhashrate expected by April 2021 as stated in the December 10, 2021 ATL Acquisition\n\nannouncement: \u201cBottom line: CLSK is set to ramp its hash capacity from 820 PH/s\u2026\u201d. On this\n\nnews, and with revenues and earnings coming in below consensus estimates, BTIG lowered its\n\nprice target by 22%, from $45 to $35 per share.\n\n 144. BTIG\u2019s lowering of CleanSpark\u2019s price target was distributed in news articles the\n\nfollowing morning. For example, TheFly.com reports:\n\n \u201cCleanSpark price target lowered to $35 from $45 at BTIG analyst\n Gregory Lewis lowered the firm's price target on CleanSpark to $35\n from $45 after the company's Q3 revenue missed expectations\u2026\u201d146\n\n 145. Based on my event study, after controlling for market and industry effects,\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock price declined on August 17, 2021 by 10.9%, or $1.50 per share (see\n\nExhibit 3). This price decline is statistically significant at the 99.3% confidence level.\n\nAdditionally, there was relatively high trading volume of CleanSpark Common Stock on this\n\n\n145\n \u201cSome Growing Pains, But Bitcoin Mining Ramp Underway Now and Later, Lowering PT to $35,\u201d\nBTIG, dated August 16, 2021.\n146\n \u201cCleanSpark price target lowered to $35 from $45 at BTIG analyst,\u201d TheFly.com, August 17, 2021,\n6:45AM. Note: the headline and article both duplicate the name of the firm issuing the analyst report,\nwhich I have corrected from \u201cBTIGBTIG\u201d to \u201cBTIG\u201d in two instances for clarity.\n\n 76\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 78 of 90\n\n\n\n\ndate of 8.49 million shares traded, which is approximately 355% greater than the average daily\n\ntrading volume during the Class Period of 2.39 million shares.\n\n 146. As discussed above, both the February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 Corrective\n\nDisclosures and associated price drops are related to the delayed expansion timeline at the ATL\n\nfacility from \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d to \u201cthis fall\u201d.147 Hence, these two days reflect the market\u2019s\n\nresponse to the corrective information entering the market regarding expansion delays at the\n\nATL facility. Considering this, it is reasonable to combine returns across those days to assess the\n\ncumulative two day market response to delaying the expansion timeline from the originally\n\nannounced April 2021 date to \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d and again to \u201cthis fall.\u201d As shown in Exhibit 4,\n\nthe two day cumulative abnormal return for February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 is -16% and\n\nis statistically significant at the 94.5% confidence level. This provides strong evidence of price\n\nimpact. Further, as discussed below, the predominant new material public information learned by\n\nthe market on August 17, 2021 (as well as February 12, 2021) was contained in the earnings\n\npress release filed that day.\n\n 147. If Defendants made misleading statements about CleanSpark\u2019s expected timeline\n\nto expand power and hashrate capacity, then the August 17, 2021 press release revealed the final\n\nportion of the relevant truth concealed by the alleged misstatements and omissions. The\n\ninformation in the August 17, 2021 press release is corrective of the alleged misstatements and\n\nomissions because it revealed how CleanSpark had overstated its ability to increase energy and\n\nhash rate capacity at the ATL Facility in the timeline stated upon acquisition.\n\n\n\n\n147\n \u201cThe capacity increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year 2021.\u201d (Supra,\nFootnote 53) and \u201cCleanSpark continues to work on expanding its total energy capacity to accelerate the\ngrowth of its bitcoin mining operations in Atlanta this fall.\u201d (Supra, Footnote 122).\n\n 77\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 79 of 90\n\n\n\n\n 148. I carefully evaluated whether there was any other news outside of the corrective\n\ninformation that could explain the observed CleanSpark Common Stock price decline on August\n\n17, 2021. As mentioned above, on August 16, 2021 at 5:18PM, CleanSpark released its\n\nquarterly financial results for the period April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021.148 Then, on August\n\n17, 2021 at 9:39AM, CleanSpark issued a press release discussing its quarterly financial\n\nresults.149 Despite a press release reporting seemingly positive news for investors (e.g., period-\n\nover-period increases in revenue, primarily attributable to the new bitcoin mining segment), the\n\nreturn on CleanSpark\u2019s common stock was negative that day on a loss of $0.49 cents per share.\n\nTherefore, in addition to the corrective information contained in the August 17, 2021 press\n\nrelease relating to energy capacity and expansion delays, I considered other value relevant\n\ninformation regarding the Company that could explain the observed stock price decline.\n\n 149. While the abnormal decline on August 17, 2021 is, in my opinion, attributable to\n\nthe new information regarding expansion delays contained in the August 17, 2021 press release, I\n\nexamined CleanSpark\u2019s financial statements for the period April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021,\n\nreleased after market hours on August 16, 2021, to better understand other potential drivers of\n\nthe stock price decline.\n\n 150. Total revenues grew by 247% (from $3,438,674 to $11,916,065) period-over-\n\nperiod, or roughly $8.47 million. Further, it is apparent from the Consolidated Statement of\n\nOperations that the non-mining segments (i.e., Energy and Other) did not exhibit the same\n\n\n\n\n148\n Supra, Footnote 138.\n149\n Supra, Footnote 122.\n\n 78\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 80 of 90\n\n\n\n\ngrowth as the bitcoin mining segment (i.e., Digital Currency Mining).150 Year-over-year growth\n\nin the period for non-mining segments was actually negative at 5.3%, from $3,438,674 to\n\n$3,266,625, or a decline in revenue of approximately $172K. In sharp contrast, bitcoin mining\n\nrevenues were the lion\u2019s share of total revenues for the period, from $0 the same period last year\n\nto $8.65 million the current period, or 72% of total current period revenues. As discussed\n\nabove, while revenue growth was positive year-over-year, and especially related to bitcoin\n\nmining, it failed to meet market expectations, leading analysts to lower their price target from\n\n$45 to $35.151\n\n 151. While the total cost of revenues increased by 35% (from $2,852,062 to\n\n$3,848,817) period-over-period, or roughly $1 million, total revenues themselves grew at seven\n\ntimes the growth rate of the total costs of revenues. From an economic standpoint, as revenues\n\nincrease, expenses typically increase, especially expenses that vary with production output, yet\n\ntotal revenue growth far outpaced the growth in total costs of revenues. CleanSpark reported that\n\ntotal operating expense increased by 375% (from $5,582,273 to $26,534,244) period-over-\n\nperiod, or roughly $21 million. For example, some of the largest increases in expenses this\n\nperiod relate to payroll ($11.8 million), bitcoin impairment ($3.7 million), and derivatives ($2.1\n\n\n\n\n150\n Underscoring the increasing importance of bitcoin mining for CleanSpark, and as noted in their 10-Q\nfor the period ending June 30, 2021, CleanSpark streamlined its segment reporting: \u201cTo better align with\nthe Company\u2019s core focus, the Company reduced its reportable segments down to two by eliminating the\ndigital agency segment. Results associated with that component are now being reported under other\nrevenue and eliminations.\u201d\n151\n Supra, Footnote 145.\n\n 79\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 81 of 90\n\n\n\n\nmillion). However, neither the Company nor analysts found the increases in payroll152, bitcoin\n\nimpairments153, and derivatives154 to be economically material.\n\n 152. While two analyst reports155 in the week following the August 17, 2021 press\n\nrelease mentioned increased expenses from executive compensation when summarizing quarterly\n\nresults, both noted its non-recurring nature and instead focused on revenue growth and outlook.\n\nFor example, one analyst\u2019s \u201ckey takeaways\u201d focused on revenue outlook (projections of $44.7M\n\nfor FY2021) consequent to planned increases in miners deployed and hashrate expected to be\n\nachieved.156 Further, no media articles in the week following the August 17, 2021 press release\n\nconnected the increases in expenses related to payroll, impairments, or derivatives to the\n\nobserved price decline. Thus, unlike bitcoin mining revenue growth, the increase in operating\n\n\n152\n As noted in their 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2021: \u201cOur payroll expenses for the three months\nended June 30, 2021 consisted mainly of salary and wages expense of $8,640,807 which included non-\nrecurring executive compensation of $4,700,000 and employee stock-based compensation of\n$3,189,389.\u201d\n153\n Because the fair value of CleanSpark\u2019s bitcoin held was below its carrying value when tested for\nimpairment, the Company recognized a $3.7 million impairment expense. However, as noted by CFO\nLori Love on the August 16, 2021 earnings call (Supra, Footnote 139), the fair market value of the\npreviously-impaired asset had risen above the prior carrying value: \u201cAt the end of the quarter, we were\nrequired to measure our Bitcoin assets for impairment\u2026it should be noted that the price has since\nrecovered and now exceeds the average value of the Bitcoin we held at quarter-end, against which that\nimpairment was measured.\u201d\n154\n While unrealized gains and losses are intended to reflect the inter-temporal economic value of an\ninvestment, and while GAAP allows those unrealized gains and losses to flow through to net income, they\nare still unrealized and therefore the actual gain or loss upon sale is not known, which is echoed by CFO\nLove on the same earnings call: \u201cThese unrealized losses do not represent actual sales of investments,\nrather, they represent market price fluctuations that are measured at the conclusion of each reporting\nperiod.\u201d\n155\n Supra, Footnote 64, and \u201c3Q2I Results: +247% Revenue Growth Fueled by Bitcoin Mining;\nManagement Raises FY2I Guidance,\u201d Water Tower Research, August 19, 2021.\n156\n \u201cOur revenue expectations for FY2021 are $44.7M, lower than the guided range as we are being more\nconservative in our view of Bitcoin prices. As of August 14, the company's overall hashrate was 820PH/s,\ncapable of producing 6.7BTC/day. CleanSpark is in the process of adding mining capacity over the next\n12-14 months, for which it has already made advance deposits. Management expects a total of 11,700\nminers to be deployed by September 30, 2021, 19,900 by December 31, 2021, 25,500 by March 31, 2022,\n30,000 by June 30, 2022, and 34,000 by September 30, 2022. As a result, the total hashrate installed at the\nend of FY2022 is expected to be 3.2-3.4EH/s, enough to produce 26-28BTC/ day.\u201d\n\n 80\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 82 of 90\n\n\n\n\nexpenses was not economically material to investor expectations regarding Company\n\nprofitability and value.\n\n 153. In consideration of the preceding, I conclude that CleanSpark\u2019s valuation and\n\ngrowth expectations following the ATL acquisition are predicated on investor expectations\n\nregarding CleanSpark\u2019s stated plans regarding energy and hashrate capacity and expansion at\n\ntheir bitcoin mining segment (i.e., revenue growth), as opposed to the non-mining segments or\n\noperating expenses. My view is reinforced by CleanSpark\u2019s periodic updates regarding the ATL\n\nFacility (e.g., energy capacity, miners deployed, hashrate achieved, and amount of bitcoin\n\nprocessed) which shows that Defendants realized the value relevance the expansion plans had on\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s share price and market capitalization.\n\n 154. Based on the foregoing, and assuming that Plaintiffs prove their allegations, I find\n\nno economic evidence of information unrelated to the Complaint\u2019s claims that needs to be\n\ndisaggregated from the price decline on August 17, 2021. Thus, I attribute the full abnormal\n\ndollar decline to the corrective information released on August 17, 2021 and estimate that $1.50\n\nof artificial inflation per share was dissipated from CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock.\n\nIX. Artificial Inflation per Share and Damages for CleanSpark Common Stock\n\n A. Artificial Inflation per Share\n\n 155. The analysis in Section VIII quantifies the artificial inflation dissipated from the\n\nprice of CleanSpark Common Stock on the Corrective Disclosure Events. This is summarized\n\nbelow in Table A:\n\n\n\n\n 81\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 83 of 90\n\n\n\n\n Table A\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share Dissipated\n\n Artificial Inflation Per\n Date Share Dissipated\n\n January 14, 2021 $4.48\n\n January 15, 2021 $4.03\n\n February 12, 2021 $1.68\n\n August 17, 2021 $1.50\n\n\n\n 156. However, these analyses do not establish how inflation evolved over the Class\n\nPeriod. One standard method commonly relied upon to evaluate the level of artificial inflation in\n\na stock price is the \u201cconstant dollar\u201d method.157 This method assumes that the amount of\n\nartificial stock inflation dissipated on the Corrective Disclosure Events was present in the stock\n\nprice going back to the beginning of the Class Period (adjusted for any days on which inflation\n\nwas introduced). Put another way, this means that barring an intervening event that is related to\n\nthe fraud (i.e., a Corrective Disclosure Event), the inflation per share on day t-1 is the same as\n\nthe inflation on day t. I note that the constant dollar methodology is used by a wide variety of\n\nexperts in matters such as this and is often advocated by defense experts.158\n\n 157. Based on my understanding of Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations, coupled with my review of\n\nthe documents and information identified in Appendix A, I conclude that constant dollar\n\ninflation is appropriate in this matter. My opinion is based on the fact that the nature of the\n\n\n157\n See, e.g., Jeff G. Hammel & B. John Casey, \u201cSizing Securities Fraud Damages: \u2018Constant Percentage\u2019\non Way Out?,\u201d New York Law Journal (2009).\n158\n Id.\n\n 82\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 84 of 90\n\n\n\n\nmisrepresented and/or omitted information did not change during the Class Period. Specifically,\n\nI understand that Plaintiffs expect to prove that as of the start of the Class Period, Defendants\n\nknew, or recklessly disregarded that CleanSpark understated its mining costs, overstated its\n\nability to further reduce energy costs through its \u201csoftware technologies and trade secrets,\u201d and\n\noverstated its ability to increase energy and hash rate capacity \u2013 and concealed these issues from\n\ninvestors.\n\n 158. As a result of the foregoing, I find no economic reason to believe that the\n\nfinancial impact of the misstatements and/or omissions would have been any different earlier in\n\nthe Class Period and thus I find no economic reason to deviate from the standard constant dollar\n\nmethodology. In my view, the most widely accepted and reliable proxy for evaluating how the\n\nmarket would have reacted to such a disclosure at the beginning of the Class Period is to rely\n\nupon the abnormal market price decline observed upon the later disclosure of such\n\ninformation.159\n\n 159. By applying the constant dollar methodology described above and taking the\n\nanalyses of the Corrective Disclosure Event into account, Table B below summarizes how the\n\n\n\n\n159\n See, e.g., David I. Tabak & Frederick C. Dunbar, \u201cMateriality and Magnitude: Event Studies in the\nCourtroom,\u201d In Litigation Services Handbook, The Role of the Financial Expert, John Wiley & Sons,\nThird Edition, 2001, at p. 3 (\u201cEvent studies can also measure the size of a stock price movement as the\nbasis for a damages calculation. For example, in cases of securities fraud, experts commonly measure\nchanges in the alleged inflation in a stock price by the movement in that stock price in the wake of a\ncorrective disclosure, after controlling for market, industry, and other company-specific influences. This\nresults from the disclosure's removing the inflation, and an event study measures the change in inflation in\nthe stock at the time of the disclosure. Often, courts find that this is the best estimate of the inflation per\nshare if the defendant had a duty to disclose the same information that the corrective disclosure revealed.\nAs a result, an event study is a common method that serves as the basis for quantifying damages in\nsecurities fraud cases.\u201d) (citations omitted); id. at p. 19 (\u201c[E]vent studies can be useful in quantifying\ndamages in cases ranging from securities fraud to other commercial litigation requiring the calculation of\nlost profits. In some areas, such as securities fraud, stock price reactions are already a standard method for\nquantifying damages\u201d).\n\n 83\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 85 of 90\n\n\n\n\ntotal artificial inflation per share for CleanSpark Common Stock evolved during the Class\n\nPeriod:\n\n Table B\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share During the Class Period\n\n Artificial Inflation\n Date Range Per Share\n\n December 10, 2020 - January 13, 2021 $11.69\n\n January 14, 2021 $7.21\n\n January 15, 2021 - February 11, 2021 $3.17\n\n February 12, 2021 - August 16, 2021 $1.49\n\n\n B. Damages\n\n 160. The standard and well-settled formula for assessing damages for each Class\n\nmember under Section 10(b) is the \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method. This method measures damages as\n\nthe artificial inflation per share at the time of purchase less the artificial inflation per share at the\n\ntime of sale (or the artificial inflation at the time of purchase if the share was not ultimately\n\nsold). If the security was sold at a time before any of the artificial inflation had dissipated\u2014 that\n\nis, prior to the first Corrective Disclosure Event, which in this case is January 14-15, 2021\u2014then\n\nthere are no damages. However, if the security was purchased after alleged misstatements and/or\n\nomissions were made, and then sold after the artificial inflation was dissipated, then damages\n\nwould be equal to the artificial inflation at the time of purchase minus the artificial inflation at\n\nthe time of sale.\n\n 161. For example, assume that Investor A purchased a share of CleanSpark Common\n\nStock on December 15, 2020 and sold it on February 1, 2021. As shown in Table B, there was\n\n\n 84\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 86 of 90\n\n\n\n\n$11.69 of artificial inflation in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock at the time of purchase\n\nand $3.18 of artificial inflation in the price of CleanSpark Common Stock at the time of sale.\n\nThus, Investor A\u2019s damages on the share of CleanSpark Common Stock would be equal to $8.51\n\n($11.69 \u2013 $3.18).\n\n 162. In addition, the calculation of damages incorporates the application of a statutory\n\ncap on recovery in federal securities cases brought under Section 10b and Rule 10(b)-5 (the 90-\n\nday lookback provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 codified at 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a778u\u20134(e)(1)). The limitation provides that damages calculated on CleanSpark Common\n\nStock purchased during the Class Period and sold during the 90-day lookback period cannot\n\nexceed the difference between the purchase price paid during the Class Period and the average\n\nclosing price from date of the last corrective disclosure to the date of sale. Table C below shows\n\nthe 90-day lookback price for CleanSpark Common Stock for each day starting on the last\n\nCorrective Disclosure Event (i.e., August 17, 2021).\n\n 163. For example, if Investor A purchased a share of CleanSpark Common Stock for\n\n$25.00 and then sold that share on October 1, 2021, during the 90-day lookback period, when the\n\naverage closing price from August 17, 2021 through October 1, 2021 was $12.55 as shown in\n\nTable C, Investor A\u2019s damages could not exceed $12.45 ($25.00 \u2013 $12.55) per share under the\n\n90-day lookback provision. Furthermore, CleanSpark Common Stock purchased during the\n\nClass Period and either never sold or sold after the 90-day lookback period cannot have per share\n\ndamages that exceed the difference between the purchase price paid and the average price of\n\nCleanSpark Common Stock during the 90-day lookback period, which is $15.08 as shown in the\n\nlast row in Table C below.\n\n\n\n\n 85\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 87 of 90\n\n\n\n\n Table C\n CleanSpark Common Stock Closing Price and Average Closing Price\n August 17, 2021 - November 12, 2021\n\n Average Closing Average Closing\n Price Between Price Between\n August 17, 2021 and Closing August 17, 2021 and\n Date Closing Price Date Shown Date Price Date Shown\n8/17/2021 $11.65 $11.65 10/1/2021 $12.53 $12.55\n8/18/2021 $11.93 $11.79 10/4/2021 $12.21 $12.54\n8/19/2021 $10.72 $11.43 10/5/2021 $13.39 $12.56\n8/20/2021 $10.79 $11.27 10/6/2021 $13.45 $12.59\n8/23/2021 $12.62 $11.54 10/7/2021 $13.81 $12.62\n8/24/2021 $13.48 $11.86 10/8/2021 $14.32 $12.66\n8/25/2021 $13.20 $12.06 10/11/2021 $14.53 $12.71\n8/26/2021 $13.07 $12.18 10/12/2021 $14.34 $12.75\n8/27/2021 $14.08 $12.39 10/13/2021 $15.17 $12.81\n8/30/2021 $13.64 $12.52 10/14/2021 $15.21 $12.87\n8/31/2021 $13.80 $12.63 10/15/2021 $15.79 $12.94\n 9/1/2021 $13.75 $12.73 10/18/2021 $16.28 $13.01\n 9/2/2021 $14.40 $12.86 10/19/2021 $16.70 $13.09\n 9/3/2021 $14.26 $12.96 10/20/2021 $17.66 $13.19\n 9/7/2021 $13.80 $13.01 10/21/2021 $17.64 $13.29\n 9/8/2021 $12.79 $13.00 10/22/2021 $16.44 $13.35\n 9/9/2021 $13.49 $13.03 10/25/2021 $18.45 $13.46\n9/10/2021 $12.85 $13.02 10/26/2021 $18.20 $13.55\n9/13/2021 $12.90 $13.01 10/27/2021 $17.43 $13.63\n9/14/2021 $12.34 $12.98 10/28/2021 $19.71 $13.75\n9/15/2021 $12.71 $12.97 10/29/2021 $20.26 $13.87\n9/16/2021 $12.66 $12.95 11/1/2021 $21.68 $14.01\n9/17/2021 $12.90 $12.95 11/2/2021 $22.11 $14.16\n9/20/2021 $11.64 $12.89 11/3/2021 $21.85 $14.30\n9/21/2021 $11.24 $12.83 11/4/2021 $21.97 $14.43\n9/22/2021 $11.76 $12.79 11/5/2021 $20.48 $14.54\n9/23/2021 $11.86 $12.75 11/8/2021 $22.26 $14.67\n9/24/2021 $11.40 $12.70 11/9/2021 $21.33 $14.78\n9/27/2021 $11.63 $12.67 11/10/2021 $20.32 $14.87\n9/28/2021 $10.94 $12.61 11/11/2021 $21.47 $14.98\n9/29/2021 $11.61 $12.58 11/12/2021 $21.42 $15.08\n9/30/2021 $11.59 $12.55\n\n\n\n\n 86\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 88 of 90\n\n\n\n\n C. Adaptation to Alternative Findings\n\n 164. The damages methodology I have laid out above for Section 10(b) is flexible and\n\nable to incorporate alternative findings regarding the quantification, as well as the timing, of\n\nartificial inflation and how it evolves over the Class Period. The methodology I have described\n\nabove to calculate Section 10(b) can be modified based on alternative findings the finder of fact\n\nmay determine, including, but not limited to any: (1) confounding information versus corrective\n\ninformation; (2) how to back-cast inflation over the Class Period; and (3) the date of the first\n\nactionable misstatement and/or omission. Below I describe additional details concerning each of\n\nthese potential variations.\n\n 165. First, irrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury determines is\n\nthe appropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of corrective\n\nversus confounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted into the standard damages\n\nmodel that I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket formula. For example, as described in\n\nSection VII.A., I estimate that $0.81 cents of the abnormal price movement in CleanSpark\n\nCommon Stock on January 14-15, 2021 is attributable to confounding information. Assume, for\n\npurely illustrative purposes, that the jury determines that instead, $1.20 of the of the abnormal\n\nprice movement in CleanSpark Common Stock on January 14-15, 2021 is attributable to the\n\nconfounding information. The daily inflation table could easily be updated for this alternative\n\nfinding. Regardless of how the jury weighs evidence, whether they find that my disaggregation\n\nanalysis is the most appropriate, or they determine that based upon the evidence, a different\n\npercentage is more appropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages\n\ncalculation. Similarly, if the jury determines that none of the abnormal return on a Corrective\n\nDisclosure Event is attributable to the corrective information, then it would be assumed that $0\n\n\n\n 87\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 89 of 90\n\n\n\n\nof inflation was dissipated from CleanSpark Common Stock on that date, which could also easily\n\nbe updated in the daily inflation table.\n\n 166. Second, should the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over\n\nthe Class Period, the out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a scenario and can\n\nmechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis. In a hypothetical example, assume the\n\njury concludes that before December 15, 2020, inflation was only half of the value I have\n\ncalculated. As shown above in Table B, I have estimated $11.69 of artificial inflation was\n\npresent in CleanSpark Common Stock from the start of the Class Period through January 13,\n\n2021. If the jury determines that inflation was only half that amount from December 10, 2020\n\nthrough December 14, 2020, then the inflation table I presented above can be adjusted to $5.85\n\nfor that initial period (i.e., 50% of $11.69).\n\n 167. In the hypothetical case I have presented above, purchasers during this initial part\n\nof the Class Period would have purchased shares with $5.85 of artificial inflation, while\n\npurchasers beginning December 15, 2020 would have purchased at the full amount of artificial\n\ninflation I calculated ($11.69). Damages calculations using the out-of-pocket method (inflation at\n\nthe time of purchase minus inflation at the time of sale) will still result in an appropriate and\n\naccurate assessment of damages. This hypothetical example illustrates how artificial inflation\n\nneed not be constant during the Class Period for the out-of-pocket damages methodology to be\n\napplied on a class-wide basis.\n\n 168. In addition, should the jury decide that the first actionable misstatement and/or\n\nomission happened at a date later than December 10, 2020, prior to that date, inflation could\n\nsimply be set to zero. The examples I have described above clearly demonstrate the flexibility of\n\nthe out-of-pocket damages model. If the jury determines that a change to inflation would be\n\n\n\n 88\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 90 of 90\n\n\n\n\nnecessary over the Class Period, any such change can easily be incorporated into the model and\n\ndamages calculated on a class-wide basis.\n\n\n 169. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 89\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:34.230518-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727942","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit D - 2025.07.18 - Zahn Bozanic Merits Report","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528957/","id":484528957,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/5/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:57.330677-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:47.491973-07:00","sha1":"76fb78b4e7aab71ce885fabb7a2b5661ed153e6b","page_count":100,"file_size":3426084,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:48.258548-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727943","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit E - 2025.09.12 Garmaise Report -","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528958/","id":484528958,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/6/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:58.156638-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:01.793853-07:00","sha1":"b2f927ee8465a2d61098912b88593068531bf0cd","page_count":67,"file_size":733959,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 67\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT F\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 67\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP)\nDARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n CLASS ACTION\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nCLEANSPARK, INC., et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT MERITS REPLY REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n October 9, 2025\n\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIAL\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 67\n\n\n\n\nTable of Contents\n\nI. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1\nII. Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................................3\nIII. Interpreting Statistical Significance .................................................................................4\n A. Conventional Levels of Statistical Significance ...............................................................4\n B. Academic Theory of Statistical Significance is Consistent with my Merits Report\n Analyses ..............................................................................................................................8\n C. Cumulating Partial Corrective Disclosures ...................................................................10\nIV. The Culper Report ...........................................................................................................13\n A. Forms of Market Efficiency ............................................................................................13\n B. Disclosure Processing Costs ............................................................................................15\n C. Disclosure Salience ...........................................................................................................16\n D. My Analysis of the Culper Report and Related Tweets is Consistent with the\n Academic Literature on Disclosure Salience .................................................................20\n E. The Literature Dr. Garmaise Claims I Fail to Consider is Irrelevant ........................24\nV. The Corrective Disclosures .............................................................................................27\n A. Economic Materiality ......................................................................................................27\n B. Consistency of Value Relevance Analyses .....................................................................28\n C. The February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 Corrective Disclosures Provided New\n Information Regarding Expansion Delays ....................................................................32\n a. The February 12, 2021 Corrective Disclosure ...............................................................32\n b. The August 17, 2021 Corrective Disclosure ...................................................................34\n D. My Disaggregation Analysis of Confounding Information is Reasonable and\n Reliable..............................................................................................................................39\nVI. Damages and Artificial Inflation ....................................................................................49\n A. The Constant Dollar Method is Appropriate in this Matter ........................................51\n B. My Artificial Inflation and Damages Methodology are Adaptable to Alternative\n Findings.............................................................................................................................56\nVII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................58\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 67\n\n\n\n\n I. Introduction\n\n 1. I have previously filed expert reports in this matter (collectively, my \u201cPrior\n\nReports\u201d) and incorporate them here by reference in their entirety. 1 On January 10, 2025, I\n\nsubmitted an expert report in this matter (my \u201cEfficiency Report\u201d) in which I concluded that: i)\n\nthe market for shares of CleanSpark Common Stock was efficient throughout the Class Period;\n\nand ii) damages in this matter for CleanSpark Common Stock can be calculated on a class-wide\n\nbasis subject to a common methodology.2\n\n 2. On May 2, 2025, I submitted another expert report in this matter (my \u201cEfficiency\n\nReply Report\u201d) in response to Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief. In my Efficiency Reply Report, I concluded\n\nthat nothing in Defendants\u2019 Opp. Brief disturbed the opinions expressed in my Efficiency Report.3\n\nFurther, in my Efficiency Reply Report, I provided compelling evidence of both front-end and\n\nback-end price impact of the alleged misrepresentations and associated corrective disclosures in\n\nthis case.4 This evidence includes fundamental principles of finance and economic analysis,\n\ninternal case documents, analyst coverage, and my event study analysis.\n\n 3. On July 18, 2025, I submitted another expert report in this matter (my \u201cMerits\n\nReport\u201d), in which I concluded that i) the alleged misstatements and omissions in this matter as set\n\nforth in the Complaint were economically material in that they conveyed information that altered\n\nthe total mix of information available to investors, ii) the alleged corrective information regarding\n\nprior misstatements and/or omissions caused the price of CleanSpark Common Stock to decline\n\non the Corrective Disclosure Events, and iii) based on my loss causation analysis, the total fraud-\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms in this report have the same meaning as in my Prior Reports and all\nemphasis in this report is added.\n2\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6 3.\n3\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, \u00b6 6.\n4\n Bozanic Efficiency Reply Report, Section IV.A.\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 67\n\n\n\n\nrelated price decline associated with the Corrective Disclosure Events is estimated to be $11.69\n\nper share.5 This reflects $4.48 dissipated on January 14, 2021, $4.03 on January 15, 2021, $1.68\n\non February 12, 2021, and $1.50 on August 17, 2021. Nothing I have reviewed or analyzed as part\n\nof this report has caused me to change any of the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports and I\n\ncontinue to hold those opinions.\n\n 4. Following the submission of my Merits Report, Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel provided me\n\nwith Defendants\u2019 Expert Report of Dr. Mark Garmaise, dated September 12, 2025 (\u201cGarmaise\n\nReport\u201d). I have been asked by Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel to respond to certain characterizations of my\n\nMerits Report opinions contained within the Garmaise Report.\n\n 5. In formulating my opinions set forth in this Merits Reply Report, I have relied upon\n\nthe analyses already described in my Prior Reports (i.e., Opening Report, Reply Report, and Merits\n\nReport) as well as my knowledge, experience, and formal training in economics, finance, and\n\nstatistics, in addition to the allegations and facts set forth in this matter. All of the materials I have\n\nconsidered in forming my opinions are identified in Appendix A to this Merits Reply Report, in\n\naddition to those previously identified in my Prior Reports.\n\n 6. My qualifications (including my CV) and rate of compensation for work in this\n\nmatter were identified in my Merits Report and so I do not repeat them here. I reserve the right to\n\namend this report to reflect new information that becomes available to me in light of the discovery\n\nprocess and/or future rulings from the Court.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Bozanic Merits Report, Section III. Due to a fractional penny rounding error, the last row in Table B of my Merits\nReport (\u00b6 159) should be $1.50 instead of $1.49.\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 67\n\n\n\n\n II. Summary of Opinions\n\n 7. Nothing in the Garmaise Report disturbs the opinions expressed in my Prior\n\nReports. I continue to hold the opinions expressed in my Prior Reports and reiterate them herein.\n\nAdditionally, there are a number of important opinions I express in my Merits Report that Dr.\n\nGarmaise does not dispute. First, Dr. Garmaise does not dispute that the event study methodology\n\nI employed in my Prior Reports is a reliable method for quantifying artificial inflation in this case,\n\nthat I properly performed a reliable event study to determine the impact that each of the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events had on the price of CleanSpark Common Stock, and that I properly calculated\n\nthe abnormal declines in the market price of CleanSpark Common Stock on each of the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events, after controlling for market and industry effects.6 Second, Dr. Garmaise does\n\nnot dispute that the damages methodology (i.e., the out-of-pocket method) that I detail in my Prior\n\nReports is standard, reasonable, and relied upon in virtually all securities class action matters\n\nalleging fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.7 Nor does Dr. Garmaise articulate\n\nany alternative methodology that would be more suitable in this matter.\n\n 8. Dr. Garmaise puts forward two primary criticisms of my Merits Report in his report.\n\nFirst, Dr. Garmaise claims that I have failed to establish price impact of the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations.8 Specifically, Dr. Garmaise claims that I have failed to establish that the\n\nalleged misrepresentations caused investor losses on January 14\u201315, 2021, February 12, 2021, and\n\n\n\n\n6\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, Section V.\n7\n See, e.g., Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 30.\n8\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 9.\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 67\n\n\n\n\nAugust 17, 2021.9 In addition, Dr. Garmaise claims that my assessment of statistical significance\n\nis inconsistent with academic research in finance and economics as well as my prior testimony.\u201d10\n\n 9. Second, Dr. Garmaise claims that my artificial inflation and damages estimates are\n\nflawed and unreliable.11 Specifically, Dr. Garmaise asserts that I provide no justification for the\n\nbut-for valuation of CleanSpark implied by my artificial inflation estimate as of the start of the\n\nClass Period.12 In addition, Dr. Garmaise asserts that my inflation estimates fail to account for\n\nchanges in CleanSpark\u2019s economic environment during the Class Period.13\n\n 10. Dr. Garmaise\u2019s concerns are unpersuasive. As discussed in the sections below, none\n\nof the purported issues he raises disturb the opinions set forth in my Merits Report regarding\n\neconomic materiality, price impact, loss causation, artificial inflation, or damages.\n\nIII. Interpreting Statistical Significance\n\n A. Conventional Levels of Statistical Significance\n\n 11. Dr. Garmaise takes issue with how I interpret and rely on statistical significance in\n\nmy Merits Report. In particular, he states that \u201c\u2026Dr. Bozanic\u2019s conclusions regarding the\n\nstatistical significance of CleanSpark\u2019s stock price declines on the Alleged Corrective Disclosure\n\nDates are inconsistent with academic practice and with his prior analysis and testimony.\u201d14\n\n 12. Academic practice relies on conventions. It is conventional in accounting,\n\neconomics, or finance research to assess statistical significance using conventional cutoffs for\n\nlevels of statistical significance, such as the 90%, 95%, or 99% level. Indeed, in citing Rubinfeld\u2019s\n\n\n9\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 11-13.\n10\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 10.\n11\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 14.\n12\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 15.\n13\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 16.\n14\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 10, 35.\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 67\n\n\n\n\n\u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d Dr. Garmaise himself15 points out that this \u201cstandard\n\npractice\u201d is a convention: \u201cIn most scientific work, the level of statistical significance required to\n\nreject the null hypothesis (i.e., to obtain a statistically significant result) is set conventionally at\n\n0.05, or 5%.\u201d16\n\n 13. Further, Rubinfeld\u2019s view is consistent with my deposition where I stated in\n\nreference to a p-value of .05 that it represents a \u201cconventionally used statistical cutoff\u201d17 as well\n\nas my prior testimony. For example, in reference to a discussion of price impact in my Reply\n\nReport I stated:\n\n \u201cIn addition to my testimony indicating there is more than one reasonable and\n conventional cutoff for assessing statistical significance, I testified that statistical\n significance is a continuum reflecting whether it is \u2018more likely than not\u2019 that the alleged\n misrepresentations had price impact: \u2018So this is a level of statistical significance. So it\u2019s\n showing whether or not this is happening, this occurrence, this phenomenon that we\u2019re\n documenting is by random chance or not.\u201d\u201918\n\n 14. On the page that follows the discussion re conventional cutoffs, Rubinfeld discusses\n\none- vs. two-tailed tests. He states: \u201cBecause using a one-tailed test produces p-values that are one-\n\nhalf the size of p-values using a two-tailed test, the choice of a one-tailed test makes it easier for\n\nthe expert to reject a null hypothesis.\u201d19 Stated differently, suppose a researcher begins with a two-\n\ntailed test with a p-value of 0.08, which would just fail Dr. Garmaise\u2019s threshold for statistical\n\nsignificance at conventional levels. All else equal, if instead the researcher chooses to proceed with\n\na one-tailed test instead (i.e., by changing the hypothesis to allow for a directional prediction), the\n\n\n15\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 34.\n16\n See, e.g., Rubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,\nThird Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011), p. 320.\n17\n Bozanic Deposition Transcript, pp. 142-144.\n18\n Bozanic Reply Report, \u00b6 33.\n19\n See, e.g., Rubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,\nThird Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011), p. 321.\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 67\n\n\n\n\np-value would become 0.04 and, according to Dr. Garmaise, would become statistically significant\n\nat conventional levels. Yet, as Rubinfeld points out: \u201cBecause there is some arbitrariness\n\ninvolved in the choice of an alternative hypothesis, courts should avoid relying solely on sharply\n\ndefined statistical tests.\u201d20\n\n 15. Dr. Garmaise repeatedly claims in his report that the 95% confidence interval is the\n\nstandard used in academic research: \u201cWhen determining statistical significance, a 95% confidence\n\nlevel (or a 5% significance level) is typically used.\u201d21 and \u201c\u2026when determining statistical\n\nsignificance, a 95% confidence level is the typical threshold used for academic research.\u201d 22 and\n\n\u201cA 95% confidence level is typically used in academic research\u201d 23 However, according to Dr.\n\nGarmaise\u2019s deposition testimony:\n\n \u201cBut sometimes supporting, or secondary results, may be described as significant, weakly\n significant or marginally significant or significant at the 10 percent level [confidence level\n of 90%]. And I have adopted that practice in my own work as well.\u201d24\n\n 16. Despite seemingly holding out the 95% confidence level as the academic standard,\n\nDr. Garmaise himself regularly uses alternate statistical cutoffs in his own \u201cstandard practice\u201d as\n\nan academic researcher. In addition to the \u201cstandard practice\u201d of using a 99% or 95% confidence\n\nlevel, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s research has used, in numerous instances, an alternate statistical cutoff from\n\nwhich he has asserted inferences in his academic research. A review of his recent empirical work,\n\ni.e., where he analyzed data and made statistical inferences, his \u201cstandard practice\u201d commonly\n\nemploys a 90% confidence level [10% significance level]. For example:\n\n\n20\n See, e.g., Rubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,\nThird Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011), p. 321.\n21\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 10.\n22\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 36.\n23\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 43, 74.\n24\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, at p. 13.\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 67\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Garmaise and Natividad (2010):25 \u201c\u2026we show that multi-province firm borrowing\n is also sensitive to local mining wind falls [statistically significant at the 90%\n level].\u201d\n\n \u2022 Garmaise and Natividad (2013):26 \u201c\u2026MFIs that met the eligibility criteria just\n before the Rating Fund was announced are significantly [at the 90% level] more\n likely to be evaluated after its inception.\u201d\n\n \u2022 Garmaise and Natividad (2021):27 \u201cThe estimated coefficient of -0.268 is\n marginally significant [at the 90% level].\u201d\n\nI note that all of these examples from Dr. Garmaise\u2019s published papers assert statistical\n\nsignificance at the 90% confidence level, but not the 95% confidence level as espoused by Dr.\n\nGarmaise in his report.\n\n 17. In addition, Dr. Garmaise claims in his report that \u201cI understand that the 95%\n\nconfidence level is also the threshold used in the context of litigation.\u201d28 However, in his deposition\n\ntestimony, Dr. Garmaise stated: \u201cI am not a legal expert, and I have no legal opinions.\u201d29\n\nNevertheless, in the same paragraph of his report, he cites to Kaye and Freedman\u2019s (2011)\n\n\u201cReference Guide on Statistics\u201d30 to support his claim regarding the use of the 95% confidence\n\nlevel [5% significance level] in litigation: \u201cThese levels of 5% and 1% have become icons of\n\nscience and the legal process.\u201d However, Dr. Garmaise failed to cite the very next sentence \u2013 i.e.,\n\nthe main point of the paragraph \u2013 which states: \u201cIn truth, however, such levels are at best useful\n\n\n\n25\n Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2010, \u201cInformation, the Cost of Credit, and Operational Efficiency: An Empirical\nStudy of Microfinance,\u201d Review of Financial Studies 23, pp. 2582-2584.\n26\n Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2013, \u201cThe Attractions and Perils of Flexible Mortgage Lending,\u201d Review of\nFinancial Studies 26, pp. 2562-2563.\n27\n Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2021, \u201cFinancial Flexibility: At What Cost?,\u201d Journal of Financial and Quantitative\nAnalysis 56, pp. 260-261.\n28\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 36.\n29\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, at p. 19.\n30\n Kaye, D. and D. Freedman, 2011, \u201cReference Guide on Statistics,\u201d in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,\nThird Edition.\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 67\n\n\n\n\nconventions.\u201d During Dr. Garmaise\u2019s deposition testimony, when asked about this sentence, his\n\nresponse was: \u201cI don\u2019t know precisely what they had in mind.\u201d31 And when asked why he failed\n\nto cite this sentence in his report, he stated \u201cI\u2019m not sure what to say.\u201d further stating \u201cI cited what\n\nI thought to be the most relevant sections\u2026\u201d32\n\n B. Academic Theory of Statistical Significance is Consistent with my Merits\n Report Analyses\n\n 18. As explained in my Reply Report, statistical significance is a continuum that\n\nreflects whether is it \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that a pattern observed in data is occurring by random\n\nchance.33 For example, in looking at a series of stock returns data, one might observe large\n\nvariation such that some returns appear abnormal or unusual but do not meet the conventional\n\nlevels of statistical significance. Per Brav and Heaton (2015): \u201cIt is crucial to understand that\n\nstatistical significance is simply describing a set of returns that would be unusual to observe if\n\nthere was no price impact. Lack of statistical significance does not tell us that it is more probable\n\nthan not that there was no price impact.\u201d34 This view is affirmed by the courts: \u201c\u2026the existence\n\nof non-statistically-significant stock price declines does not prove the absence of price impact.\u201d35\n\n 19. Closer to the facts and circumstances of this case, as noted in my Reply Report, the\n\nalleged misrepresentations at the start of the Class Period on December 10, 2020 were found to be\n\nassociated with an abnormal stock price increase of 15%, with a p-value of 0.104 and statistical\n\nsignificance at the 89.6% level.36 This implies that more than 89% of the returns analyzed in the\n\n\n31\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, at p. 16.\n32\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, at p. 17.\n33\n Bozanic Reply Report, \u00b6 33.\n34\n Brav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power, Confounding Effects, and Bias,\u201d\nWashington University Law Review 93.\n35\n Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co., 332 F.R.D. 370, 393 (N.D. Ga. 2019)\n36\n Bozanic Reply Report, \u00b6 35.\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 12 of 67\n\n\n\n\nsample have smaller absolute magnitudes than the 15% abnormal return observed on this date. In\n\nother words, using the preponderance of evidence standard, it is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the\n\nabnormal stock price increase is related to information released on this date, as opposed to random\n\nprice movements. Academic research supports this view: \u201cThe effect best supported by the data\n\nfrom a given experiment is always the observed effect, regardless of its significance.\u201d37\n\n 20. Under Dr. Garmaise\u2019s \u201cstandard practice\u201d of using a 95% confidence level as\n\nasserted in his report, or even using the 90% confidence level regularly used in his academic\n\nresearch, this abnormal return of 15% would not be considered as any different from the other\n\nreturns in the sample because it does not meet his cutoff \u2013 despite more than 89% of the returns\n\nin the sample reflecting values that are smaller in absolute magnitude than the positive 15%\n\nabnormal return observed.38 Thus, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s criticisms about certain price impacts not\n\nachieving statistical significance at the 95% level ignores the fact that these events had meaningful\n\neconomic impacts.39 Stated differently, \u201c\u2026reliance on stringent standards of statistical\n\nsignificance, such as 95%, to identify price impact will result in the exclusion of price impacts that\n\ndo not meet the high threshold yet are still economically meaningful.\u201d40\n\n\n\n\n37\n Brav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power, Confounding Effects, and Bias,\u201d\nWashington University Law Review 93, at fn. 24, quoting Goodman, S., 2008, \u201cA Dirty Dozen: Twelve P-Value\nMisconceptions,\u201d Seminars in Hematology 45.\n38\n This view is commonly held among litigation experts, for example: \u201cA confidence level of 92.12% with a p-level\nof 7.88% indicates that the return under study is among the top 7.88% of \u2018normal\u2019 returns in terms of absolute\nmagnitude or, in this case, among the bottom 3.94% of the most negative returns.\u201d See, Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler\nAutomobiles, N.V., 327 F.R.D. 38 (2018).\n39\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 10, 35.\n40\n Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are Reshaping Shareholder\nClass Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 13 of 67\n\n\n\n\n C. Cumulating Partial Corrective Disclosures\n\n 21. Related to his arguments pertaining to statistical significance, Dr. Garmaise also\n\ntakes issue with the use of cumulative returns in my Reply and Merits reports, stating that \u201cDr.\n\nBozanic\u2019s use of a multi-day price decline over two dates that are more than six months apart is\n\narbitrary and unsupported.\u201d41 However, Dr. Garmaise is selective in his critique as he only takes\n\nissue with the cumulation of the corrective disclosures regarding the expansion dates, but not the\n\ncumulation of the corrective disclosures regarding Culper Report and related tweets.\n\n 22. In my Prior Reports, I assessed the price impact of the Corrective Disclosure\n\nEvents. I show that the two day abnormal return for January 14 and 15, 2021 of -23.2% is\n\nstatistically significant at the 94.4% confidence level. In addition, I show that the two day\n\ncumulative abnormal return for February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 of -16% is statistically\n\nsignificant at the 94.5% confidence level. Thus, the cumulative impact of the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events caused stock price movements that were statistically significant at greater than\n\nthe 94% level, which demonstrates strong evidence of price impact.42\n\n 23. As discussed in my Prior Reports, the January 14, 2021 drop is related to the Culper\n\nReport, as is the drop on the following day since Culper tweeted out the report along with a list of\n\nquestions regarding CleanSpark\u2019s business practices on January 15, 2021.43 Hence, these two days\n\nreflect the market\u2019s response to the same corrective event entering the market: first, the release of\n\nthe report and then, second, the tweet which brought greater visibility to the report. Considering\n\nthis, it is reasonable to combine returns across those days to assess the cumulative 2-day market\n\n\n\n\n41\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 75.\n42\n Bozanic Reply Report, \u00b6 37; Bozanic Merits Report \u00b6 88.\n43\n See, e.g., Bozanic Merits Report \u00b6\u00b6 118, 146.\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 14 of 67\n\n\n\n\nresponse to both the release and the dissemination of the Culper Report, a view which is espoused\n\nby academic literature.\n\n \u201c\u2026when a single corrective disclosure is broken down into multiple disclosures, the statistical\n power to detect abnormal performance decreases further. For example, a 9% drop may be\n statistically significant at the 95% level, whereas three separate disclosures, each linked to a\n roughly 3% drop, may not be statistically significant individually.\u201d 44\n\nFollowing the logic of the preceding example, under Dr. Garmaise\u2019s view of statistical\n\nsignificance, cumulating three separate disclosures would imply that [3% + 3% + 3%] = 0%,\n\nbecause he interprets the lack of statistical significance of each disclosure as implying that the\n\nreturn for each partial disclosure is effectively zero. The issue with assessing each disclosure\n\nseparately at conventional levels of statistical significance, such as 95% or 99%, is lack of\n\nstatistical power,45 which is overcome by cumulating returns to increase the power of the test and\n\nproperly measure the total price impact of the corrective information.\n\n 24. In light of the preceding discussion in this section, the statistical significance of the\n\nreturns on these dates, whether assessed individually or cumulatively, demonstrate that the\n\ndeclines were related to information released on these dates, as opposed to random price\n\nmovements. Dr. Garmaise makes no criticism of the returns on these dates other than the analysis\n\n\u201cdoes not meet the 95% threshold\u201d46 he holds out as \u201cstandard practice,\u201d yet regularly uses lower\n\nthresholds in his own academic research.\n\n 25. As noted above, Dr. Garmaise, however, does take issue with cumulating dates that\n\nare \u201csix months apart\u201d \u2013 with no apparent justification \u2013 as well as the choice of which dates to\n\n\n44\n Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are Reshaping Shareholder\nClass Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n45\n \u201cAnother way to put this is that event studies used in securities litigation are likely to have very low power\u2014very\nlow probability of rejecting an actually false null hypothesis\u2014when we insist on keeping the Type I error rate as low\nas 5%.\u201d See, e.g., Fisch, J., J. Gelbach, and J. Klick, 2017, \u201cThe Logic and Limits of Event Studies in Securities Fraud\nLitigation,\u201d Texas Law Review 96.\n46\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 43.\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 15 of 67\n\n\n\n\ninclude in the calculation. On the first point, as discussed in my Prior Reports, the February 12,\n\n2021 and August 17, 2021 drops are related to corrective disclosures regarding the delayed\n\nexpansion timeline at the ATL facility from \u201cmid-year 2021\u201d to \u201cthis fall\u201d.47 Hence, these two\n\ndays reflect the market\u2019s response to the corrective information entering the market regarding\n\nexpansion delays at the ATL facility. Considering this, it is reasonable to combine returns across\n\nthose days to assess the cumulative 2-day market response to delaying the expansion timeline.48\n\nAs noted above, the statistical significance of the returns on these dates, whether assessed\n\nindividually or cumulatively, demonstrate that the declines were related to information released\n\non these dates, as opposed to random price movements.\n\n 26. On the second point, Dr. Garmaise alleges that the inclusion of other expansion\n\ndates \u2013 i.e., January 5, 2021, March 2, 2021, July 14, 2021 \u2013 would affect the observed cumulative\n\nreturn.49 As discussed in Section V below, none of the indicated dates revealed new information\n\nto the market and thus were not analyzed as corrective disclosures regarding expansion delays.50\n\nThus, his argument to include these other dates, or his arguments pertaining to 26 random\n\ncombinations of these dates, is irrelevant to the primary issue of the statistical significance of the\n\nreturns on these dates, as Dr. Garmaise has not demonstrated that any of these alternative dates\n\naltered the total mix of fraud-related information in the market.\n\n\n47\n Bozanic Reply Report, \u00b6 38; Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 118.\n48\n Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are Reshaping Shareholder\nClass Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n49\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 76.\n50\n Related to this point, Dr. Garmaise claims an inconsistency in my approach to assessing statistical significance for\nalleged misrepresentations versus alleged corrective disclosures (Garmaise Report, \u00b6 38). As discussed in my Merits\nReport (\u00b6 78, footnote 78), the alleged February 18, 2021 misrepresentation repeated similar information relative to\nthe prior February 12, 2021 alleged misrepresentation and thus did not introduce additional artificial inflation into\nCleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price. Similarly, as discussed in Section V herein, the alleged misrepresentations on\nJanuary 5, 2021 and March 2, 2021 also repeated similar information and thus could maintain inflation but did not\nintroduce additional inflation. Therefore, his critique regarding the statistical significance of the returns on the dates\nin question is irrelevant.\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 16 of 67\n\n\n\n\nIV. The Culper Report\n\n 27. Dr. Garmaise claims51 the information conveyed by the Culper Report and\n\nassociated tweets was neither new nor value relevant because \u201cCulper Research states on both its\n\nwebsite and the first page of the Culper Report that \u2018all information\u2019 in the report \u2018has been\n\nobtained from public sources.\u2019\u201d52 From this statement, I make four observations, which I discuss\n\nin kind in the paragraphs that follow. First, it is unclear which form of market efficiency Dr.\n\nGarmaise relies on when making this statement. Second, Dr. Garmaise fails to consider the\n\nliterature on disclosure processing costs and its implications. Third, the publication of the report\n\npresupposes that the information is new to the market on the basis of the author bearing disclosure\n\nprocessing costs. Fourth, Dr. Garmaise takes issue with the use and implications of the disclosure\n\nsalience literature in my assessment of the Culper Report and related tweets.\n\n A. Forms of Market Efficiency\n\n 28. First laid out in the seminal work of Professor Eugene Fama, the concept of market\n\nefficiency is typically separated into three categories53: \u201cstrong,\u201d \u201csemi-strong\u201d and \u201cweak,\u201d as\n\nfollows:\n\n \u201cWeak\u201d form efficiency suggests that historical stock prices do not predict future stock\n prices.\n \u201cSemi-strong\u201d form efficiency suggests that all public information is impounded into stock\n prices.\n\n\n51\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 67.\n52\n For example, Dr. Garmaise points to \u201cevidence\u201d from a YouTube stock influencer to claim \u201cDr. Bozanic fails to\ndiscuss evidence suggesting that it was publicly known that ATL was linked to Fastblock, that Fastblock had been a\ntarget of a failed acquisition by Marathon and that Marathon had decided to withdraw its offer citing the fact that\nFastblock\u2019s subsidized power agreement was expiring in three years.\u201d (Garmaise Report, \u00b6 68) While the video\ndiscusses CleanSpark\u2019s ATL Facility acquisition, with respect to Marathon, the influencer only focuses on\nCleanSpark\u2019s touted ability to lower its cost of energy below that of Marathon. When asked in his deposition about\nwhere in the video the reasons for Marathon\u2019s withdrawal were discussed, Dr. Garmaise concedes \u201cI don\u2019t recall if\nthat was discussed in this YouTube video.\u201d (Garmaise Deposition Transcript, p. 38)\n53\n See, e.g., Fama, E., 1970, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work,\u201d Journal of Finance\n25.\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 17 of 67\n\n\n\n\n \u201cStrong\u201d form efficiency suggests that all public and private information is impounded\n into stock prices.\n\nI believe it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Garmaise relies on the \u201csemi-strong\u201d version of market\n\nefficiency in his report.\n\n 29. As discussed in my Efficiency Report54, a market is considered informationally\n\nefficient when the market price of securities quickly responds to publicly available information:\n\n \u201cFor purposes of establishing the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, we adopt\n the prevailing definition of market efficiency, which provides that an efficient market is\n one in which the market price of the stock fully reflects all publicly available information.\n By \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 we mean that market price responds so quickly to new information\n that ordinary investors cannot make trading profits on the basis of such information.\n This is known as \u2018informational efficiency.\u2019 We reject a second and much broader meaning\n of \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 known as \u2018fundamental value efficiency,\u2019 which requires that a market\n respond to information not only quickly but accurately, such that the market price of a stock\n reflects its fundamental value.\u201d55\n\n 30. While I assume that Dr. Garmaise relies on semi-strong efficiency in his report, he\n\nconflates fundamental vs. informational efficiency and further ignores the literature on disclosure\n\nprocessing costs. If all public information is immediately impounded into price and is impounded\n\naccurately, then the repetition of that same information, ceteris paribus, should not affect market\n\nprice. However, informational efficiency \u2013 which is what I rely on in my Efficiency Report \u2013\n\nmaintains that prices should react quickly to new information, but that reaction may or may not be\n\naccurate in terms of reflecting the firm\u2019s true fundamental value.\n\n 31. Further, in a later work, Professor Fama stated that the \u201ceconomically more\n\nsensible\u201d definition of \u201csemi-strong\u201d efficiency hypothesis is that \u201c\u2026prices reflect information to\n\nthe point where the marginal benefits of acting on the information (the profits to be made) do not\n\n\n\n\n54\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, \u00b6 21.\n55\n In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005).\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 18 of 67\n\n\n\n\nexceed the marginal cost.\u201d56 Thus, even if all of the information conveyed by the Culper Report\n\ncould have already existed in the public domain prior to the report\u2019s publication, the author had to\n\nbear disclosure processing costs in order to arrive at the claims and conclusions in the Culper\n\nReport.\n\n B. Disclosure Processing Costs\n\n 32. Disclosure processing costs are those costs related to the acquisition, analysis, and\n\nsynthesis of information. Per Blankespoor, et al. (2020)57: \u201cThe literature identifies three steps to\n\nprocessing a disclosure for use in a trading decision, where \u2018disclosure\u2019 refers to a specific signal\n\nfrom a firm report or communication. An investor must: (i) learn that the disclosure exists;\n\n(ii) obtain the report and extract the disclosure; and (iii) analyze the implications of the disclosure\n\nfor firm value. Each of these steps is costly, and we refer to those costs as: (i) awareness costs;\n\n(ii) acquisition costs; and (iii) integration costs.\u201d Integration costs in this instance refer to those\n\nrelated to the analysis and synthesis of information.\n\n 33. On that point, most, if not all, of the information used in the generation of the Culper\n\nReport entail awareness, acquisition, and integration costs. Dr. Garmaise\u2019s \u201csemi-strong\u201d\n\nefficiency argument \u2013 absent informational efficiency and disclosure processing cost\n\nconsiderations \u2013 implies that the value of the Culper Report should theoretically be zero since all\n\nof the information contained within is already in the public domain. However, the author of the\n\nCulper Report clearly felt that there was value in becoming aware of and then acquiring\n\ninformation as well as analyzing and synthesizing information prior to making inferences and\n\nconclusions. To wit, consistent with Fama (1991), for the author of the Culper Report to bear\n\n\n56\n Fama, E., 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II\u201d Journal of Finance 46.\n57\n Blankespoor, E., E. DeHaan, and I. Marinovic, 2020, \u201cDisclosure Processing Costs, Investors\u2019 Information\nChoice, and Equity Market Outcomes: A Review,\u201d Journal of Accounting and Economics 70.\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 19 of 67\n\n\n\n\nawareness, acquisition, and integration costs, the expected marginal benefits of publishing the\n\nreport (e.g., profiting from taking a short position against the stock in advance of the report) had\n\nto exceed the marginal costs borne.58 Or, stated perhaps more simply, per Blankespoor, et al.\n\n(2020): \u201c...if investors\u2019 costly information is immediately revealed in prices, then nobody would\n\nprocess the disclosure to begin with.\u201d\n\n C. Disclosure Salience\n\n 34. In considering the value relevance of a disclosure, Dr. Garmaise takes issue in his\n\nreport with my reliance on the disclosure salience literature, and specifically criticizes a\n\nrepresentative paper I cite.59 In my Merits Report, I cited the Cheng et al. (2020) paper as an\n\nexample of the more general conclusions from the disclosure salience literature60:\n\n \u201cFor example, Cheng et al. (2021) study \u2018whether earlier discussion of earnings\n information, and earlier discussion of qualitatively positive or negative information, is\n associated with stronger responses to that information.\u2019 They find \u2018a positive relation\n between investor response to information and the prioritization of that information in\n the earnings announcement.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn my assessment of the value relevance of the Culper Report, I relied on the disclosure salience\n\nliterature due to it establishing a strong and robust relation between the prominence of information\n\nin a given disclosure, and its relation to stock price movements.\n\n\n\n\n58\n Dr. Garmaise states that I have not addressed \u201c\u2026the possibility that the very existence of a short-seller report\ntargeting CleanSpark\u2026could have negatively impacted CleanSpark\u2019s stock price\u2026 (Garmaise Report, \u00b6 55).\u201d\nHowever, the existence of a short seller report presupposes adverse information within the report, which is the basis\nupon which the market and investors negatively react. To my knowledge, the report was not alleged to exist\nindependent of it being published on Culper Research\u2019s website, which implies that investors could evaluate the\ncontent concurrently with knowledge of its existence. When asked in his deposition as to whether the market knew\nof the Culper Report or Culper\u2019s short position ahead of the report\u2019s distribution via Culper\u2019s website and twitter, Dr.\nGarmaise stated he did not \u201chave additional information\u201d and further stated \u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d respectively (Garmaise\nDeposition Transcript, pp. 31-32.)\n59\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 46.\n60\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 92.\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 20 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 35. Unlike Dr. Garmaise\u2019s characterization in his report, the literature on disclosure\n\nsalience is not contained to a single paper on the topic, as explained in the subsequent paragraphs.\n\nIn his deposition testimony, Dr. Garmaise clarifies that his position in his report is not to criticize\n\nthe entire body of disclosure salience literature but rather only the Cheng et al. (2020) paper to\n\nwhich I cite.61 However, when asked whether he holds an opinion on how he would evaluate a\n\ndisclosure\u2019s salience, he states: \u201cI don\u2019t as I sit here today. I haven\u2019t developed a formal opinion\n\non that. I\u2019d have to think about that.\u201d Despite being unable to articulate his own approach, he offers\n\n\u201cI do know that Dr. Bozanic\u2019s opinion in these two respects that we\u2019ve been discussing is not\n\nsupported by the literature that he cites.\u201d I disagree, as discussed in this and the following section.\n\n 36. Hirshliefer and Teoh (2003) describe salience as \u201cThe salience of a stimulus is its\n\n\u2018prominence,\u2019 tendency to \u2018stand out\u2019, or its degree of contrast with other stimuli in the\n\nenvironment.\u201d62 Research on disclosure salience has established that information can be\n\nconsidered more salient for investors when it is highlighted more prominently, earlier, or in a\n\npress release headline. Because investors have limited attention63 and, as discussed in the\n\npreceding section, incur processing costs when acquiring and extracting information from\n\ndisclosures, if firms can more quickly point investors to relevant information by highlighting its\n\nsalience within a disclosure, investors\u2019 processing costs in assessing the value relevance of new\n\ninformation are reduced, which allows the information to be priced more quickly.\n\n\n\n\n61\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, pp. 43-44.\n62\n Hirshleifer, D. and S.H. Teoh, 2003, \u201cLimited Attention, Information Disclosure, And Financial Reporting,\u201d\nJournal of Accounting and Economics 36.\n63\n Per Hirshleifer and Teoh (2003): \u201cLimited attention is a necessary consequence of the vast amount of\ninformation available in the environment, and of limits to information processing power. Attention must be\nselective and requires effort\u2026\u201d\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 21 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 37. For example, Huang, Nekrasov, and Teoh (2018) measure the number of\n\nquantitative items in an earnings press release headline as a proxy for headline salience. 64 They\n\nfind that greater headline salience is associated with greater stock market reactions around the time\n\nof companies\u2019 earnings releases. In addition, Guillamon-Saorin, Osma, and Jones (2012) show that\n\nfirms often disclose new positive information in press release headlines.65 For example, they find\n\nthat the disclosure of profits or sales figures in headlines is associated with firms\u2019 earnings\n\nperformance.\n\n 38. Bowen, Davis, and Matsumoto (2005) also study managerial emphasis in earnings\n\npress releases.66 They find that a greater emphasis on earnings metrics in the press release is\n\nassociated with a stronger stock market reaction. In general, they show that managers emphasize\n\nelements of disclosures that are more value relevant for investors, which leads to a greater market\n\nreaction. Files, Swanson, and Tse (2009) examine the market reaction to the prominence of the\n\nrestatement announcement in the press release.67 They find that greater prominence, such as a\n\nrestatement being disclosed in the headline, is associated with a stronger market response.\n\n 39. Finally, as noted in my Merits Report, Cheng, Roulstone, and Van Buskirk (2021)\n\nstudy \u201cwhether earlier discussion of earnings information, and earlier discussion of qualitatively\n\npositive or negative information, is associated with stronger responses to that information.\u201d 68 and\n\n\n\n64\n Huang, X, A. Nekrasov, and S.H. Teoh, 2018, \u201cHeadline Salience, Managerial Opportunism, and Over- and\nUnderreactions to Earnings,\u201d The Accounting Review 93.\n65\n Guillamon-Saorin, E., B. Osma, and M. Jones, 2012, \u201cOpportunistic Disclosure in Press Release Headlines,\u201d\nAccounting and Business Research 42.\n66\n Bowen, R., A. Davis, and D. Matsumoto, 2005, \u201cEmphasis on Pro Forma versus GAAP Earnings in Quarterly Press\nReleases: Determinants, SEC Intervention, and Market Reactions,\u201d The Accounting Review 80.\n67\n Files, R., E. Swanson, and S. Tse, 2009, \u201cStealth Disclosure of Accounting Restatements,\u201d The Accounting Review\n84.\n68\n Cheng, L., D. Roulstone, and A. Van Buskirk, 2021, \u201cAre Investors Influenced by the Order of Information in\nEarnings Press Releases?,\u201d The Accounting Review 96.\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 22 of 67\n\n\n\n\nfind \u201ca positive relation between investor response to information and the prioritization of that\n\ninformation in the earnings announcement.\u201d\n\n 40. Related to the prominent highlighting of information by way of ordering (i.e., in a\n\nheadline or early in a disclosure) is the repetition of information. Henry (2006) states: \u201cIn practice,\n\nemphasis can be achieved through placement in the text, through repetition, or both.\u201d Consistent\n\nwith this view, Li (2019) finds that firms use more repetitive disclosures to highlight significant\n\nfirm events, and that such disclosures are value relevant as evidenced by a positive relation\n\nbetween stock prices and repetitive disclosures.69 Thus, consistent with the above-mentioned\n\npapers on disclosure ordering, disclosure repetition also influences the value relevance of\n\ninformation within a disclosure. Hence, the use of the disclosure salience literature in my\n\nassessment of the Culper Report\u2019s value relevance is reasonable, reliable, and consistent with the\n\nliterature\u2019s findings.\n\n 41. In addition to his criticism of the disclosure salience literature, Dr. Garmaise claims\n\nthat the lack of analyst commentary surrounding the Culper Report undermines its value\n\nrelevance.70 Because analysts typically have a pro-management bias, analysts are typically\n\nreluctant to discuss short seller reports. That is, analysts must curry favor with management in\n\norder to gain access thereby potentially ignoring adverse information and especially information\n\nthat may come from less credible sources. Per Axelson and Cain (2025): \u201canalysts tend to ignore\n\nshort seller reports that disagree with positive analyst recommendations and price forecasts.\u201d\n\nAnd per Stolowy et al. (2022): \u201canalysts often engage in self-censorship in order not to develop a\n\nbad relationship with the companies they follow,\u201d analysts \u201coften feel they have to maintain good\n\n\n\n69\n Li, H., 2019, \u201cRepetitive Disclosures in the MD&A,\u201d Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 46.\n70\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 57.\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 23 of 67\n\n\n\n\nrelationships with the firms they follow \u2013 which implies avoiding overly critical public comments\n\nregarding these firms, even when the analysts agree with [activist short sellers\u2019] allegations,\u201d\n\n\u201canalysts cannot escape from (the more or less direct) pressure to be optimistic\u2026in order not to\n\ncompromise their firm\u2019s main source of revenue\u201d and \u201ceven mentioning the short seller on a sell\n\nside report will be frowned upon by the management of the company.\u201d71 Thus, analysts have clear\n\nincentives to avoid discussing short seller reports in order to maintain access to management.\n\n D. My Analysis of the Culper Report and Related Tweets is Consistent with the\n Academic Literature on Disclosure Salience\n\n 42. In my Merits Report, I relied on the general findings from the disclosure salience\n\nliterature to assess the value relevance of the information conveyed by the Culper Report and\n\nrelated tweets. As discuss therein, I stated that the Culper Report called into question the\n\nprofitability of the ATL Facility acquisition on the basis of CleanSpark\u2019s alleged\n\nmisrepresentations and omissions regarding i) projected costs to mine bitcoin in terms of energy\n\nusage (i.e., understating expenses), ii) ability to \u201cmaximize energy savings\u201d through its \u201csoftware\n\ntechnologies and trade secrets,\u201d (i.e., understating expenses), iii) ability to expand power (i.e.,\n\noverstating revenues), and iv) ability to expand hashrate capacity (i.e., overstating revenues).72\n\n 43. I further discussed in my Merits Report that the tweet thread on January 14, 2021\n\nwas premised on the following two points: a statement that Culper Research had concluded to\n\nshort CleanSpark (tweet #1 in the thread), and a statement supporting their inference that they were\n\nrecommending a short position on the basis that CleanSpark \u201clied about its supposed customers\n\nand contracts\u201d (tweet #2 in the thread).73 The remaining enumerated points in the January 14 tweet\n\n\n71\n Stolowy, H., L. Paugam, and Y. Gendron, 2022, \u201cCompeting for Narrative Authority in Capital Markets: Activist\nShort Sellers vs. Financial Analysts,\u201d Accounting, Organizations, and Society 100.\n72\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 82.\n73\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 91-93.\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 24 of 67\n\n\n\n\nthread (#3-10), which reflected the discussions in the Culper Report, reflected evidence used by\n\nCulper to support its inference and conclusion.\n\n 44. In the tweet that followed the next day on January 15, 2021, Culper Research\n\nindicated that it had emailed Defendant and Chairman Matthew Schultz several questions\n\nregarding the Culper Report. Of the eight enumerated points in the follow-up tweet on January 15,\n\n2021, seven were points related to those in the original tweet thread. Following academic literature\n\non disclosure salience, I focus my attention on two features of the tweets: order and repetition.\n\nThis view is consistent and reasonable in light of the literature on disclosure salience.\n\n 45. As discussed above, because investors have limited attention (i.e., cannot process\n\nevery stimuli received) and incur processing costs (i.e., related to the acquisition, analysis, and\n\nsynthesis of information), information that comes earlier (e.g., in a headline) and/or is highlighted\n\nmore prominently (e.g., through repetition) in a disclosure reduces investors\u2019 processing costs and\n\ntherefore allows information to be priced more quickly. Hence, by summarizing the Culper Report\n\nvia Twitter, and repeated select points across tweets, Culper Research had chosen to emphasize\n\nthe points from the report that substantiated the report\u2019s premise (i.e., recommending a short\n\nposition in CleanSpark) and conclusion (i.e., CleanSpark \u201clied about its supposed customers and\n\ncontracts\u201d) and therefore considered important for investors. Relying on this literature, I consider\n\npoints that were not repeated across tweets as less emphasized and thus less value relevant for\n\nCulper Research and investors.\n\n 46. Consistent with the disclosure salience literature, the tweets related to Shoreline\n\nSchools, p2k Labs\u2019 fake customers, and Defendant Bradford serving as an auditor of a cannabis\n\npenny stock would be less value relevant for investors because of their lack of repetition. Further,\n\nin my opinion, the rationale for the author to not repeat these points is because they conveyed little\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 25 of 67\n\n\n\n\nto no value relevance for investors, as follows. First, with respect to Shoreline Schools, the\n\nmemorandum of understanding was not a contract (\u2018This agreement provides a path to contract\n\ndirectly\u2026\u201d), but rather an agreement to assess feasibility: \u201cIn accordance with the MOU,\n\nCleanSpark will evaluate two stages of grid resiliency for the District.\u201d74 The fact that the Culper\n\nReport states \u201canalysts claim could lead to $2 million to $3 million in revenues\u201d re Shoreline\n\nSchools is irrelevant because no contract had been assigned. Second, re p2k Labs, a tweet from\n\nCulper in the initial tweet thread suggests that p2k Labs \u201cappears to also fake its customers.\u201d While\n\nthe focus on p2k Labs in both the Culper Report and related tweets is with respect to p2K being a\n\nrelated party transaction, the allegation regarding fake customers is irrelevant. This is because the\n\nsubstance upon which the Culper Report makes this claim is merely on the basis of some, but not\n\nall, customers listed on p2K\u2019s website as case studies had lacked \u201cweb presence.\u201d Third, regarding\n\nBradford serving as an auditor of a cannabis penny stock, the Culper Report states that CleanSpark\n\n\u201c\u2026never disclose[d] that Bradford is currently moonlighting as an auditor of a penny stock\n\ncannabis company.\u201d The fact that the Culper Report alleges that Bradford is \u201cmoonlighting\u201d is\n\nirrelevant because, per CleanSpark\u2019s disclosures: \u201cBlue Chip is 50% beneficially owned by Mr.\n\nBradford. Blue Chip performed all services at discounted rates and none of the charges were\n\nassociated with work performed by Mr. Bradford.\u201d75\n\n 47. Regarding related party transactions (RPTs), I note that p2k and p2k Labs were\n\nmentioned across tweets in this context, and the Culper Report alleged p2k\u2019s acquisition to be an\n\n\u201cundisclosed related party transaction\u201d that \u201cfunneled capital from the Company to the pockets of\n\n\n\n\n74\n \u201cCleanSpark Announces Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with Shoreline Unified School District to\nEstablish Grid Resiliency,\u201d CleanSpark, January, 9 2020.\n75\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357720000136/clsk10q.htm\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 26 of 67\n\n\n\n\ninsiders.\u201d As discussed in my Merits Report, investors are less likely to be concerned with RPTs\n\nas opposed to overstating revenues and/or understating expenses since the latter have a direct\n\nimpact on company cash flows, profitability, and value.76\n\n 48. Conversely, I consider points related to revenue overstatement and expense\n\nunderstatement \u2013 i.e., the two primary components of earnings \u2013 as highly value relevant for\n\ninvestors, consistent with Dechow et al. (2011) who find that revenue and expense misstatements\n\nare the most common accounts shown to have been manipulated according to SEC enforcement\n\nactions.77 This is because if CleanSpark overstated and/or fabricated revenues, or if CleanSpark\n\nunderstated expenses, the Company\u2019s anticipated future cash flows and profitability would be\n\noverstated. Therefore, the points that remain in the tweets related to revenue overstatement and\n\nexpense understatement are those pertaining to the ATL Facility, Green Dragon, and Valle Divino.\n\n 49. As discussed in my Merits Report, while the Green Dragon and Valle Divino points\n\npertained to allegations of fictitious revenues, the ATL points questioned both the expected\n\nrevenue generating ability of ATL\u2019s assets (which would reduce anticipated earnings and cash\n\nflows) as well as the lower-than-industry standard re expected energy expenses incurred to\n\ngenerate those revenues (which would also reduce anticipated earnings and cash flows).78 My\n\nopinion is that the Green Dragon and Valle Divino points were meant to cast doubt on the financial\n\nviability of the ATL Facility in light of the claims made by CleanSpark regarding its expected\n\ncapacity and profitability.\n\n\n\n\n76\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 95.\n77\n Dechow, P., W. Ge, C. Larson, and R. Sloan, 2011, \u201cPredicting material accounting misstatements,\u201d Contemporary\nAccounting Research 28.\n78\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 97-99.\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 27 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 50. My assessment of the information conveyed by the January 14-15, 2021 tweets is\n\nreinforced by the structure of the Culper Report itself insofar as the report emphasized\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s claims regarding its customers and contracts, specifically with respect to its claims\n\nregarding the ATL Facility, Valle Divino site, and Green Dragon grow facility. Consistent with\n\nthe disclosure salience literature, the order in which the points were made in the report are such\n\nthat the most relevant (and thus salient) points can be quickly gleaned by an investor in order to\n\ninfluence investor judgement and decision making with respect to investing in CleanSpark. Similar\n\nto the second tweet in the original tweet thread, the first paragraph of the Culper Report was\n\npremised on the assertion that CleanSpark \u201clied about its supposed customers and contracts.\u201d\n\n 51. The initial substantive paragraph (i.e., the second paragraph on page 2) in the\n\nCulper Report in support of Culper\u2019s assertion was in regards to the acquisition of the ATL facility.\n\nIn that paragraph, the Culper Report casts doubt on CleanSpark\u2019s claimed costs to mine bitcoin,\n\npointing to a cost-advantaged power agreement that was set to expire in three years. To further\n\nundermine the credibility of the CleanSpark\u2019s claims regarding the ATL acquisition, the Culper\n\nReport quickly pointed investors (see the end of second paragraph on p. 2 of the report, as well as\n\nthe two paragraphs which follow) to two other ventures where Culper alleged CleanSpark made\n\nsimilarly dubious claims: Green Dragon and Valle Divino, which are the focus of my\n\ndisaggregation of confounds analysis in Section V.D. Further, in light of the discussion above, as\n\nwell as the discussion in Sections IV.B-C above, my analysis of the Culper Report and related\n\ntweets is consistent with the disclosure salience literature.\n\n E. The Literature Dr. Garmaise Claims I Fail to Consider is Irrelevant\n\n 52. Dr. Garmaise contends that I ignore \u201cacademic literature on related party\n\ntransactions and corporate governance quality\u201d showing that i) \u201cfirms announcing related party\n\ntransactions \u2018earn significant negative excess returns\u2019\u201d and ii) \u201ccertain related party transactions\n 24\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 28 of 67\n\n\n\n\n\u2018could signal firms\u2019 corporate governance quality, as investors substantially discount firms that\n\nundertake potentially expropriating transactions.\u2019\u201d79\n\n 53. What Dr. Garmaise fails to represent in his report is that these papers80 study\n\nChinese affiliated companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange for the periods of 1998-\n\n2000 and 2002-2004. And as stated by Cheung et al. (2006), the setting studied is distinct from\n\nU.S. capital markets: \u201cThe different legal systems between Hong Kong and China create additional\n\nopportunities for expropriation by companies that can shift assets across the border, because\n\nrulings by courts in Hong Kong are not enforceable in the mainland.\u201d Further, Dr. Garmaise\n\nignores the international literature that shows either no effect of minority shareholder\n\nexpropriation81 or the literature which differentiates between RPTs. Gordon et al. (2004) state that\n\nsome RPT\u2019s represent \u201cefficient transactions that fulfill rational economic demands of a firm such\n\nas the need for service providers with in-depth firm-specific knowledge.\u201d82 Consistent with this\n\nview, Fooladi and Farhadi (2019) find that \u201cOperating RPTs increase firm value and profitability.\u201d\n\nand further \u201cThey improve asset utilization and reduce discretionary expenses\u2026\u201d83\n\n 54. Dr. Garmaise also contends that I ignore \u201cthe academic literature that suggests that\n\nexecutive compensation, and allegations of excessive executive compensation, may be value\n\nrelevant to investors.\u201d84 He points to Core et al. (1999) who state \u201cCEOs at firms with greater\n\n\n79\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 52.\n80\n Cheung, Y., P. Rao, and A. Stouraitis, 2006, \u201cTunneling, Propping, and Expropriation: Evidence from Connected\nParty Transactions in Hong Kong,\u201d Journal of Financial Economics 82; Lei, A. and F. Song, 2011, \u201cConnected\nTransactions and Firm Value: Evidence from China-Affiliated Companies,\u201d Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 19.\n81\n Buysschaert, A., M. Deloof, M. Jegers, 2004, \u201cEquity sales in Belgian corporate groups: expropriation of minority\nshareholders? A clinical study,\u201d Journal of Corporate Finance 10.\n82\n Gordon, E., E, Henry, and D. Palia, 2004, \u201cRelated Party Transactions and Corporate Governance,\u201d Advances in\nFinancial Economics 9.\n83\n Fooladi, M. and M. Farhadi, 2019, \u201cCorporate governance and detrimental related party transactions,\u201d Asian Review\nof Accounting 27.\n84\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 53.\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 29 of 67\n\n\n\n\nagency problems receive greater compensation; and that firms with greater agency problems\n\nperform worse.\u201d85 and Carter et al. (2016) who state \u201cabnormally high CEO pay predicts worse\n\nfuture firm performance.\u201d86 First, Dr. Garmaise has failed to articulate the \u201cagency problems\u201d to\n\nwhich he refers as well as whether the compensation to which Culper refers should be considered\n\n\u201cexcessive.\u201d Second, Dr. Garmaise ignores the literature showing how executive compensation\n\ncan align with shareholder interests. For example, Casavecchia and Suh (2016) find that a \u201cgreater\n\nsensitivity of managerial compensation to shareholder wealth\u2026leads to greater risk taking through\n\nactive capital allocation.\u201d and they further demonstrate that \u201crisk-taking is positively associated\n\nwith future stock returns.\u201d87 These results are consistent with Guay (1999) whose findings suggest\n\nthat \u201cmanagers receiving incentives to invest in risky projects when the potential loss from\n\nunderinvestment in valuable risk increasing projects is greatest.\u201d88\n\n 55. Dr. Garmaise claims that I failed to address that the \u201cCulper Report had a negative\n\neffect on investors\u2019 perception of CleanSpark\u2019s corporate governance and internal controls, which\n\nthe academic literature has found may be value-relevant to investors.\u201d89 To this end, he points to\n\npapers on \u201creputational loss\u201d90 which generally calculate \u201creputational loss\u201d as a firm\u2019s change in\n\nmarket value following announcements of financial misconduct less penalties and settlements.\n\n\n85\n Core, J., R. Holthausen, and D. Larcker, 1999, \u201cCorporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and\nFirm Performance,\u201d Journal of Financial Economics 51.\n86\n Carter, M., L. Li, A. Marcus, and H. Tehranian, 2016, \u201cExcess Pay and Deficient Performance,\u201d Review of Financial\nEconomics 30.\n87\n Casavecchia, L. and J. Suh, 2017, \u201cManagerial incentives for risk-taking and internal capital allocation,\u201d Australian\nJournal of Management 42.\n88\n Guay, W., 1999, \u201cThe sensitivity of CEO wealth to equity risk: an analysis of the magnitude and determinants,\u201d\nJournal of Financial Economics 53.\n89\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 63.\n90\n Karpoff, J. and J. Lott Jr., 1993, \u201cThe Reputational Penalty Firms Bear from Committing Criminal Fraud,\u201d The\nJournal of Law and Economics 36; Karpoff, J., D. Lee, and G. Martin, 2008, \u201cThe Cost to Firms of Cooking the\nBooks,\u201d Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 43; Armour, J., C. Mayer, and E. Polo, 2017, \u201cRegulatory\nSanctions and Reputational Damage in Financial Markets,\u201d Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 52.\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 30 of 67\n\n\n\n\nEffectively, any loss in market value beyond penalties and settlements is merely assumed to be a\n\nreputation loss. As the loss in market value can be attributed to many factors \u2013 such as a reduction\n\nin expectations regarding future cash flows \u2013 the approach of labeling a loss in market value as\n\n\u201creputation\u201d is unpersuasive, as other information such as media coverage could contribute to the\n\nloss.91 Further, Dr. Garmaise uses this critique to undermine my disaggregation analysis pertaining\n\nto Green Dragon. As discussed in Section V.D below, my disaggregation of this confound is\n\nreasonable and reliable.\n\n V. The Corrective Disclosures\n\n A. Economic Materiality\n\n 56. In my Merits Report, I discussed how I consider economic materiality to relate to\n\ninformation, news, announcements, or other events that would impact the valuation of a company\n\nand its securities, and thus, investors\u2019 demand for those securities.92 As such, my opinions herein\n\nregarding economic materiality are based upon my analysis of such information as it pertains to\n\nfinance, economics, and valuation, and are not intended to represent legal analyses or conclusions.\n\nWhile I understand that materiality has a legal definition in matters such as this one, for the\n\npurposes of my report, the term \u201ceconomic materiality\u201d means the importance of information to\n\nthe market (and thus, investors), such that it would affect the valuation of a security and investors\u2019\n\ndecisions to buy or sell the security, i.e., the value relevance of the information to investors with\n\nrespect to their investment choices.\n\n\n\n\n91\n Haslem, B., I. Hutton, and A. Smith, 2017, \u201cHow Much Do Corporate Defendants Really Lose? A New Verdict on\nthe Reputation Loss Induced by Corporate Litigation,\u201d Financial Management.\n92\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 37.\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 31 of 67\n\n\n\n\n B. Consistency of Value Relevance Analyses\n\n 57. Dr. Garmaise claims in several instances in his report that I hold inconsistent\n\nopinions regarding evidence I point to in my Merits Report when discussing the value relevance\n\nof a disclosure.93 Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that Dr. Garmaise neither defines value\n\nrelevance nor articulates the \u201ccriteria\u201d to which he refers in his report regarding my assessment of\n\nvalue relevance. My assessment of value relevance is not dependent on any one single source of\n\ninformation, as implied by Dr. Garmaise, e.g., \u201cfails to reconcile\u201d, but rather includes\n\nconsideration of the relevant information environment and principles of finance, economics, and\n\nvaluation. Further, as discussed below, my analysis indicates that the information released on dates\n\nidentified by Dr. Garmaise (i.e., January 5, 2021, March 2, 2021, July 14, 2021) did not alter the\n\ntotal mix of information related to the alleged fraud, and thus my analysis is reasonable and\n\nreliable. As a result, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s opinions do not disturb any of my opinions, analyses, or\n\nconclusions.\n\n 58. To evaluate value relevance, I rely on a variety of sources \u2013 such as news articles,\n\nanalyst reports, SEC filings, press releases, conference calls, and interviews \u2013 to understand a\n\nfirm\u2019s information environment and whether a disclosure reflects new information that could\n\ninfluence an investor\u2019s decision to buy or sell a stock. Despite his criticisms of my approach, when\n\nasked in his deposition about where an investor would typically acquire value relevant information\n\nabout a firm, he responded with \u201cThis information may come from the firm itself. It may come\n\nfrom analysts. It may come from the media.\u201d94\n\n\n\n\n93\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 79, 86, 97.\n94\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, pp. 33-34.\n\n 28\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 32 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 59. In the months leading up to the February 12, 2021 earnings report, investors would\n\nhave found the lack of meaningful progress towards the ATL Facility expansion concerning as the\n\ninability to deploy miners would have a direct impact on revenue growth, cash flows, and firm\n\nvalue. This is because analysts increased their expectations \u2013 e.g., \u201cprimarily driven by upward\n\nrevisions to our future estimates to include new revenue and margin contribution from bitcoin\n\nmining activity\u201d95 \u2013 for CleanSpark following the ATL acquisition announcement. CleanSpark\u2019s\n\npost-acquisition quarterly earnings (actual loss of $0.32 per share vs. loss of $0.12 expected) and\n\nrevenue (actual revenue of $2.26 million vs. $2.83 expected) reported on February 12, 2021 were\n\nbelow analyst expectations96 \u2013 expectations that had increased consequent to the ATL acquisition.\n\n 60. As noted by Reuters News on February 12, 2021, CleanSpark expected to \u201c\u2026reach\n\nmore than 315 PH/s within the month of February.\u201d97 This information is directly related to the\n\nexpectations regarding capacity expansion and how the Company was not making meaningful\n\nprogress ahead of the April 2021 capacity expectations, which prompted the firm to delay the\n\ntimeframe from April 2021 to \u201cmid-year\u201d or \u201cmid-summer\u201d in their February 12, 2021 corrective\n\ndisclosure. This is because, upon acquisition, the hashrate stood at 190 PH/s and had only\n\nincreased to 200 PH/s in December 2020.98\n\n 61. By February 12, 2021, with two months having passed since the ATL acquisition,\n\nCleanSpark added less than 115 PH/s (i.e., the 315 PH/s expected in February 2021 less the 200\n\nPH/s established in December 2020). Further, as of February 24, 2021, it was unclear what hashrate\n\n\n\n95\n \u201cBitcoin Mining Acquisition Drives Estimates Higher; Raising Price Target to $24.00,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, December\n11, 2020.\n96\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 116.\n97\n \u201cBRIEF-CleanSpark Says Quarterly Revenue Rose 130 Percent To $2.26 Million,\u201d Reuters News, February 12,\n2021, 6:18 AM.\n98\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides Update on Bitcoin Mining Operations and Expansion,\u201d CleanSpark, December 18, 2020.\n\n 29\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 33 of 67\n\n\n\n\ncapacity beyond 200 PH/s the Company had in place99, thus reducing investor confidence in the\n\nCompany\u2019s disclosures and increasing investor skepticism regarding statements pertaining to the\n\nexpansion plans, leaving investors to estimate the actual hashrate in the absence of a Company\n\ndisclosure to the contrary.\n\n 62. With approximately two and a half months remaining to deliver on the 0.9-1.4 EH/s\n\nhashrate expected by April 2021, in the absence of a material expansion in energy \u2013 as reflected\n\nby a 32 cent loss per share versus 12 cents expected100 and widely reported by financial media101\n\n\u2013 investors would have to reassess and downward revise their revenue growth expectations, which\n\nwould thus affect expected firm cash flows and expected firm value.\n\n 63. Dr. Garmaise claims that my value relevance analysis of the February 12, 2021\n\nexpansion delay is inconsistent with my analysis of operating expenses for the reporting period.102\n\nAs noted in my Merits Report, the increase in operating expenses was not value relevant in part\n\ndue to the lack of subsequent discussion in the public press or analyst reports.103 However, as noted\n\nin the preceding paragraphs, media discussion surrounding capacity shortfalls is directly related to\n\nthe firm failing to meet investor expectations, which thus prompted the firm to delay the timeframe\n\nin the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure. Dr. Garmaise further claims that my value\n\nrelevance analysis of the February 12, 2021 expansion delay is inconsistent with my analysis of\n\n\n\n\n99\n \u201cCleanSpark Completes Strategic Acquisition of Solar Watt Solutions,\u201d CleanSpark, February 24, 2021.\n100\n \u201cSet Up for Continued Strength in FY2021; F4Q20 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, dated December 21, 2020.\n101\n \u201cCleanSpark Inc: A loss of 12 cents per share anticipated for first quarter,\u201d Reuters News, February 12, 2021,\n7:51AM.\n102\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 86.\n103\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 123.\n\n 30\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 34 of 67\n\n\n\n\nthe January 5, 2021 TDA Network streaming interview.104 I address the TDA Network streaming\n\ninterview\u2019s lack of value relevance in Section V below.\n\n 64. Regarding the alleged value relevance analysis inconsistency105 pertaining to the\n\nAugust 17, 2021 disclosure, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, investors would have found\n\nthe lack of meaningful progress towards the expansion concerning as the inability to deploy miners\n\nwould have a direct impact on revenue growth. Thus, another expansion delay would have a direct\n\nimpact on the firm\u2019s expected cash flows and thus expected firm value, which is why analysts\n\nlowered their price targets consequent to revenues and earnings falling short of expectations and\n\nguidance being lowered. Further, contrary to Dr. Garmaise\u2019s assertion re \u201cthe lack of subsequent\n\ndiscussion\u2026in\u2026analyst reports\u201d 106, as noted in my Merits Report, two analyst reports in the week\n\nfollowing the August 17, 2021 press release mentioned increased expenses from executive\n\ncompensation when summarizing quarterly results.107 However, both noted its non-recurring\n\nnature and instead focused on revenue growth and outlook. For example, one analyst\u2019s \u201ckey\n\ntakeaways\u201d focused on revenue outlook (projections of $44.7M for FY2021) consequent to\n\nplanned increases in miners deployed and hashrate expected to be achieved.\n\n 65. Thus, following the ATL Acquisition whereby analysts\u2019 revenue growth estimates\n\nincreased, the continued delay in meaningful progress towards energy and hashrate capacity forced\n\nanalysts and investors to progressively ratchet down their revenue growth expectations as i) actual\n\nresults continued to come in below consensus, ii) CleanSpark continued to lower guidance, and\n\niii) CleanSpark continued to delay the expansion timeline.\n\n\n\n104\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 79.\n105\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 97.\n106\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 79.\n107\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 152.\n\n 31\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 35 of 67\n\n\n\n\n C. The February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 Corrective Disclosures Provided\n New Information Regarding Expansion Delays\n\n 66. Dr. Garmaise makes several claims in his report regarding whether information in\n\nthe February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 corrective disclosures was new information. With\n\nrespect to February 12, 2021, he claims that \u201c\u2026Dr. Bozanic fails to establish that the information\n\nregarding the ATL expansion project was new on February 12, 2021.\u201d 108 With respect to August\n\n17, 2021, he claims that \u201cDr. Bozanic fails to establish what new information regarding the ATL\n\ncapacity expansion timeline was conveyed by the August 17, 2021, press release, particularly\n\ngiven an earlier announcement by CleanSpark on July 14, 2021.\u201d In the sections below, I discuss\n\nhow both corrective disclosures provided new information to the market regarding capacity\n\nexpansion delays.\n\n a. The February 12, 2021 Corrective Disclosure\n\n 67. Regarding the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure109, I discussed in my Merits\n\nReport how CleanSpark provided operational highlights in a press release as well as outlook\n\nregarding the energy and mining capacity at its ATL Facility.110 With respect to the operational\n\nhighlights, the Company stated that \u201cThe capacity increase is underway and is expected to be\n\ncomplete by mid-year 2021.\u201d With respect to energy and mining capacity outlook, the Company\n\nstated: \u201cWe expect this to bring the total capacity under CleanSpark\u2019s subsidiaries to between\n\n1.0 to 1.3 EH/s by mid-summer.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n108\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 78.\n109\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Reports Quarterly Financial Results for the Three-Months Ended December 31, 2020,\u201d\nCleanSpark, February 12, 2021.\n110\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 113.\n\n 32\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 36 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 68. I also considered whether the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure provided\n\ninvestors with new information.111 On January 5, 2021 CEO Bradford had an after-market\n\ninterview with the TDA Network, which CleanSpark tweeted. In that interview, Bradford is quoted\n\nas saying: \u201cWe\u2019re expanding the facility from 20MW up to 50 MW. We expect that that\u2019ll be\n\ndone late spring / early July.\u201d112\n\n 69. In the pre-market press release113 issued earlier that day, investors learned from the\n\nfirst substantive paragraph that \u201cCleanSpark produced just over 31 Bitcoins from its mining\n\nactivities.\u201d and \u201cBitcoin mining activities have resulted in roughly $873,000 of revenue since the\n\nclosing of the transaction.\u201d Further, CEO Bradford stated: \u201cWe anticipate completion of our\n\nnear-term expansion within the coming weeks adding 1,500 more ASICs miners in January.\u201d\n\nwhich was broadly disseminated via Globe Newswire114, yet there was no mention of any\n\nexpansion delays in the release. In contrast, the online, streaming-only TDA Network interview\n\nwas not distributed via a press release over newswire, not posted on the Company\u2019s website, and\n\nwas not filed with the SEC, nor did CleanSpark highlight expansion delays during the interview.\n\n 70. As noted in my Merits Report, investors at this point in time would find the 31\n\nbitcoins and $873K in revenue discussed in the widely disseminated January 5, 2021 pre-market\n\npress release highly value relevant.115 This is because this incremental gain in bitcoin mining\n\nrevenue from only 26 days of bitcoin mining was almost 90% of the quarterly revenues from\n\nall other segments combined for the quarter ended December 31, 2019.116\n\n\n111\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 129-137.\n112\n https://twitter.com/CleanSpark_Inc/status/1346599574639497217\n113\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d CleanSpark, January 5, 2021.\n114\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d GlobeNewswire, January 5, 2021, 9:25 AM.\n115\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 135.\n116\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 133.\n\n 33\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 37 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 71. Further, with four months to go until the expected April 2021 completion date, \u201clate\n\nspring\u201d from the TDA Network interview could reasonably be interpreted as \u2018on schedule\u2019 by\n\ninvestors. Reinforcing this view, the TDA Network interviewer did not question \u201clate spring / early\n\nJuly\u201d.117 Also reinforcing this view is that a review of news articles and analyst reports118 in the\n\nweek following the January 5, 2021 event reveals no mention of an expansion delay but rather a\n\nfocus by the financial media on the 31 bitcoins produced to date and the accompanying\n\nincremental revenue gain.119 Thus, in my opinion, the information provided by CleanSpark in\n\nthe February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure regarding its revised timeline to \u201cmid-summer\u201d or\n\n\u201cmid-year 2021\u201d provided new information to the market regarding capacity expansion delays.\n\n b. The August 17, 2021 Corrective Disclosure\n\n 72. Regarding the August 17, 2021 corrective disclosure120, I discussed in my Merits\n\nReport that CleanSpark provided operational highlights in a press release as well as outlook\n\nregarding the energy and mining capacity at its ATL Facility.121 With respect to the operational\n\nhighlights, the Company stated: \u201cCurrent hashrate capacity now exceeds 820 PH/s\u2026The\n\nCompany anticipates achieving 1.0 EH/s in production capacity within the coming month when\n\nthe balance of the mining rigs scheduled to be hashing in August are installed.\u201d With respect to\n\nenergy and mining capacity outlook, the Company stated that \u201cCleanSpark continues to work on\n\nexpanding its total energy capacity to accelerate the growth of its bitcoin mining operations in\n\nAtlanta this fall. The expansion will bring this site\u2019s total capacity to 50 MW.\u201d This information\n\n\n117\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 134.\n118\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 135.\n119\n \u201cCleanSpark produces just over 31 bitcoin from mining...,\u201d TheFly.com, January 5, 2021, 9:27 AM.\n120\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000429/clsk10q.htm\n121\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 139.\n\n 34\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 38 of 67\n\n\n\n\nprovided by CleanSpark regarding its revised timeline to \u201cthis fall\u201d for energy and hashrate\n\ncapacity was new information to the market.\n\n 73. My view is supported by an analyst report at BTIG on August 16, 2021 that\n\nindicates actual revenues for the period came in 22% below the analyst consensus estimate and\n\nmanagement had lowered its revenue guidance expectations.122 Analysts at BTIG further noted\n\nthat CleanSpark\u2019s hashrate capacity as of August 16, 2021 is \u201cset to ramp its hash capacity from\n\n820 PH/s\u2026\u201d thus implying that CleanSpark once again missed the 0.9-1.4 EH/s hashrate\n\nexpected by April 2021. On this news, BTIG lowered its price target by 22%, from $45 to $35 per\n\nshare. This price target reduction was also picked up by the financial media.123\n\n 74. Dr. Garmaise claims that the information provided by the August 17, 2021\n\ncorrective disclosure was not new to the market.124 He points to a CleanSpark press release125 from\n\nJuly 14, 2021 that announced CleanSpark\u2019s agreement to send mining rigs to Coinmint since the\n\nATL Facility did not have the additional power capacity needed to run the rigs. CEO Bradford is\n\nquoted in the announcement as saying:\n\n \u201cWe anticipate that this agreement will enable us to expedite the time to reach 1.2 EH/s.\n All of our recent shipments of mining rigs have arrived as agreed under our purchase\n agreements. Over the course of the next three months, we plan to redirect our\n shipments to the Coinmint facilities to maximize the contracted 25 MW of clean power.\n Once we have reached full allocated capacity under the Coinmint agreement, we will\n then direct shipments of the new units to our Atlanta facilities.\u201d\n\n and\n\n \u201cThe 30MW energy expansion of our wholly-owned facilities is progressing and will\n be finalized in the coming months to bring our Atlanta facilities to 50MW of total\n capacity. We intend to deploy miners to utilize the total available capacity in Atlanta with\n122\n \u201cSome Growing Pains, But Bitcoin Mining Ramp Underway Now and Later, Lowering PT to $35,\u201d BTIG, dated\nAugust 16, 2021.\n123\n \u201cCleanSpark price target lowered to $35 from $45 at BTIG analyst,\u201d TheFly.com, August 17, 2021, 6:45AM.\n124\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 90.\n125\n \u201cCleanSpark Announces Agreement with ESG-Focused Crypto-Miner, Coinmint,\u201d CleanSpark, July 14, 2021.\n\n 35\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 39 of 67\n\n\n\n\n the units scheduled to arrive between September 2021 and January 2022. Upon\n installation, CleanSpark\u2019s total deployed hashrate is expected to exceed to 2.1 EH/s.\u201d\n\n\n 75. From the above statements, Dr. Garmaise suggests that the August 17, 2021\n\ncorrective disclosure re extending the expansion timeline \u2013 i.e., \u201ccontinues to work on expanding\n\nits total energy capacity\u2026this fall\u201d \u2013 is not new to the market because CleanSpark states in the\n\nCoinmint announcement that \u201cunits scheduled to arrive between September 2021 and January\n\n2022.\u201d126 I disagree, for the reasons outlined below.\n\n 76. First, investors learned from the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure that \u201cThe\n\ncapacity increase is underway and is expected to be complete by mid-year 2021.\u201d With respect\n\nto energy and mining capacity outlook, the Company stated: \u201cWe expect this to bring the total\n\ncapacity under CleanSpark\u2019s subsidiaries to between 1.0 to 1.3 EH/s by mid-summer.\u201d Mid-\n\nyear 2021 can be considered as July 1. The dates for summer 2021 were June 20 \u2013 September 21\n\nand fall were September 22 \u2013 December 20. Mid-summer 2021 would be roughly August 5.\n\nTherefore, the date range for \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-summer\u201d is July 1 \u2013 August 5, 2021.\n\n 77. Second, investors learned from the August 17, 2021 corrective disclosure that the\n\nfirm had not met its goal 0.9-1.4 EH/s hashrate expected by April 2021 since CEO Bradford states\n\nthat the Coinmint agreement would \u201cexpedite the time to reach 1.2 EH/s.\u201d In addition, as of July\n\n14, 2021, investors learn that CleanSpark still did not have the requisite power capacity at the ATL\n\nFacility to run the rigs that would increase hashrate capacity to the 0.9-1.4 EH/s expected, but\n\nrather that it would be finalized \u201cin the coming months\u201d as additional rigs start to arrive in\n\nSeptember 2021.\n\n\n\n\n126\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 90.\n\n 36\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 40 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 78. The Coinmint agreement was a separate and distinct initiative from the ATL\n\nFacility. First, this is evidenced by the shift in expectations by CleanSpark in light of the Coinmint\n\nagreement. As CEO Bradford noted in the July 14, 2021 Coinmint announcement \u2013 the same\n\nannouncement where he stated that the Coinmint agreement would \u201cexpedite the time to reach 1.2\n\nEH/s\u201d \u2013 the combined expected hashrate from both initiatives would exceed 2.1 EH/s: \u201cUpon\n\ninstallation, CleanSpark\u2019s total deployed hashrate is expected to exceed to 2.1 EH/s.\u201d Second, any\n\ncapacity increase achieved at the Coinmint facility does not fulfil investor expectations regarding\n\nthe ATL facility with respect to future revenues and cash flows and thus firm value. The ATL\n\nFacility announcement on December 10, 2020 is clear about the energy and hashrate capacity to\n\nbe built at the ATL Facility127, not other facilities such as those operated by Coinmint. This is\n\ncritically important as investor expectations regarding CleanSpark\u2019s future growth using a\n\ncompetitor\u2019s facility would lower future cash flow expectations and thus firm value.\n\n 79. According to a June 21, 2021 interview with Water Tower Research 128, this view\n\nis held by CEO Bradford himself when he states: \u201cIn addition, if you don\u2019t own your facility\n\nand you\u2019re hosting all of your machines somewhere else, you\u2019re really building somebody\n\nelse\u2019s business. There are groups like Marathon that have made a choice to host everything\n\nelsewhere and again, that makes the other companies more valuable\u2026\u201d\n\n 80. Lastly, since the date range for \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-summer\u201d is July 1 \u2013 August 5,\n\n2021, CEO Bradford\u2019s statements on July 14, 2021 that the expansion would be \u201cfinalized in the\n\ncoming months\u201d could reasonably be interpreted by investors as consistent with the expectations\n\n\n\n\n127\n \u201cWe anticipate that upon completion of the equipment and energy expansion, the [ATL] facility is expected to\nproduce between 0.9-1.4 EH/s\u2026\u201d\n128\n \u201cA Business Update with CleanSpark CEO Zach Bradford and Executive Chairman Matt Schultz,\u201d Water Tower\nResearch, June 21, 2021.\n\n 37\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 41 of 67\n\n\n\n\nset in the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure of \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-summer.\u201d And, similarly,\n\nsince the last day of summer in 2021 was technically September 21, 2021, the July 14, 2021\n\ndisclosure indicating that the units would start to arrive in September could reasonably be\n\ninterpreted by investors as still within the timeframe promised in the February 12, 2021 disclosure.\n\nLastly, since \u201cthis fall\u201d (i.e., September 22 \u2013 December 20, 2021) and \u201cmid-year\u201d to \u201cmid-\n\nsummer\u201d (i.e., July 1 \u2013 August 5, 2021) clearly reflect different time periods, the August 17, 2021\n\ncorrective disclosure re \u201cthis fall\u201d provided new information to the market regarding capacity\n\nexpansion delays.\n\n 81. My view of the July 14, 2021 Coinmint announcement not providing new\n\ninformation is further reinforced in a Fireside Chat129 held later the same day with Water Tower\n\nResearch where CEO Bradford states: \u201cWe\u2019ve talked a lot about our energy expansion in Georgia,\n\nand as I said is progressing well, and we\u2019re on track for late summer to bring that capacity online\n\n\u2026 by this September also we\u2019re going to be at 50 megawatts of total power at our current\n\nfacilities.\u201d Despite the Coinmint announcement noting that units are scheduled to arrive \u201cbetween\n\nSeptember 2021 and January 2022,\u201d CEO Bradford is clear in the Fireside Chat that, consistent\n\nwith the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure, CleanSpark is on track for \u201clate summer,\u201d which\n\ncould reasonably be construed as late August through September 21, 2021 which he clarifies later\n\nin the Fireside chat as \u201cthis September,\u201d which is the same month the rigs are expected to arrive.130\n\nThus, at this point in time, investors have reassurance that the February 12, 2021 timeframe could\n\n\n\n129\n \u201cWater Tower Research Virtual Conference,\u201d Bloomberg, July 14, 2021.\n130\n In addition to alleging that the January 5, 2021 TDA Network streaming interview and July 14, 2021 Coinmint\nannouncement provided new information regarding expansion delays, Dr. Garmaise also points to a March 2, 2021\npress release to potentially insinuate it provided information regarding expansion delays. The relevant excerpt reveals\nthat this information was not new relative to the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure, i.e., \u201cWe continue to\naggressively pursue the growth of our hash rate capacity and expect to reach 1 to 1.3 EH/s in total production capacity\nthis summer.\u201d\n\n 38\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 42 of 67\n\n\n\n\nstill reasonably be met \u2013 until the firm makes it clear in its August 17, 20221 corrective disclosure\n\nthat the timeline has clearly been delayed to \u201cthis fall.\u201d\n\n D. My Disaggregation Analysis of Confounding Information is Reasonable and\n Reliable\n\n 82. In analyzing the January 14-15, 2021 corrective disclosures, I stated in my Merits\n\nReport that it is possible to argue that Culper Research\u2019s claims regarding Green Dragon and Valle\n\nDivino are unrelated to the revelation of the relevant truth regarding the misrepresentations and\n\nomissions alleged by Plaintiffs in this case.131 Further, assuming that news related to the Green\n\nDragon and ILA / Valle Divino contracts as revealed by the Culper Report are unrelated to the\n\nalleged fraud, it is reasonable to consider the information regarding Green Dragon and Valle\n\nDivino contained in the Culper Report and associated tweets as potentially confounding\n\ninformation that should be disaggregated from CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price decline on\n\nJanuary 14-15, 2021.\n\n 83. In my Merits Report, I considered any non-fraud-related information disclosed on\n\nthe corrective disclosure dates that could have contributed to the observed stock price declines,\n\nand I removed this confounding information from my artificial inflation estimates. I concluded in\n\nmy Merits Report that there is no stock price component attributable to the potentially confounding\n\ninformation in the Culper Report regarding Green Dragon that would need to be disaggregated\n\nfrom the price decline on January 14-15, 2021 following the release of the Culper Report.132 I\n\nfurther concluded it is reasonable to assume that investors weighed the importance of information\n\nregarding the Valle Divino development site at $0.81 per share. While Dr. Garmaise raises few\n\ncriticisms in regards to my assessment of potentially confounding information regarding Valle\n\n\n131\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 102-103.\n132\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 108-109.\n\n 39\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 43 of 67\n\n\n\n\nDivino, he raises several criticisms of my assessment of potentially confounding information\n\nregarding Green Dragon.\n\n 84. Specifically, i) Dr. Garmaise disagrees with my opinion that \u201cinvestors did not view\n\nthe Green Dragon agreement as positively value relevant\u201d because CleanSpark was traded OTC\n\nduring this period; he thus questions market efficiency, ii) he criticizes the assertion that\n\n\u201cCleanSpark\u2019s stock price \u2018declined by 18.84%\u2019 on October 3, 2017\u201d on the basis that the 18.84%\n\nwas not \u201ca close-to-close price movement,\u201d and iii) he criticizes the \u201cassertion that \u2018the stock price\n\ndid not increase\u2019 on the other dates\u201d on the basis that it \u201clacks crucial context.\u201d133\n\n 85. I note that while Dr. Garmaise raises speculative questions about the exact amount\n\nof the price impact of confounding information contained within the corrective disclosures, he\n\ndoes not put forward any alternative calculations of the amount of confounding information or the\n\nlevel of artificial inflation dissipated on these dates. His critiques do not disturb any of my Merits\n\nReport calculations, opinions, or conclusions.\n\n 86. Further, during Dr. Garmaise\u2019s deposition, when asked about other forms of\n\nanalysis conducted in his report \u2013 e.g., regarding price impact of fabricated customers and\n\ncontracts, related party transactions, executive compensation, the existence of the Culper Report,\n\nand so forth \u2013 his repeated testimony was he did not undertake or offer his own \u201caffirmative\n\nanalysis.\u201d134 That is, in criticizing my report and its methodology, he offers no alternative\n\ncalculations or methodologies. However, what he does offer in its place are several academic\n\nstudies which, as discussed in Section IV.E above, are not relevant.\n\n\n\n\n133\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 58-61.\n134\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, pp. 25-32.\n\n 40\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 44 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 87. As stated in my Merits Report, if investors had viewed CleanSpark\u2019s prior\n\ndisclosures about the Green Dragon contract as positively value relevant, I would expect those\n\ndisclosures to generate positive stock price reactions.135 I identified four news events disclosed in\n\nthe months prior to the Culper Report which discussed the Green Dragon agreement. On October\n\n3, 2017, CleanSpark issued a press release announcing the agreement to provide a microgrid\n\nsolution to Green Dragon and the stock declined by 18.84% on a raw return basis.136 Additionally,\n\nI identified discussion regarding Green Dragon in three CleanSpark SEC filings (January 16, 2018,\n\nMarch 9, 2018, and April 5, 2018) and found that the stock price did not increase on those dates,\n\nwhich further suggests that investors did not view the Green Dragon agreement as positively value\n\nrelevant.\n\n 88. As an initial matter, I note that Defendants have not challenged my opinion that\n\nCleanSpark traded efficiently. While I agree that CleanSpark traded OTC in October 2017 137 and\n\nthat the 18.84% decline is using the closing price on October 3, 2017 relative to the last available\n\nprice which occurred on August 1, 2017, I disagree with Dr. Garmaise\u2019s conjecture that the Green\n\nDragon announcement was not positively value relevant. I searched for press releases, SEC filings,\n\nanalyst reports, and news articles between these dates (i.e., August 1, 2017 - October 3, 2017) to\n\ndetermine whether the absence of disclosures contributes to the lack of price movement.\n\n 89. During this period, CleanSpark issued two press releases, one announcing that an\n\ninside director would be replaced by the interim chairman of the board138 and the other announcing\n\n\n\n135\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 108.\n136\n \u201cCleanSpark Provides a Best-in-Class Microgrid Solution to the Marijuana Industry,\u201d CleanSpark, October 3,\n2017.\n137\n CleanSpark was approved for listing on the NASDAQ on January 24, 2020. See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357720000021/clsk8-k.htm\n138\n \u201cCleanSpark Announces Appointment of New Chairman of the Board,\u201d CleanSpark, September 26, 2017.\n\n 41\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 45 of 67\n\n\n\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s participation139 in a cannabis conference. During this period, CleanSpark made three\n\nfilings with the SEC: a filing that repeated the board change140, a Notice of Exempt Offering of\n\nSecurities141, and a 10-Q filing.142 News articles during this period similarly repeated information\n\nregarding the board change, conference participation, Notice filing, and 10-Q filing. No trades\n\noccurred on the basis of this information contained in these disclosures \u2013 until the October 3, 2017\n\nGreen Dragon announcement, which is associated with a raw negative return of 18.84%.\n\n 90. Thus, relative to the prior disclosures made during this period,\n\ninvestors did not find the Green Dragon announcement positively value relevant. The last of these\n\ndisclosures occurred on September 19, 2017 when the board change was announced, nearly two\n\nweeks ahead of the Green Dragon announcement.143 To the extent the board change could be\n\nviewed as positively value relevant144, the share price movement on the day of the Green Dragon\n\nannouncement does not support this view.\n\n 91. Of the other dates mentioned \u2013 January 16, 2018, March 9, 2018, and April 5, 2018\n\n\u2013 they are associated with SEC comment letter correspondence and 10-K filings. Academic\n\nresearch has shown that the stock market generally does not react to either of these disclosures.\n\nWith respect to the former, on average, there is very little value relevance145, i.e., \u201ccomment letters,\n\n\n\n\n139\n \u201cCleanSpark to Speak at 6th Annual CannaGrow Expo on October 28, 2017,\u201d CleanSpark, August 23, 2017.\n140\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000301/mainbody.htm\n141\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000267/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml\n142\n See SEC EDGAR, available at:\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000260/mainbody.htm\n143\n The board change was first announced in an SEC filing on September 19, 2017, Supra Footnote 141.\n144\n See, e.g., Lin, S., P. Pope, and S. Young, 2003, \u201cStock Market Reaction to the Appointment of Outside Directors,\u201d\nJournal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30.\n145\n See, e.g., Ryans, J., 2021, \u201cTextual classification of SEC comment letters,\u201d Review of Accounting Studies 26.\n\n 42\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 46 of 67\n\n\n\n\non average, do not have a significant impact on directional stock returns.\u201d With respect to the\n\nlatter, on average, research has shown that much of the information in the 10-K is already known\n\nfrom prior interim reports, which explains the muted market reaction.146 Thus, academic research\n\nis consistent with the lack of price movement on these days, which is also consistent with the\n\nassertion that none of these dates conveyed positively value relevant information.\n\n 92. Dr. Garmaise also criticizes my approach to analyzing potentially confounding\n\ninformation related to both Green Dragon and Valle Divino on the basis that I did not consider\n\n\u201cwhether there was confounding information on those dates\u201d where \u2018those dates\u2019 ostensibly refer\n\nto the dates used in my confound analysis for disaggregation purposes, i.e., October 3, 2017 for\n\nGreen Dragon and September 15, 2021 and October 19, 2021 for Valle Divino.147 I searched for\n\npress releases, SEC filings, analyst reports, and news articles on these dates to determine the\n\npossibility of other information unrelated to Green Dragon or Valle Divino that could influence\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s price movements on these dates. I found no CleanSpark press releases, no additional\n\nSEC filings, and no additional media articles on any of these days.\n\n 93. Lastly, Dr. Garmaise contends that I have failed to rule out confounding\n\ninformation related to financial metrics in the February 12, 2021 and August 17, 2021 disclosures\n\nannouncing quarterly financial results, as well revised revenue guidance for FY 2021 in the latter\n\ndisclosure.148\n\n 94. In regards to the February 12, 2021 corrective disclosure, I explained in my Merits\n\nReport that while the abnormal decline on February 12, 2021 is, in my opinion, attributable to the\n\n\n\n146\n See, e.g., Easton, P. and M. Zmijewski, 1993, \u201cSEC form 10-K/10-Q reports and annual reports to shareholders:\nReporting lags and squared market model prediction errors.\u201d Journal of Accounting Research 31.\n147\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 60-62, 64, 66.\n148\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 62, 66.\n\n 43\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 47 of 67\n\n\n\n\nnew information regarding expansion delays contained in the February 12, 2021 press release, I\n\nexamined CleanSpark\u2019s financial statements for the period October 1, 2020 through December 31,\n\n2020, released after market hours on February 11, 2021, to better understand other potential drivers\n\nof the observed stock price decline.149 I found no economic evidence of information unrelated\n\nto the Complaint\u2019s claims that needs to be disaggregated from the price decline on February\n\n12, 2021.150\n\n 95. Despite a press release reporting seemingly positive news for investors (e.g.,\n\nperiod-over-period increases in revenue as well as gross margins, both of which are primarily\n\nattributable to the new bitcoin mining segment), the return on CleanSpark\u2019s common stock was\n\nnegative that day on a loss of $0.32 per share.151 While revenue growth was positive, it failed to\n\nmeet market expectations; that is, CleanSpark\u2019s quarterly earnings (actual loss of $0.32 per share\n\nvs. loss of $0.12 expected) and revenue (actual revenue of $2.26 million vs. $2.83 expected) results\n\nwere below analyst expectations.152\n\n 96. In my opinion, the miss in revenue and earnings was relative to expectations set\n\nfollowing the ATL Facility announcement. On the day after the announcement, analysts at H.C.\n\nWainwright increased their target prices for CleanSpark by 33%, from $18 to $24.153 Analysts\n\nattributed the increase in target price to the ATL Acquisition: \u201cOur price target increase to $24.00\n\nfrom $18.00 is primarily driven by upward revisions to our future estimates to include new\n\nrevenue and margin contribution from bitcoin mining activity.\u201d Further, in the same report,\n\n\n149\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 121.\n150\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 128.\n151\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 120.\n152\n \u201cSet Up for Continued Strength in FY2021; F4Q20 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, dated December 21, 2020.\n153\n \u201cBitcoin Mining Acquisition Drives Estimates Higher; Raising Price Target to $24.00,\u201d H.C. Wainwright,\nDecember 11, 2020.\n\n 44\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 48 of 67\n\n\n\n\nanalysts expected bitcoin mining to be scaled immediately. Aside from a modest increase of 10\n\nPH/s in December 2020154, bitcoin had not been scaled immediately, as demonstrated by\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s revised timeline from the April 2021 to \u201cmid-year\u201d or \u201cmid-summer\u201d disclosed in\n\nthe February 12, 2021 press release.\n\n 97. In addition, as discussed in my Merits Report155, CleanSpark reported that total\n\noperating expense increased by 230% (from $3,085,564 to $7,094,778) period-over-period, or\n\nroughly $4 million. For example, some of the largest increases in expenses this period related to\n\npayroll ($3.3 million) and derivatives ($1 million). However, no analysts or media articles in the\n\nweek following the February 12, 2021 press release connected the increases in expenses related to\n\neither payroll or derivative securities to the observed price decline.\n\n 98. Thus, unlike revenue growth, the increase in operating expenses was not\n\neconomically material to investor expectations regarding Company profitability and value,\n\nespecially considering the nascent bitcoin segment earned more than twice the revenue per day\n\nthan the legacy segments (i.e., $34,924 revenue per day on average vs. $16,749)156. Given the\n\nrelative earnings streams between the segments, investors would find updates regarding energy\n\nand hashrate capacity expansion at the nascent bitcoin segment material and value relevant. Hence,\n\nthe information in the February 12, 2021 press release is corrective of the alleged misstatements\n\nand omissions because it revealed how CleanSpark had overstated its ability to increase energy\n\nand hash rate capacity at the ATL Facility in the timeline stated.\n\n 99. In regards to August 17, 2021 corrective disclosure, while the abnormal decline on\n\nAugust 17, 2021 is, in my opinion, attributable to the new information regarding expansion delays\n\n\n154\n See \u201cCleanSpark Provides Update on Bitcoin Mining Operations and Expansion,\u201d CleanSpark, December 18, 2020.\n155\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 123.\n156\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 122.\n\n 45\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 49 of 67\n\n\n\n\ncontained in the August 17, 2021 press release, I examined CleanSpark\u2019s financial statements for\n\nthe period April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, released after market hours on August 16, 2021,\n\nto better understand other potential drivers of the stock price decline. I concluded that I find no\n\neconomic evidence of information unrelated to the Complaint\u2019s claims that needs to be\n\ndisaggregated from the price decline on August 17, 2021.\n\n 100. Despite a press release reporting seemingly positive news for investors (e.g.,\n\nperiod-over-period increases in revenue, primarily attributable to the new bitcoin mining segment),\n\nthe return on CleanSpark\u2019s common stock was negative that day on a loss of $0.49 per share. 157\n\nWhile revenue growth was positive year-over-year, and especially related to bitcoin mining, it\n\nfailed to meet market expectations; that is, CleanSpark\u2019s quarterly earnings (adjusted loss of $0.38\n\nper share vs. profit of $0.07 expected) and revenue (actual revenue of $11.9 million vs.\n\napproximately $15 million expected) results were below analyst expectations.158 Analysts at BTIG\n\nalso noted management had \u201cnarrowed\u201d its revenue guidance expectations.159\n\n 101. In my opinion, the miss in revenue and earnings was related to expectations set\n\nfollowing the ATL Facility announcement and the updated timeline expectations set in the\n\nFebruary 12, 2021 press release. As discussed in my Merits Report160, as of February 24, 2021161,\n\nit was unclear what hashrate capacity beyond 200 PH/s the Company had in place, thus reducing\n\ninvestor confidence in the Company\u2019s disclosures and increasing investor skepticism regarding\n\n\n\n\n157\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 148.\n158\n \u201cSome Growing Pains, But Bitcoin Mining Ramp Underway Now and Later, Lowering PT to $35,\u201d BTIG, dated\nAugust 16, 2021.\n159\n \u201cManagement narrowed guidance with FY21 revenue now expected at $49M-$63M (previously $47M-$67M) with\nthe mid-point at $56M (down from $57M) versus Consensus of ~$52M.\u201d\n160\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 127.\n161\n \u201cCleanSpark Completes Strategic Acquisition of Solar Watt Solutions,\u201d CleanSpark, February 24, 2021.\n\n 46\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 50 of 67\n\n\n\n\nstatements pertaining to the expansion plans, leaving investors to estimate the actual hashrate in\n\nthe absence of a Company disclosure to the contrary. As of August 17, 2021, the hashrate capacity\n\nstated by CleanSpark in its press release was 820 PH/s \u2013 still short of the \u201c0.9-1.4 EH/s\u201d hashrate\n\nexpected by April 2021 as stated in the December 10, 2021 ATL Acquisition announcement.\n\n 102. According to the August 16, 2021 earnings report, total revenues grew by 247%\n\n(from $3,438,674 to $11,916,065) period-over-period, or roughly $8.47 million. Further, it is\n\napparent from the Consolidated Statement of Operations that the non-mining segments (i.e.,\n\nEnergy and Other) did not exhibit the same growth as the bitcoin mining segment (i.e., Digital\n\nCurrency Mining). Year-over-year growth in the period for non-mining segments was actually\n\nnegative at 5.3%, from $3,438,674 to $3,266,625, or a decline in revenue of approximately $172K.\n\nIn sharp contrast, bitcoin mining revenues were the lion\u2019s share of total revenues for the period,\n\nfrom $0 the same period last year to $8.65 million the current period, or 72% of total current\n\nperiod revenues.162\n\n 103. CleanSpark reported that total operating expense increased by 375% (from\n\n$5,582,273 to $26,534,244) period-over-period, or roughly $21 million. Some of the largest\n\nincreases in expenses this period relate to payroll ($11.8 million), bitcoin impairment ($3.7\n\nmillion), and derivatives ($2.1 million). However, as discussed in my Merits Report, neither the\n\nCompany nor analysts found the increases in payroll, bitcoin impairments, and derivatives to be\n\neconomically material.163\n\n\n\n\n162\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 150.\n163\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 151.\n\n 47\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 51 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 104. While two analyst reports164 in the week following the August 17, 2021 press\n\nrelease mentioned increased expenses from executive compensation when summarizing quarterly\n\nresults, both noted its non-recurring nature and instead focused on revenue growth and outlook.\n\nFor example, one analyst\u2019s \u201ckey takeaways\u201d focused on revenue outlook (projections of $44.7M\n\nfor FY2021) consequent to planned increases in miners deployed and hashrate expected to be\n\nachieved. Further, no media articles in the week following the August 17, 2021 press release\n\nconnected the increases in expenses related to payroll, impairments, or derivatives to the observed\n\nprice decline. Thus, unlike bitcoin mining revenue growth, the increase in operating expenses was\n\nnot economically material to investor expectations regarding Company profitability and value.\n\n 105. During the earnings call, CleanSpark lowered its guidance projections from a\n\nmidpoint of $57 million to $56 million for FY 2021.165 This reflects an $8 million increase in\n\nbitcoin revenue expectations which are nearly offset by a $7.5 million decrease in the energy\n\nsegment. A decrease of $1 million on $57 million reflects a 1.75% decline in overall revenue\n\nexpected. Given the offsetting nature of the segments, the small economic magnitude of the\n\ndecline, that investors were more focused on the growth in bitcoin, and that the revised consensus\n\nwas still $4 million or 7.7% above the consensus of approximately $52 million166, in my opinion,\n\nthe narrowed guidance was not economically material to investor expectations regarding Company\n\nprofitability and value.\n\n\n\n\n164\n \u201cPoised for Significant Ramp in Hashrate During FY2022; F3Q21 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright, August 18,\n2021; \u201c3Q2I Results: +247% Revenue Growth Fueled by Bitcoin Mining; Management Raises FY2I Guidance,\u201d\nWater Tower Research, August 19, 2021.\n165\n \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Q3 2021 Results Conference Call,\u201d Bloomberg, dated August 16, 2021.\n166\n \u201cSome Growing Pains, But Bitcoin Mining Ramp Underway Now and Later, Lowering PT to $35,\u201d BTIG, dated\nAugust 16, 2021.\n\n 48\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 52 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 106. Thus, unlike revenue growth, the increase in operating expenses and slight decrease\n\nin FY 2021 guidance were not economically material to investor expectations regarding Company\n\nprofitability and value. I conclude that CleanSpark\u2019s valuation and growth expectations following\n\nthe ATL acquisition are predicated on investor expectations regarding CleanSpark\u2019s stated plans\n\nregarding energy and hashrate capacity and expansion at their bitcoin mining segment (i.e.,\n\nrevenue growth), as opposed to the non-mining segments or operating expenses.\n\nVI. Damages and Artificial Inflation\n\n 107. In my Merits Report, I quantified the per share artificial inflation dissipated from\n\nthe price of CleanSpark Common Stock on the Corrective Disclosure Events.167 Dr. Garmaise does\n\nnot dispute:\n\n a) that the event study methodology I employed in both my Efficiency Report\n and in my Merits Report is a reliable method for quantifying artificial\n inflation in this case.\n\n b) that I properly performed a reliable event study to determine the impact\n that each of the Corrective Disclosure Events had on the price of CleanSpark\n Common Stock (indeed Dr. Garmaise relies on the results of my event study\n in reaching certain conclusions).168\n\n c) that I properly calculated the abnormal declines in the market price of\n CleanSpark Common Stock on each of the Corrective Disclosure Events, after\n controlling for market and industry effects.\n\n 108. Despite this, Dr. Garmaise criticizes my use of the constant dollar methodology in\n\nbackcasting the level of artificial inflation dissipated by the Corrective Disclosure Events. 169 He\n\nprovides the following critiques, which I address in the following sections: that a) I fail to \u201creliably\n\nestablish that the alleged misrepresentations caused investor losses\u2026\u201d170; b) I provide no\n\n\n167\n Bozanic Merits Report, Section VIII.\n168\n See, for example, Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 37, 76.\n169\n Garmaise Report \u00b6\u00b6 101-114.\n170\n Garmaise Report \u00b6 101.\n\n 49\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 53 of 67\n\n\n\n\njustification for the but-for valuation of CleanSpark implied by my artificial inflation estimate as\n\nof the start of the Class Period171; and c) I fail to account for changes over the Class Period in the\n\nprice of bitcoin, the bitcoin mining industry, CleanSpark\u2019s business model, and/or potential\n\nchanges in the economic impact of the alleged misrepresentations on the value of CleanSpark.172\n\n 109. Dr. Garmaise also claims that I do not provide adequate guidance: a) for a finder of\n\nfact to alter or adapt my measure of artificial inflation; b) to \u201cthe jury to decide what percentage\n\nof abnormal returns should be attributed to corrective versus confounding information\u201d; or c) for\n\nthe jury to assess \u201cthe evolution of artificial inflation over time, given the substantial variation in\n\nthe economic environment and business composition of CleanSpark during the Proposed Class\n\nPeriod.\u201d173 I reply to each critique in the following subsections, and I note that none of Dr.\n\nGarmaise\u2019s concerns disturb my Merits Report opinions.\n\n 110. As an initial matter, I note that Dr. Garmaise\u2019s claim that I fail to \u201creliably establish\n\nthat the alleged misrepresentations caused investor losses\u2026\u201d174 is misguided. In my Merits Report,\n\nI explain that:\n\n My opinions regarding economic materiality, loss causation, and damages in this\n matter arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of\n 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, are premised upon\n Defendants being found to have knowingly or recklessly made material\n misrepresentations or omissions during the Class Period regarding CleanSpark\u2019s\n ability to expand their energy and hashrate capacity at the ATL Facility in the\n timeline stated and to operate the facility at low cost through advantageous\n contract terms with the local municipality.175\n\n\n\n\n171\n Garmaise Report \u00b6\u00b6 102-103.\n172\n Garmaise Report \u00b6\u00b6 104-114.\n173\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 115-118.\n174\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6 101.\n175\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 13.\n\n 50\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 54 of 67\n\n\n\n\n 111. It is not my burden to prove Plaintiffs\u2019 case. Rather, my opinions are premised upon\n\nDefendants being found to have knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations and/or\n\nomissions. Despite this, in my Merits Report,176 and as discussed in the preceding sections, I\n\nprovide ample support for my opinions regarding economic materiality, loss causation, and\n\ndamages. As a result, Dr. Garmaise\u2019s opinions are unfounded and irrelevant.\n\n 112. Moreover, I note that Dr. Garmaise does not put forward any alternative\n\ncalculations of artificial inflation, approach to the backcasting of artificial inflation, or method for\n\ncalculating damages in this matter. In his deposition testimony he asserted the same. In response\n\nto a question about whether he believes there should be zero damages associated with the price\n\ndrops on the corrective disclosures dates, he testified that \u201cI have offered the opinion that Dr.\n\nBozanic has not shown, has not reliably shown that there are damages. I\u2019m not offering an\n\naffirmative opinion\u2026\u201d177 When asked if he could put forth alternate models to overcome the\n\npurported shortcomings on my model, he testified that \u201cI don\u2019t have an affirmative opinion on a\n\nseparate model for damages.\u201d yet he is able to opine that \u201ca constant dollar model is unreliable and\n\ninappropriate\u2026\u201d178 None of Dr. Garmaise\u2019s critiques alter my Merits Report opinions.\n\n A. The Constant Dollar Method is Appropriate in this Matter\n\n 113. In my Merits Report, I concluded that the constant dollar methodology of\n\nmeasuring inflation is appropriate in this matter. Specifically, I stated:\n\n Based on my understanding of Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations, coupled with my review of\n the documents and information identified in Appendix A, I conclude that constant\n dollar inflation is appropriate in this matter. My opinion is based on the fact that\n the nature of the misrepresented and/or omitted information did not change during\n the Class Period. Specifically, I understand that Plaintiffs expect to prove that as\n\n176\n Bozanic Merits Report, Sections VI-IX.\n177\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, p. 48.\n178\n Garmaise Deposition Transcript, p. 48-49.\n\n 51\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 55 of 67\n\n\n\n\n of the start of the Class Period, Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that\n CleanSpark understated its mining costs, overstated its ability to further reduce\n energy costs through its \u201csoftware technologies and trade secrets,\u201d and overstated\n its ability to increase energy and hash rate capacity \u2013 and concealed these issues\n from investors.\n As a result of the foregoing, I find no economic reason to believe that the\n financial impact of the misstatements and/or omissions would have been any\n different earlier in the Class Period and thus I find no economic reason to deviate\n from the standard constant dollar methodology. In my view, the most widely\n accepted and reliable proxy for evaluating how the market would have reacted to\n such a disclosure at the beginning of the Class Period is to rely upon the abnormal\n market price decline observed upon the later disclosure of such information.179\n\n\n 114. In other words, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew about or recklessly\n\ndisregarded that CleanSpark had understated its mining costs, overstated its ability to further\n\nreduce its energy costs, and overstated its ability to increase its energy and hash rate capacity as of\n\nthe start of the Class Period, and that these issues persisted throughout the Class Period. Since\n\nthese issues were allegedly known by Defendants from the beginning of the Class Period, and\n\nremained present throughout, there is no reason to believe that the financial impact of the alleged\n\nmisrepresentations would have changed had the truth been disclosed any earlier in the Class Period\n\nprior to the alleged Corrective Disclosure Events. In my view, the same information, if revealed\n\nsooner, would have had a comparable negative impact on the price of CleanSpark Common Stock,\n\nmeaning the per share artificial inflation would have been maintained throughout the Class Period.\n\n 115. Dr. Garmaise argues that my use of the constant dollar approach is economically\n\nunreasonable. Importantly, in criticizing my use of the constant dollar methodology, Dr. Garmaise\n\ndoes not present any alternative methodology to measure per share artificial inflation. I note that\n\nthe constant dollar methodology is a standard and well-accepted methodology.180 Indeed, Dr.\n\n\n179\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 157-158.\n180\n See, e.g., In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, 730 F.Supp.3d 172 (2024).\n\n 52\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 56 of 67\n\n\n\n\nGarmaise does not dispute this about the constant dollar methodology in general. Rather, he takes\n\nissue with its application to this matter specifically. He claims that I fail to account for changes\n\nover the Class Period in the price of bitcoin, the bitcoin mining industry, CleanSpark\u2019s business\n\nmodel, and/or potential changes in the economic impact of the alleged misrepresentations on the\n\nvalue of CleanSpark.181 He further claims that I fail to justify the implied but-for valuation of\n\nCleanSpark as of the start of the Class Period.182 As discussed below, his concerns are unfounded\n\nand flawed.\n\n 116. First, as noted in my Merits Report, I considered all potential inflation creating\n\nevents throughout the Class Period, which introduce artificial inflation into the Common Stock\n\nprice during the Class Period.183 This would allow for a smaller amount of artificial inflation to be\n\nbackcast to the start of the Class Period. As noted in my Merits Report, the actionable alleged\n\nmisrepresentations made after the start of the Class Period and with potential price impact repeated\n\nsimilar information from previous alleged misrepresentations.184 Thus, while they could serve to\n\nmaintain artificial inflation in CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price, they did not introduce any\n\nadditional artificial inflation.\n\n 117. Second, as explained in my Efficiency Report and Merits Report, my daily event\n\nstudy methodology explicitly controls for changes in the overall market, changes in CleanSpark\u2019s\n\nsoftware-related industry, and changes in CleanSpark\u2019s bitcoin mining industry (including the\n\nprice of bitcoin) throughout the Class Period.185 This event study approach explicitly disaggregates\n\n\n\n181\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 104-114.\n182\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 102-103.\n183\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 78.\n184\n Id.\n185\n Bozanic Efficiency Report, Section V.E; Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 68.\n\n 53\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 57 of 67\n\n\n\n\nany market-based, industry-based, and Bitcoin pricing-based confounding information occurring\n\nduring the alleged Corrective Disclosure Events. I further note that Dr. Garmaise\u2019s concerns relate\n\nto potential non-fraud-related aspects of CleanSpark\u2019s business. While it is possible that the\n\nmarket, the industry, the price of Bitcoin, and other elements of CleanSpark\u2019s business may have\n\nevolved over the course of the Class Period, my analysis pertains to the alleged fraud-related\n\nartificial inflation present in the Company\u2019s Common Stock price, as opposed to questions about\n\nissues that are not alleged to be connected to the fraud.\n\n 118. Third, I note that CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price prior to the start of the Class\n\nPeriod was virtually identical to the Company\u2019s Common Stock price after the end of the Class\n\nPeriod \u2013 trading in the $11 to $12 range both before and after the Class Period.186 This contradicts\n\nDr. Garmaise\u2019s speculation that the constant dollar methodology is somehow inappropriate in this\n\nmatter.187 In other words, the business outlook and valuation for the Company was remarkably\n\nsimilar before versus after the Class Period.\n\n 119. Fourth, I note that the constant percentage method represents an alternative\n\napproach to backcasting of artificial inflation. Dr. Garmaise\u2019s concerns about fluctuations in the\n\nvalue impact of the alleged misrepresentations throughout the Class Period due to fluctuations in\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s business outlook imply that a finder of fact could rely on this alternative backcasting\n\nmethod. Instead of backcasting a constant dollar value of inflation dissipated by the Corrective\n\nDisclosure Events, this approach would backcast a constant percentage value of inflation\n\n\n\n\n186\n Source: Bloomberg. For example, CleanSpark\u2019s average daily closing stock price was $11.80 over December 1-9,\n2020, and closed at $11.65 on August 17, 2021.\n187\n I further note that Dr. Garmaise\u2019s implied speculation that artificial inflation must be capped at $26.3 million based\non an implied valuation of the ATL transaction (Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 15, 103, 186), is contradicted by academic\nresearch. See, e.g., Moeller, S., F. Schlingemann, and R. Stulz, 2005, \u201cWealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A\nStudy of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave,\u201d Journal of Finance 60.\n\n 54\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 58 of 67\n\n\n\n\ndissipated by the Corrective Disclosure Events. These amounts would be calculated from the\n\nunderlying data188 and Table A in my Merits Report:\n\n Table 1:\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share Dissipated\n (Constant Percentage Approach)\n\n Date $ Artificial Inflation % Artificial Inflation\n Dissipated Dissipated\n January 14, 2021 $4.48 11.39%\n January 15, 2021 $4.03 11.29%\n February 12, 2021 $1.68 5.74%\n August 17, 2021 $1.50 10.90%\n\n\n 120. Next, the percentage declines attributed to artificial inflation would be backcast on\n\na constant basis, as done in Table B of my Merits Report:\n\n Table 2:\n CleanSpark Common Stock\n Artificial Inflation per Share During the Class Period\n (Constant Percentage Approach)\n\n Date Range % Artificial Inflation\n per Share\n December 10, 2020 \u2013 January 13, 2021 33.98%\n January 14, 2021 25.50%\n January 15, 2021 \u2013 February 11, 2021 16.01%\n February 12, 2021 \u2013 August 16, 2021 10.90%\n\n\n 121. Exhibit 1 provides a graph of the level of CleanSpark\u2019s Common Stock price\n\nartificial inflation over the Class Period calculated in my Merits Report, using constant dollar\n\nbackcasting, versus the level calculated using this constant percentage approach. While I reaffirm\n\n\n\n188\n Sources: Bozanic Merits Report, Section VIII and underlying event study; Bloomberg daily closing prices for\nCleanSpark Common Stock. The % Artificial Inflation Dissipated equals the negative of the abnormal return % from\nmy event study (See Bozanic Merits Report, Exhibit 3) for January 15, February 12, and August 17, 2021. For January\n14, 2021 to incorporate my confounding information calculations, the amount is calculated as: 13.45% * ($4.48 /\n$5.29).\n\n 55\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 59 of 67\n\n\n\n\nthe reasonableness of my Merits Report artificial inflation ribbon, I acknowledge that a finder of\n\nfact could also reasonably conclude that the constant percentage inflation ribbon is also appropriate\n\nin this matter. Regardless, this calculation represents an input to the out-of-pocket damages\n\nformula, which Dr. Garmaise does not dispute represents a reliable approach to calculating\n\ndamages in this matter.\n\n B. My Artificial Inflation and Damages Methodology are Adaptable to Alternative\n Findings\n\n 122. Finally, Dr. Garmaise opines that I do not provide adequate guidance: a) for a finder\n\nof fact to alter or adapt my measure of artificial inflation; b) to \u201cthe jury to decide what percentage\n\nof abnormal returns should be attributed to corrective versus confounding information\u201d; or c) for\n\nthe jury to assess \u201cthe evolution of artificial inflation over time, given the substantial variation in\n\nthe economic environment and business composition of CleanSpark during the Proposed Class\n\nPeriod.\u201d189 He is incorrect, as explained below.\n\n 123. First, my Merits Report provides detailed calculations laying out the percentage of\n\nabnormal returns that are attributable to corrective versus confounding information.190 Moreover,\n\nI explain in my Merits Report that, should a jury reach an alternative finding regarding this or other\n\ninputs to the artificial inflation and damages calculations, these can easily be plugged into the out-\n\nof-pocket damages formula:\n\n [I]rrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury determines is the\n appropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of\n corrective versus confounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted\n into the standard damages model that I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket\n formula. For example, as described in Section VII.A., I estimate that $0.81 cents\n of the abnormal price movement in CleanSpark Common Stock on January 14-15,\n 2021 is attributable to confounding information. Assume, for purely illustrative\n purposes, that the jury determines that instead, $1.20 of the of the abnormal price\n\n189\n Garmaise Report, \u00b6\u00b6 115-118.\n190\n Bozanic Merits Report, Section VIII.\n\n 56\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 60 of 67\n\n\n\n\n movement in CleanSpark Common Stock on January 14-15, 2021 is attributable\n to the confounding information. The daily inflation table could easily be updated\n for this alternative finding. Regardless of how the jury weighs evidence, whether\n they find that my disaggregation analysis is the most appropriate, or they\n determine that based upon the evidence, a different percentage is more\n appropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages calculation.\n\n Similarly, if the jury determines that none of the abnormal return on a Corrective\n Disclosure Event is attributable to the corrective information, then it would be\n assumed that $0 of inflation was dissipated from CleanSpark Common Stock on\n that date, which could also easily be updated in the daily inflation table.191\n\n 124. Second, as discussed above and in my Merits Report, I have properly considered\n\nchanges in CleanSpark\u2019s business composition and the economic environment over the Class\n\nPeriod. Nonetheless, my Merits Report also explains how the out-of-pocket damages model can\n\neasily accommodate any alternative findings of fact:\n\n [S]hould the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over the\n Class Period, the out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a\n scenario and can mechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis. In a\n hypothetical example, assume the jury concludes that before December 15, 2020,\n inflation was only half of the value I have calculated. As shown above in Table B,\n I have estimated $11.69 of artificial inflation was present in CleanSpark Common\n Stock from the start of the Class Period through January 13, 2021. If the jury\n determines that inflation was only half that amount from December 10, 2020\n through December 14, 2020, then the inflation table I presented above can be\n adjusted to $5.85 for that initial period (i.e., 50% of $11.69).192\n\n 125. Third, as discussed above, should the jury determine that a constant percentage\n\napproach to backcasting is more appropriate, such a finding can easily be accommodated within\n\nthe out-of-pocket damages methodology. It is for this reason that I explain in my Merits Report\n\nhow my damages methodology is flexible and able to easily incorporate alternative findings of fact\n\nto calculate damages on a common, Class-wide basis.193\n\n\n191\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 165.\n192\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6 166.\n193\n Bozanic Merits Report, \u00b6\u00b6 167-168.\n\n 57\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 61 of 67\n\n\n\n\nVII. Conclusion\n\n 126. First, my use of and interpretation of statistical significance is consistent with\n\nacademic literature, my deposition, and my Prior Reports. Second, the Culper Report and related\n\ntweets provided new information to the market, consistent with my assessment of their value\n\nrelevance, as supported by the disclosure salience literature. Third, the February 12, 2021 and\n\nAugust 17, 2021 corrective disclosures provided new information to the market regarding\n\nexpansion delays. Finally, the constant dollar method is appropriate in this matter and is adaptable\n\nto alternate findings.\n\n\n\n I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 58\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 62 of 67\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A\n Documents Considered\nCase Documents:\n \u2022 Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc. 36).\n \u2022 Efficiency Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated January 10, 2025.\n \u2022 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated February 27, 2025.\n \u2022 Defendants\u2019 Opposition to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Class Certification, dated March 14, 2025\n (Doc. 92).\n \u2022 Expert Reply Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated May 2, 2025.\n \u2022 Expert Merits Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated July 18, 2025.\n \u2022 Expert Report of Mark Garmaise Ph.D., dated September 12, 2025.\n \u2022 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Mark Garmaise, dated September 30, 2025.\n\n\nCourt Decisions and Securities Law:\n \u2022 PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005).\n \u2022 Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., 327 F.R.D. 38 (2018).\n \u2022 Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Southern Co., 332 F.R.D. 370, 393\n (N.D. Ga. 2019)\n \u2022 In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, 730 F.Supp.3d 172 (2024).\n\n\nAcademic Literature and Books:\n \u2022 Armour, J., C. Mayer, and E. Polo, 2017, \u201cRegulatory Sanctions and Reputational\n Damage in Financial Markets,\u201d Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 52.\n \u2022 Axelson, P. and M. Cain, 2025, \u201cWhat is Price Impact? How the Goldman Decisions are\n Reshaping Shareholder Class Actions,\u201d Berkeley Business Law Journal 22.\n \u2022 Blankespoor, E., E. DeHaan, and I. Marinovic, 2020, \u201cDisclosure Processing Costs,\n Investors\u2019 Information Choice, and Equity Market Outcomes: A Review,\u201d Journal of\n Accounting and Economics 70.\n \u2022 Bowen, R., A. Davis, and D. Matsumoto, 2005, \u201cEmphasis on Pro Forma versus GAAP\n Earnings in Quarterly Press Releases: Determinants, SEC Intervention, and Market\n Reactions,\u201d The Accounting Review 80.\n \u2022 Brav, A. and J. Heaton, 2015, \u201cEvent Studies in Securities Litigation: Low Power,\n Confounding Effects, and Bias,\u201d Washington University Law Review 93.\n\n\n\n A-1\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 63 of 67\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 Buysschaert, A., M. Deloof, M. Jegers, 2004, \u201cEquity sales in Belgian corporate groups:\n expropriation of minority shareholders? A clinical study,\u201d Journal of Corporate Finance\n 10.\n\u2022 Carter, M., L. Li, A. Marcus, and H. Tehranian, 2016, \u201cExcess Pay and Deficient\n Performance,\u201d Review of Financial Economics 30.\n\u2022 Casavecchia, L. and J. Suh, 2017, \u201cManagerial incentives for risk-taking and internal\n capital allocation,\u201d Australian Journal of Management 42.\n\u2022 Cheng, L., D. Roulstone, and A. Van Buskirk, 2021, \u201cAre Investors Influenced by the\n Order of Information in Earnings Press Releases?,\u201d The Accounting Review 96.\n\u2022 Cheung, Y., P. Rao, and A. Stouraitis, 2006, \u201cTunneling, Propping, and Expropriation:\n Evidence from Connected Party Transactions in Hong Kong,\u201d Journal of Financial\n Economics 82.\n\u2022 Core, J., R. Holthausen, and D. Larcker, 1999, \u201cCorporate Governance, Chief Executive\n Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance,\u201d Journal of Financial Economics 51.\n\u2022 Dechow, P., W. Ge, C. Larson, and R. Sloan, 2011, \u201cPredicting material accounting\n misstatements,\u201d Contemporary Accounting Research 28.\n\u2022 Easton, P. and M. Zmijewski, 1993, \u201cSEC form 10-K/10-Q reports and annual reports to\n shareholders: Reporting lags and squared market model prediction errors,\u201d Journal of\n Accounting Research 31.\n\u2022 Fama, E., 1970, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work,\u201d\n Journal of Finance 25.\n\u2022 Fama, E., 1991, \u201cEfficient Capital Markets: II\u201d Journal of Finance 46.\n\u2022 Files, R., E. Swanson, and S. Tse, 2009, \u201cStealth Disclosure of Accounting\n Restatements,\u201d The Accounting Review 84.\n\u2022 Fisch, J., J. Gelbach, and J. Klick, 2017, \u201cThe Logic and Limits of Event Studies in\n Securities Fraud Litigation,\u201d Texas Law Review 96.\n\u2022 Fooladi, M. and M. Farhadi, 2019, \u201cCorporate governance and detrimental related party\n transactions,\u201d Asian Review of Accounting 27.\n\u2022 Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2010, \u201cInformation, the Cost of Credit, and Operational\n Efficiency: An Empirical Study of Microfinance,\u201d Review of Financial Studies 23.\n\u2022 Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2013, \u201cThe Attractions and Perils of Flexible Mortgage\n Lending,\u201d Review of Financial Studies 26.\n\u2022 Garmaise, M. and G. Natividad, 2021, \u201cFinancial Flexibility: At What Cost?,\u201d Journal of\n Financial and Quantitative Analysis 56.\n\u2022 Gordon, E., E, Henry, and D. Palia, 2004, \u201cRelated Party Transactions and Corporate\n Governance,\u201d Advances in Financial Economics 9.\n\u2022 Guay, W., 1999, \u201cThe sensitivity of CEO wealth to equity risk: an analysis of the\n magnitude and determinants,\u201d Journal of Financial Economics 53.\n\n A-2\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 64 of 67\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Guillamon-Saorin, E., B. Osma, and M. Jones, 2012, \u201cOpportunistic Disclosure in Press\n Release Headlines,\u201d Accounting and Business Research 42.\n \u2022 Haslem, B., I. Hutton, and A. Smith, 2017, \u201cHow Much Do Corporate Defendants Really\n Lose? A New Verdict on the Reputation Loss Induced by Corporate Litigation,\u201d\n Financial Management.\n \u2022 Hirshleifer, D. and S.H. Teoh, 2003, \u201cLimited Attention, Information Disclosure, And\n Financial Reporting,\u201d Journal of Accounting and Economics 36.\n \u2022 Huang, X, A. Nekrasov, and S.H. Teoh, 2018, \u201cHeadline Salience, Managerial\n Opportunism, and Over- and Underreactions to Earnings,\u201d The Accounting Review 93.\n \u2022 Karpoff, J., D. Lee, and G. Martin, 2008, \u201cThe Cost to Firms of Cooking the Books,\u201d\n Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 43.\n \u2022 Karpoff, J. and J. Lott Jr., 1993, \u201cThe Reputational Penalty Firms Bear from Committing\n Criminal Fraud,\u201d The Journal of Law and Economics 36.\n \u2022 Kaye, D. and D. Freedman, 2011, \u201cReference Guide on Statistics,\u201d in Reference Manual\n on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition.\n \u2022 Lei, A. and F. Song, 2011, \u201cConnected Transactions and Firm Value: Evidence from\n China-Affiliated Companies,\u201d Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 19.\n \u2022 Li, H., 2019, \u201cRepetitive Disclosures in the MD&A,\u201d Journal of Business Finance &\n Accounting 46.\n \u2022 Lin, S., P. Pope, and S. Young, 2003, \u201cStock Market Reaction to the Appointment of\n Outside Directors,\u201d Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30.\n \u2022 Moeller, S., F. Schlingemann, and R. Stulz, 2005, \u201cWealth Destruction on a Massive\n Scale? A Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave,\u201d Journal of\n Finance 60.\n \u2022 Rubinfeld, D. \u201cReference Guide on Multiple Regression,\u201d in Reference Manual on\n Scientific Evidence, Third Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2011).\n \u2022 Ryans, J., 2021, \u201cTextual classification of SEC comment letters,\u201d Review of Accounting\n Studies 26.\n \u2022 Stolowy, H., L. Paugam, and Y. Gendron, 2022, \u201cCompeting for Narrative Authority in\n Capital Markets: Activist Short Sellers vs. Financial Analysts,\u201d Accounting,\n Organizations, and Society 100.\n\n\nCleanSpark SEC Filings:\n \u2022 10-Q, CleanSpark, August 14, 2017.\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000260/mainbody.htm\n \u2022 8-K, CleanSpark, September 19, 2017.\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000301/mainbody.htm\n \u2022 8-K, CleanSpark, January 29, 2020.\n\n A-3\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 65 of 67\n\n\n\n\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357720000021/clsk8-k.htm\n \u2022 10-Q, CleanSpark, May 11, 2020.\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357720000136/clsk10q.htm\n \u2022 10-Q, CleanSpark, August 17, 2021.\n https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357721000429/clsk10\n q.htm\n \u2022 Form D, CleanSpark, August 17, 2021.\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827876/000166357717000267/xslFormDX01/p\n rimary_doc.xml\n\nAnalyst Reports:\n \u2022 \u201cBitcoin Mining Acquisition Drives Estimates Higher; Raising Price Target to $24.00,\u201d\n H.C. Wainwright, December 11, 2020.\n \u2022 \u201cSet Up for Continued Strength in FY2021; F4Q20 Results Update,\u201d H.C. Wainwright,\n dated December 21, 2020.\n \u2022 \u201cA Business Update with CleanSpark CEO Zach Bradford and Executive Chairman Matt\n Schultz,\u201d Water Tower Research, June 21, 2021.\n \u2022 \u201cSome Growing Pains, But Bitcoin Mining Ramp Underway Now and Later, Lowering PT\n to $35,\u201d BTIG, dated August 16, 2021.\n \u2022 \u201cPoised for Significant Ramp in Hashrate During FY2022; F3Q21 Results Update,\u201d H.C.\n Wainwright, August 18, 2021.\n \u2022 \u201c3Q2I Results: +247% Revenue Growth Fueled by Bitcoin Mining; Management Raises\n FY2I Guidance,\u201d Water Tower Research, August 19, 2021.\n\n\nCleanSpark Press Releases:\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark to Speak at 6th Annual CannaGrow Expo on October 28, 2017,\u201d\n CleanSpark, August 23, 2017.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Announces Appointment of New Chairman of the Board,\u201d CleanSpark,\n September 26, 2017.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Provides a Best-in-Class Microgrid Solution to the Marijuana Industry,\u201d\n CleanSpark, October 3, 2017.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Announces Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with Shoreline\n Unified School District to Establish Grid Resiliency,\u201d CleanSpark, January, 9 2020.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Provides Update on Bitcoin Mining Operations and Expansion,\u201d\n CleanSpark, December 18, 2020.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d CleanSpark, January 5, 2021.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Reports Quarterly Financial Results for the Three-Months Ended\n December 31, 2020,\u201d CleanSpark, February 12, 2021.\n\n A-4\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 66 of 67\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Completes Strategic Acquisition of Solar Watt Solutions,\u201d CleanSpark,\n February 24, 2021.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Announces Agreement with ESG-Focused Crypto-Miner, Coinmint,\u201d\n CleanSpark, July 14, 2021.\n\n\nCleanSpark Conference Calls:\n \u2022 \u201cWater Tower Research Virtual Conference,\u201d Bloomberg, July 14, 2021.\n\n\nNews:\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Provides Bitcoin Mining Operation Update,\u201d GlobeNewswire, January 5,\n 2021, 9:25 AM.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark produces just over 31 bitcoin from mining...,\u201d TheFly.com, January 5, 2021,\n 9:27 AM.\n \u2022 \u201cBRIEF-CleanSpark Says Quarterly Revenue Rose 130 Percent To $2.26 Million,\u201d\n Reuters News, February 12, 2021, 6:18 AM.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark Inc: A loss of 12 cents per share anticipated for first quarter,\u201d Reuters News,\n February 12, 2021, 7:51AM.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark, Inc. Q3 2021 Results Conference Call,\u201d Bloomberg, dated August 16,\n 2021.\n \u2022 \u201cCleanSpark price target lowered to $35 from $45 at BTIG analyst,\u201d TheFly.com, August\n 17, 2021, 6:45AM.\n\n\nTwitter:\n \u2022 January 5, 2021 @CleanSpark_Inc Tweet\n o twitter.com/CleanSpark_Inc/status/1346599574639497217, 6:28 PM.\n\n\nData Sources:\n \u2022 Bloomberg\n\n\nOther:\nAll documents cited within this report and Prior Reports.\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-6 Filed 12/12/25 Page 67 of 67\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 1. Constant Dollar and Constant Percentage Artificial Inflation\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:12:55.253420-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727944","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit F - Expert Merits Reply Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated Octobe","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528959/","id":484528959,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/7/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:58.721242-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:30:29.681753-07:00","sha1":"4bb90fb5f7dae816c03627801b9cb5d87a2565e3","page_count":448,"file_size":1803298,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 448\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT G\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 295\n\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n3 ________________________________\n4 DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al.,\n5 Plaintiffs,\n6 v. Case No.\n7 CLEANSPARK, INC., et al., 1:21-cv-00511 (LAP)\n8 Defendants.\n9 ________________________________\n10 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n11 VOLUME II\n12 DATE: Thursday, October 30, 2025\n13 TIME: 10:20 a.m.\n14 LOCATION: Remote Proceeding\n15 Tallahassee, FL 32317\n16 REPORTED BY: Lindsey Diego\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 296\n\n1 A P P E A R A N C E S\n2 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF DARSHAN HASTHANTRA:\n3 GREGORY LINKH, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n4 Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP\n5 230 Park Avenue, Suite 538\n6 New York, NY 10169\n7 glinkh@glancylaw.com\n8 (212) 682-5340\n9\n10 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF DARSHAN HASTHANTRA:\n11 CHRIS FALLON, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n12 Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP\n13 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n14 Los Angeles, CA 90067\n15 cfallon@glancylaw.com\n16 (310) 201-9150\n17\n18 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS CLEANSPARK, INC., MATTHEW\n19 SCHULTZ, AND ZACHARY BRADFORD:\n20 DAVID J. PARTIDA, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)\n21 Wilk Auslander\n22 825 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2900\n23 New York, NY 10019\n24 dpartida@wilkauslander.com\n25 (212) 981-2300\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 297\n\n1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)\n2 ALSO PRESENT:\n3 Alejandro Hoyos, Ph.D., Cornerstone Research,\n4 Defense Consultant (by videoconference)\n5 Andrew Baker, Videographer (by videoconference)\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 298\n\n1 I N D E X\n2 EXAMINATION: PAGE\n3 By Mr. Partida 303\n4\n5 E X H I B I T S\n6 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE\n7 Exhibit 94 Notice of Deposition 303\n8 Exhibit 95 Dr. Zahn Bozanic's Expert\n9 Reply Report, dated\n10 October 9, 2025 315\n11 Exhibit 96 2013 Paper by Moeller,\n12 Schlingemann, and Stulz -\n13 Wealth Destruction on a\n14 Massive Scale, a Study of\n15 Acquiring-Firm Returns in the\n16 Recent Merger Wave 363\n17 Exhibit 97 Dr. Zahn Bozanic's Expert\n18 Merits Report dated\n19 July 18, 2025 430\n20 Exhibit 98 2010 Paper by Garmaise and\n21 Natividad - Information, the\n22 Cost of Credit, and\n23 Operational Efficiency: An\n24 Empirical Study of\n25 Microfinance 470\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 299\n\n1 E X H I B I T S (Cont'd)\n2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE\n3 Exhibit 99 2013 Paper by Garmaise - The\n4 Attractions and Perils of\n5 Flexible Mortgage Lending 474\n6 Exhibit 100 2021 Paper by Garmaise and\n7 Natividad - Financial\n8 Flexibility: At What Cost 477\n9 Exhibit 101 2017 Paper by Bozanic,\n10 Dietrich, and Johnson -\n11 SEC Comment Letters and\n12 Firm Disclosure 484\n13 Exhibit 102 2020 Paper by Blankespoor,\n14 deHaan, and Marinovic -\n15 Disclosure Processing Costs,\n16 Investors' Information\n17 Choice, and Equity Market\n18 Outcomes 520\n19 Exhibit 103 Amended Complaint 551\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 300\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We\n3 are going on the record at 10:20 a.m.,\n4 Thursday, October 30, 2025.\n5 This is media unit 1 of the video\n6 recorded deposition of Dr. Zahn Bozanic,\n7 as taken by Counsel for Defendants in the\n8 matter of Darshan Hasthantra vs.\n9 CleanSpark, Incorporated, et al., filed in\n10 the United States District Court, Southern\n11 District of New York. Case Number\n12 1:21-cv-00511-LAP.\n13 My name is Andrew Baker, from the\n14 firm Veritext. I'm the videographer. The\n15 court reporter is Lindsey Diego, also from\n16 Veritext.\n17 Will Counsel please state your\n18 appearance and affiliations for the\n19 record, beginning with the noticing\n20 attorney?\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Yes. My name is David\n22 Partida. I'm with the firm Wilk\n23 Auslander. And I'm here appearing on\n24 behalf of the defendants,\n25 CleanSpark, Inc., Matthew Schultz, and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 301\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Zachary Bradford.\n3 MR. LINKH: My name is Greg Linkh. I\n4 represent Plaintiff Darshan Hasthantra.\n5 And I'm here with my partner, Chris\n6 Fallon.\n7 THE REPORTER: Thank you. Hearing no\n8 objections, I will now swear in the\n9 witness. Or actually --\n10 Additionally, absent an objection on\n11 the record before the witness is sworn,\n12 all parties and the witness understand and\n13 agree that any certified transcript\n14 produced from the recording of this\n15 proceeding:\n16 - is intended for all uses permitted\n17 under applicable procedural and\n18 evidentiary rules and laws in the same\n19 manner as a deposition recorded by\n20 stenographic means; and\n21 - shall constitute written\n22 stipulation of such.\n23 Dr. Bozanic, please let me know where\n24 you are currently.\n25 DR. BOZANIC: Please let you know\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 302\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 we're I'm located?\n3 THE REPORTER: Right now. Yes, sir.\n4 DR. BOZANIC: Tallahassee, Florida.\n5 THE REPORTER: Would you happen to\n6 have a ZIP Code? I'll put \"private\n7 address.\" But --\n8 DR. BOZANIC: 32317.\n9 THE REPORTER: Please state your full\n10 name and affiliated address for the\n11 record.\n12 DR. BOZANIC: Zahn Bozanic.\n13 Tallahassee, Florida 32317.\n14 THE REPORTER: Please raise your\n15 right hand.\n16 WHEREUPON,\n17 ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.,\n18 called as a witness and having been first\n19 duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole\n20 truth, and nothing but the truth, was\n21 examined and testified as follows:\n22 THE REPORTER: And, Counsel Linkh,\n23 will you attest that the doctor is who he\n24 says he is?\n25 MR. LINKH: I do. He is.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 303\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE REPORTER: You may proceed.\n3 Thank you.\n4 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Are we ready?\n5 THE REPORTER: Yes.\n6 EXAMINATION\n7 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n8 Q Okay. Good morning,\n9 Dr. Bozanic. Thank you for being here.\n10 Nice to see you again.\n11 I'm David Partida, obviously. I\n12 represent CleanSpark and the defendants in\n13 this lawsuit. And the reason that we're\n14 here today is that I issued you a\n15 subpoena. And I'm going to send this.\n16 And this is going to be introduced as\n17 Exhibit 94.\n18 (Exhibit 94 was marked for\n19 identification.)\n20 I'll let you get a moment to get\n21 that. So it has been sent. And you can\n22 let me know when you receive it.\n23 A I have it.\n24 Q Okay. Are you familiar with\n25 this document?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 304\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I believe I received this\n3 notice. Yes.\n4 Q Okay. And this is a notice\n5 of -- for your deposition, commencing at\n6 10:00 a.m., on October 30, 2025; that's\n7 correct?\n8 A That's correct.\n9 Q Okay. And that's the reason\n10 you're here today?\n11 A I am, sir.\n12 Q Okay. Obviously, you've been\n13 deposed before because I was at that\n14 deposition. But I do want to cover just a\n15 couple of quick reminder rules, mostly for\n16 the benefit of our court reporter and all\n17 of us.\n18 So the first and most important\n19 rule is that you let me know if you cannot\n20 hear me, if you can't understand anything\n21 I'm saying, if you have any questions\n22 about what I'm saying, or don't\n23 understand.\n24 The second rule is that only one\n25 of us can be talking at a time. I'll do\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 12 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 305\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 my best to let you finish your answers if\n3 you'll do my -- your best to let me finish\n4 my questions.\n5 With regard to the answers that\n6 you give, I want you to give me your best\n7 answer. I want you to give me the answer\n8 to the best of your actual knowledge.\n9 I might ask you to clarify what\n10 certain opinions of yours are or aren't.\n11 And, obviously, in your capacity as an\n12 expert, I will want you to answer those\n13 questions.\n14 When it comes to certain factual\n15 matters, questions like that, I don't want\n16 you to speculate. I don't want you to\n17 tell me anything you don't know.\n18 If you do know the fact, that's\n19 fine. If you don't, I might try and\n20 refresh your recollection. But otherwise,\n21 I don't want you to speculate.\n22 From time to time, Mr. Linkh or\n23 Mr. Fallon may object. If they object,\n24 I'm still entitled to an answer to my\n25 question unless they specifically instruct\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 13 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 306\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you not to answer. Is all of that clear\n3 to you?\n4 A That is clear. Thank you.\n5 Q Okay. Do you have any other\n6 questions for me before we start?\n7 A I do not.\n8 Q Okay. Is there anyone else in\n9 the room with you other than yourself?\n10 A There is not.\n11 Q Okay. Aside from the clean\n12 copies of -- well, could you just identify\n13 any documents you have with you for the\n14 record?\n15 A Yes. Sure. I have a clean --\n16 clean copy of my expert reply report,\n17 dated May 2, 2025. I have a clean copy of\n18 my merits report -- expert report, dated\n19 July 18, 2025.\n20 And then I also have a clean\n21 copy of my expert merits reply report,\n22 dated October 9, 2025.\n23 Q Okay. From time to time, I\n24 might refer to those documents. I'll be\n25 emailing those documents. And to the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 14 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 307\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 extent they haven't been previously\n3 introduced, I'll introduce them as new\n4 exhibits.\n5 But as we go through the\n6 deposition, do feel free to refer to the\n7 paper copies you have in front of you if\n8 that's easier.\n9 If you have a cell phone with\n10 you, I would ask that you please turn it\n11 off now. And leave it so for the duration\n12 of the time that we're on the record.\n13 Obviously, you're welcome to use it when\n14 we take a break.\n15 And that brings me to another\n16 really important rule. If at any time you\n17 need to take a break, a comfort break, you\n18 know, to stand up and stretch, whatever\n19 you need to do, you just let me know. And\n20 we will of course accommodate that.\n21 And, you know, all I would ask\n22 in that regard is, if there is a question\n23 pending that I've asked, that you go ahead\n24 and give me a response to that question\n25 before we go off the record. Sound fair\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 15 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 308\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 enough?\n3 A Fair enough. Thank you.\n4 Q Okay. So what I'd like to do is\n5 start from the top. So do you understand\n6 that Plaintiff has the burden to establish\n7 loss causation and damages in this matter?\n8 Yes or no?\n9 A I understand that I am\n10 attempting to establish loss causation and\n11 damages in my reports. Yes. That's true.\n12 Q So that's not the question I\n13 asked, although I appreciate the answer.\n14 So I'll go ahead and re-ask my question.\n15 And I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to\n16 it.\n17 Do you understand that Plaintiff\n18 has the burden to establish loss causation\n19 and damages in this matter?\n20 A So I think you're calling for a\n21 legal opinion. And so I don't have a\n22 legal opinion on this matter in terms of\n23 who has which burden of proof.\n24 I've been instructed by counsel\n25 to create certain reports. And so I have\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 16 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 309\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 done so.\n3 Q Okay. So let me try this again.\n4 I'm not asking for a legal opinion. I'm\n5 asking for your understanding.\n6 And my understanding -- or my\n7 question is, do you understand that the\n8 plaintiff has the burden in this case to\n9 establish loss causation and damages? Do\n10 you understand that that's their burden?\n11 Yes or no?\n12 A That's my understanding.\n13 Q Okay. Thank you. Do you\n14 understand that it was not Professor\n15 Garmaise's burden to provide any\n16 alternative damages methodologies? Yes or\n17 no?\n18 A Again, I'm not a legal expert.\n19 And so in terms of who has which burden of\n20 proof, this would be speculation on my\n21 part.\n22 I do have some bare minimum\n23 understanding of where the burden of proof\n24 lies. But you asked me to state the facts\n25 in terms of what I understand and not\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 17 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 310\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 speculate.\n3 And so I don't want to speculate\n4 in terms of these legal opinions where the\n5 burden of proof lies. I'm following what\n6 counsel has asked me to do in these\n7 reports.\n8 Q Okay. So let me try this again.\n9 Because we just did this with the first\n10 question. So we can do this with the\n11 second question.\n12 We can keep doing this. Or we\n13 can get straight to the answer. My\n14 question is not asking for a legal\n15 opinion.\n16 I am asking for your opinion or\n17 your understanding, as an expert in\n18 preparing a report for use in this case in\n19 connection with these legal proceedings,\n20 if you understand that it was not\n21 Professor Garmaise's burden to provide any\n22 alternative damages methodologies? Yes or\n23 no?\n24 A I have not formed an opinion.\n25 Q If you don't understand that,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 18 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 311\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you can say no.\n3 A I have not formed an opinion on\n4 that.\n5 Q Okay. Do you understand that it\n6 was not Professor Garmaise's burden to\n7 provide alternative methodologies to\n8 disaggregate the price changes\n9 attributable to the alleged corrective\n10 information from confounding information?\n11 Yes or no?\n12 A My answer would be the same as\n13 the last.\n14 Q Which is no?\n15 A I didn't say no.\n16 Q You don't have an understanding?\n17 A I -- I said I don't have an\n18 opinion on that matter with regards to who\n19 has which burden of proof.\n20 Q So you don't know? You don't\n21 understand what Professor Garmaise's\n22 burden to provide was?\n23 A I'll reiterate what I said.\n24 Q What I'm trying to understand --\n25 sure.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 19 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 312\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I -- I don't have an opinion. I\n3 mean -- so, David, I'm being honest with\n4 you in terms of where my position is,\n5 consistent with you asking me not to\n6 speculate.\n7 So I'm not speculating on where\n8 the burden of proof lies, as I'm not a\n9 legal expert. And so this is -- the\n10 opinion that I have today is, I don't have\n11 an opinion on this.\n12 I have a -- a bare minimum\n13 understanding in some contexts of legal\n14 principles and burdens. But I'm not\n15 trying to hold myself out as a legal\n16 expert in terms of where the burden of\n17 proof lies.\n18 Q So to be clear, I didn't ask you\n19 who has the burden of proof. I asked you\n20 if you understood that Professor Garmaise,\n21 as an expert providing an expert opinion\n22 as an economic expert, just like you;\n23 right? If you understood that, in his\n24 capacity in providing and preparing an\n25 expert report for this case, what his\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 20 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 313\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 burden was.\n3 You see, because my\n4 difficulty -- what I'm having trouble\n5 understanding here is how you can reply to\n6 report if you don't understand what the\n7 burden of the report was.\n8 If you don't understand what --\n9 the intent of the report or what it was to\n10 do, it's kind of hard for me to follow how\n11 you're responding to it. So I'm not -- I\n12 don't think you're being dishonest. I'm\n13 just trying to get a straight answer.\n14 And all I'm trying to understand\n15 is whether or not, quite simply, yes or\n16 no, you have an understanding of whether\n17 or not it was Professor Garmaise's burden\n18 to provide alternative methodologies and\n19 disaggregate the price changes\n20 attributable to the elective -- alleged\n21 corrective information or not?\n22 It's a simple question. You\n23 either do or you don't. And it's okay.\n24 Either one is okay. I just want to\n25 understand whether you do, or you don't\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 21 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 314\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 understand that. That's all.\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: I appreciate that.\n5 What -- What I --\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n8 Q Go ahead. You can go ahead.\n9 A What I think you are alluding to\n10 is how my report -- my merits reply report\n11 discusses how he offered no alternative\n12 analysis in certain contexts. No\n13 affirmative analyses, as he spoke of in\n14 his deposition.\n15 But again, I have to revert back\n16 to my former answer. These questions of\n17 burden of proof, this is outside my\n18 capacity as a financial economist.\n19 And so what you have asked him\n20 to do and what the Court requires of him,\n21 that's up to you and the Court. So I am\n22 replying to the claims that he's made with\n23 respect to my prior reports. And so yes.\n24 I did note in my report that in some\n25 instances, he provided no alternatives.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 22 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 315\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Now, where that burden of proof\n3 is, that's beyond my scope and capacity of\n4 my report. And that's why I say to you\n5 again today --\n6 And I'm not trying to be\n7 difficult with you here, David. I'm just\n8 trying to tell you; I don't have an\n9 opinion on the matter because that's --\n10 that's the truth.\n11 Q Okay. So the answer is no.\n12 Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, what\n13 I'm going to go ahead and introduce is\n14 going to be Exhibit 95.\n15 (Exhibit 95 was marked for\n16 identification.)\n17 And you probably have this\n18 document sitting right next to you. So\n19 what I'm going to go ahead and do is send\n20 it right now. Just bear with me a moment.\n21 A Was it sent, David?\n22 Q Not quite yet. Sorry.\n23 A Oh. Sorry. Okay. I'll wait\n24 then.\n25 Q I have to -- I have to retitle\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 23 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 316\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this. But it's -- I just want to\n3 double-check that I have the right file\n4 really quick. Sorry. That's exactly why.\n5 Because it's not. Okay. One moment.\n6 All right. So what I'm going to\n7 introduce here as Exhibit 95 is -- and I\n8 just sent -- is going to be your reply\n9 merits report dated October 9, 2025.\n10 And once you get it, I -- just\n11 so we can confirm that the paper document\n12 you're looking at is the actual exhibit\n13 I'm introducing, you could take a look and\n14 confirm that they're the same document,\n15 and that this is your report. Then you're\n16 free to refer to the paper version.\n17 A Thank you. One second.\n18 Q Sure.\n19 A Yes. It appears to be one and\n20 the same. Thank you for letting me\n21 confirm.\n22 Q All right. I appreciate that.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: So, Greg, do you have\n24 it?\n25 Chris?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 24 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 317\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 You guys good?\n3 MR. LINKH: I do.\n4 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Perfect.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q So this is your -- the expert\n7 reply report that you prepared in this\n8 matter, Dr. Bozanic?\n9 A It is.\n10 Q Okay. Now, I want you to go\n11 to -- well, you can go there or not. But\n12 in paragraphs 110 to 111 of this report,\n13 you state that Professor Garmaise\n14 criticizes you for failing to \"Reliably\n15 establish that the alleged\n16 misrepresentations caused investor\n17 losses.\"\n18 And then you respond that this\n19 is misguided. Because your opinions are\n20 \"Premised upon Defendants being found to\n21 have knowingly or recklessly made material\n22 misrepresentations or omissions.\" Do you\n23 see that?\n24 A I do. Let me know when I can\n25 read the relevant paragraphs. But I see\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 25 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 318\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the point that you're making in 110. Yes.\n3 Thank you.\n4 Q Yeah. You can take as much time\n5 as you'd like to read them. You can read\n6 them now.\n7 A Oh. Sorry. Read paragraphs 110\n8 and 111? These are the points of focus\n9 here?\n10 Q Yes. In paragraphs 110 and 111,\n11 what I'm asking for is, do you -- well,\n12 let's do it this way.\n13 So in paragraph 110, you state\n14 that Professor Garmaise criticizes you for\n15 failing to \"Reliably establish that the\n16 alleged misrepresentations caused investor\n17 losses.\" Do you see where you say that?\n18 A I do.\n19 Q Okay. Now, the next thing that\n20 you say is that -- your response to this\n21 is that this is misguided. Because your\n22 opinions are \"Premised upon Defendants\n23 being found to have knowingly or\n24 recklessly made material\n25 misrepresentations or omissions.\" Do you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 26 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 319\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 see that?\n3 A I do.\n4 Q Okay. Did you also assume loss\n5 causation? Yes or no?\n6 A May I read the relevant\n7 paragraphs?\n8 Q Sure. I don't need you to read\n9 them aloud. But sure. You can absolutely\n10 read them. Of course.\n11 A Okay. I have read it. Thank\n12 you for the benefit.\n13 Q Sure. Now, do you have an\n14 answer to my question?\n15 A Can you repeat the question?\n16 Q Sure. Just to be clear, you\n17 state that Professor Garmaise has\n18 criticized you for failing to \"Reliably\n19 establish that the alleged\n20 misrepresentations caused investor\n21 losses.\"\n22 And then you respond by saying\n23 this is misguided because your opinions\n24 are \"Premised upon Defendants being found\n25 to have knowingly or recklessly made\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 27 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 320\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 material misrepresentations or omissions.\"\n3 Now, my question is, did you also assume\n4 loss causation?\n5 A So here, what I'm trying to say\n6 is that if the plaintiffs don't end up\n7 proving their case with regards to\n8 establishing these omissions and\n9 misrepresentations, then there's not much\n10 for me to go off here in terms of what I\n11 am showing; right? So if they don't prove\n12 their case, then my analysis is\n13 inconsequential.\n14 And so what I'm saying here is\n15 that all of my opinions are premised upon\n16 taking the facts and circumstances of --\n17 as outlined in the complaint, on their\n18 face value; right? And then proceeding to\n19 do my analysis. That's all this is saying\n20 here.\n21 In terms of this burden of proof\n22 that we were discussing, I'm not here to\n23 prove the plaintiff's case. I am here to\n24 provide supporting evidence for their\n25 case, where I'm taking the opinions that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 28 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 321\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 were put forth in the complaint as true.\n3 And I'm assuming that Plaintiffs\n4 will be able to prove those as true in\n5 court. And so, therefore, I conduct my\n6 analysis. Does that make sense?\n7 Q Okay.\n8 A That's all this paragraph is\n9 trying to convey.\n10 Q No. It doesn't because it\n11 doesn't address -- it does not address or\n12 answer my question.\n13 So this is going to be a lot\n14 longer than an already long day is going\n15 to be if you continue to give me very\n16 long, nonresponsive answers to extremely\n17 simple yes-or-no questions.\n18 So I can either ask you the\n19 question again or I can have the court\n20 reporter read it back to you again. But I\n21 would appreciate if I could get an answer\n22 to the question that I ask when I ask it;\n23 okay?\n24 A David, I apologize. And I'm --\n25 Q My question is, did you also\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 29 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 322\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 assume loss causation? Yes or no? You\n3 should know what you assumed in your\n4 report.\n5 Either you assumed there was\n6 loss causation, or you assumed there was\n7 not. I want to know which is the answer.\n8 Yes or no? That's my question.\n9 A So, again, I'm trying to\n10 understand your question. So when you say\n11 I assumed loss causation, \"Yes or no?\" can\n12 you help me understand what you mean by\n13 \"assuming loss causation\"? As if it's\n14 already occurred?\n15 Q Did you --\n16 A Ex ante?\n17 Q Yes. Yes. Did you assume that?\n18 Yes or no?\n19 A So this is what I'm trying to\n20 show in my reports, is this element of\n21 loss causation. It's not assumption. I\n22 take --\n23 Q So you did not assume it? Okay.\n24 A So here -- here's what I'm\n25 taking as assumed. If we read this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 30 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 323\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 paragraph more closely -- and this is why\n3 I'm trying to unpack your question,\n4 understand it.\n5 This is not trying to belabor\n6 the point. You asked me not to answer\n7 unless I understood your question. So\n8 simply stated, I'm trying to understand\n9 your question and where you're focusing\n10 your attention.\n11 This paragraph assumes what's in\n12 the complaint is true; right? So my\n13 opinions, as I say here, regarding\n14 economic materiality, loss causation, and\n15 damages, right, those are -- those are\n16 premised upon --\n17 This analysis is irrelevant, as\n18 I said -- I think I answered your question\n19 originally. They're premised upon the\n20 plaintiffs proving their case; right?\n21 This analysis is irrelevant if they can't\n22 prove their case. And so I'm not assuming\n23 that loss causation exists.\n24 And this is what I'm trying to\n25 understand. Like, you're -- you're saying\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 31 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 324\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that, ex ante, before I approached the\n3 case, like I had some assumption about\n4 loss causation. The report is trying to\n5 demonstrate loss causation.\n6 Q Okay. So, again, these are not\n7 trick questions. I mean, I guess we can\n8 let the record speak for itself. I tend\n9 to believe that \"Did you assume loss\n10 causation?\" is a fair and very\n11 straightforward question for an expert who\n12 prepared an expert opinion.\n13 But I do think you did give me\n14 an answer to the question, which is no.\n15 You didn't assume loss causation, ex ante,\n16 going into this. And that's fine. That's\n17 a simple answer. I just --\n18 A David, that's correct. But I\n19 want to reiterate so we don't rehash\n20 this --\n21 Q I appreciate that. Well, I have\n22 an answer to my question. I don't have\n23 another pending question. So I'll go\n24 ahead and move on to my questions. And I\n25 appreciate it. You've already spent, I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 32 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 325\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 think, much more time than necessary\n3 answering a simple question.\n4 A But -- but if I may for the\n5 record, David --\n6 Q Okay. So --\n7 A Can I speak? Or no?\n8 Q Well, typically, you get to\n9 speak in response to questions I ask. And\n10 I haven't asked a question.\n11 A Very well.\n12 Q But absolutely. Speak to your\n13 heart's content. Go ahead.\n14 A All I'm trying to reiterate to\n15 you is that I'm trying to understand the\n16 question. And so I want to make sure that\n17 I fully understand the question.\n18 You said a lot of words. You\n19 repeated, verbatim, a lot of words from my\n20 report and asked several questions. And\n21 so I'm trying to understand the heart of\n22 the question before I respond to it.\n23 That's it.\n24 Q Okay. Fair enough. If you\n25 don't understand the question of whether\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 33 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 326\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 or not you assumed loss causation, I can't\n3 do much more to explain it than that. But\n4 I appreciate your attempt to answer and\n5 understand it.\n6 Okay. What I'd like to do now\n7 is move on to --\n8 MR. PARTIDA: And I think that this,\n9 Greg, is the exhibit that you said we had\n10 previously marked. Because what I want to\n11 introduce now is Professor Garmaise's\n12 expert report. So I don't know, Greg, if\n13 you want to respond with that.\n14 MR. LINKH: I can send that off to\n15 everybody on this -- out on this chain.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Perfect. And if you\n17 will just remind us of what exhibit number\n18 that was so I can refer back to that?\n19 MR. LINKH: It was Exhibit 90.\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q Okay. So what we're going to --\n22 and I understand that you have a copy of\n23 this in front of you, Dr. Bozanic. So I\n24 guess --\n25 A Well, I apologize. Is this --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 34 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 327\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this is the Garmaise report?\n3 Q Yes.\n4 MR. LINKH: Oh. The Garmaise?\n5 THE WITNESS: This is the one I did\n6 not print.\n7 MR. LINKH: Yes. Yes. It --\n8 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. You don't have a\n9 copy of that one?\n10 THE WITNESS: I do not.\n11 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. Okay. No problem.\n12 This is why I asked.\n13 MR. LINKH: Well, I just sent one on\n14 the -- I just sent one via email; so --\n15 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. Perfect. I just\n17 wanted to make sure if I could tell\n18 Dr. Bozanic to refer to a paper copy or\n19 not. Okay.\n20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Here we go.\n21 MR. PARTIDA: For some reason, it\n22 still hasn't come through on my end;\n23 but --\n24 THE WITNESS: It just came through on\n25 mine.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 35 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 328\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n3 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n4 MR. PARTIDA: Now, it just came. So\n5 now, what we've all received is what was\n6 previously marked as Exhibit 90 in the\n7 deposition of Mark Garmaise.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q And do you see this document?\n10 That it's the expert report of Mark\n11 Garmaise, dated September 12, 2025?\n12 A I do.\n13 Q Okay. And are you familiar with\n14 this report?\n15 A I am.\n16 Q And you read it through?\n17 A I have.\n18 Q Okay.\n19 A I mean, not in this moment. But\n20 previously, yes.\n21 Q Of course. Of course.\n22 A Yeah.\n23 Q Thank you. Now, if I understand\n24 correctly, that -- based on your previous\n25 testimony, the object of your initial\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 36 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 329\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 merits report was to demonstrate loss\n3 causation. Do I have that correct?\n4 A Yes.\n5 Q Okay. And I understand that an\n6 assumption that was made -- or that the\n7 loss causation that you would attempt to\n8 demonstrate with your work would be\n9 premised upon a finding that the\n10 defendants had knowingly or recklessly\n11 made material misrepresentations.\n12 That you would have to assume\n13 that in terms of your analysis; is that\n14 accurate?\n15 A That's -- that's what I assumed\n16 at the paragraph that we indicated\n17 previously.\n18 Q Okay.\n19 A Yes. Yes, sir.\n20 Q Yeah. Perfect. Okay. I just\n21 want to make sure. Because there was a\n22 lot of back and forth there. And at the\n23 end of the day, I'm interested in clear\n24 expressed testimony. So I appreciate\n25 getting that clear.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 37 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 330\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Okay. Now, do you understand\n3 that in this new expert report, what has\n4 been marked as Exhibit 90, that Professor\n5 Garmaise's critique of your report is that\n6 you failed to establish loss causation?\n7 And that he references all of those\n8 arguments in section 4 of this report --\n9 or sorry -- section 6 of this report?\n10 And feel free to go look through\n11 the report. Feel free to look at the\n12 Table of Contents. Feel free to look at\n13 section 6.\n14 But just to put it simply, do\n15 you understand that Professor Garmaise's\n16 critique in section 6 is that you failed\n17 to establish loss causation?\n18 A So if I may, let me just look at\n19 the Table of Contents for -- with respect\n20 to section 6. I haven't memorized his\n21 sections. But let me just see what he's\n22 got in there.\n23 Q Right. And I can ask the\n24 question again once you've taken a look.\n25 Because then --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 38 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 331\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Yeah. Sure.\n3 Q Hopefully.\n4 A That does seem to be the thrust\n5 of that section. Yes. Not having read\n6 this section. But just looking at the\n7 Table of Contents.\n8 Q Okay. Now, what I do -- you\n9 know, you do have a very specific opinion\n10 that we just talked about that this is\n11 misguided. And what I'd like you to do is\n12 go ahead and turn to section 6. And then\n13 I'd like you to go ahead and point me to\n14 the specific part of --\n15 And maybe we could do this by\n16 first starting at the Table of Contents.\n17 And then moving to the section and looking\n18 a little bit deeper. But could you tell\n19 me what specific part of Professor\n20 Garmaise's critique you think is\n21 misguided?\n22 A Well, I'll go back to my merits\n23 reply report, first. I mean, 'cause\n24 you're quoting that in terms of the\n25 statements I made.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 39 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 332\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Whoa. Whoa. Wait. Wait. Wait\n3 a minute. Wait a minute. That's not my\n4 question. And I appreciate that you want\n5 to talk about what you want to talk about.\n6 But I want to talk about what I want talk\n7 about.\n8 And what I want to talk about is\n9 Professor Garmaise's report. And what I\n10 want you to do is point to me, in\n11 Professor Garmaise's report, where you\n12 find -- what specific portions.\n13 And again, we can start with the\n14 Table of Contents. We've got all day. We\n15 can start with the Table of Contents. And\n16 then we can dig a little deeper.\n17 But what I want to do is\n18 understand what specific part of Professor\n19 Garmaise's critique you find misguided, so\n20 we can go look at that part of his report\n21 and talk about it.\n22 A Sure. Let me have a moment to\n23 take a look at the relevant documents.\n24 Q Well, there's only one relevant\n25 document, which is Professor Garmaise's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 40 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 333\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report. So I would appreciate it if you\n3 would focus on that report. Because\n4 that's the one we're going to be talking\n5 about.\n6 A David, while I'll get to your\n7 question and I'll focus on this report,\n8 I'm looking where my report is referencing\n9 his report.\n10 You see, you -- the question is\n11 a legacy question going back to this\n12 notion of paragraph 110 of my merits reply\n13 report. So where I quote him, I want to\n14 see exactly the paragraph that I've\n15 quoted. Does that make sense?\n16 Q No. It doesn't. And you're\n17 reframing my question. You're trying to\n18 ask the questions that you want to ask.\n19 And again --\n20 MR. PARTIDA: And, you know, if we\n21 need to take a break, and Greg, you and I\n22 need to have a discussion, I will not\n23 waste eight hours of this type of\n24 nonresponsive objectionable behavior.\n25 Frankly, I find this obstructionist.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 41 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 334\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q So, at this point in time, I'm\n4 asking a very simple question. I want you\n5 to look at Professor Garmaise's report.\n6 And I want you to point to me which\n7 sections in that report you find\n8 objectionable.\n9 I don't want you to rephrase my\n10 question and say, \"You're asking me a\n11 legacy question about X, Y or Z. Or this.\n12 Or that.\" I'm not doing any of that.\n13 I'm asking you a very\n14 straightforward, specific question; right?\n15 Which is look at Professor Garmaise's\n16 report. And tell me which parts of this\n17 report you find to be misguided.\n18 And I don't think that's a\n19 difficult question. And I do think that's\n20 a fair question. And I would like a\n21 straight answer to it.\n22 A So, David, your question is\n23 overly broad. You're asking me to go\n24 through the entirety of his report and ask\n25 for where I feel each paragraph or each\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 42 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 335\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 sentence is misguided.\n3 And so what I am saying here is,\n4 I'm trying to triangulate the specific\n5 paragraph that I'm quoting in my report.\n6 And I think that's reasonable, given the\n7 overly broad question you just asked, to\n8 say where in the entirety of his report --\n9 You said, \"Look at the Table of\n10 Contents.\" Let's go line by line and look\n11 for every element where I fear it's\n12 misguided. And so this just -- the\n13 \"misguided\" term is to say, as I say in\n14 the next paragraph of my report, it's not\n15 my burden to prove Plaintiff's case;\n16 right?\n17 So this just goes back to this\n18 assumption in regards to what I'm taking\n19 as assumed versus what evidence I'm trying\n20 to show; right? And so --\n21 Q Again, Dr. Bozanic, I'm going to\n22 stop you right there. Because you're\n23 doing the same thing. And frankly, you're\n24 wasting my time. I didn't ask you to do\n25 those things.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 43 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 336\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And frankly, with all due\n3 respect, you provided the rebuttal and\n4 reply report to this. This is a report\n5 that you put in a specific report\n6 responding to you.\n7 And frankly, for you to say it's\n8 not fair game for me to ask you what parts\n9 of this report you disagree with by\n10 looking at a report that you directly\n11 responded to, I -- frankly, I -- it's hard\n12 for me to square that hole.\n13 And again, I didn't ask you to\n14 read every page of this report or piece of\n15 this report line by line, although we\n16 could do that in the next eight hours, if\n17 you would like.\n18 What I asked you to do, to do\n19 exactly the same thing that you said is\n20 \"triangulate,\" is to say, \"Okay. I'm\n21 pointing you to a specific section of\n22 Dr. Garmaise's report, section 6.\n23 \"I'm asking you to look at a\n24 specific set of subsections and start\n25 identifying which ones. Which are the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 44 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 337\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 ones that you find misguided?\"\n3 And so as far as I understand\n4 it, you're telling me that either you're\n5 refusing or can't answer me as regards to\n6 a question as to whether or not you think\n7 certain points that you've stated in your\n8 report are misguided.\n9 I -- so with all of that said,\n10 let's try and start again. Do you have\n11 Exhibit 90 in front of you?\n12 A I do.\n13 Q Okay. Can you please turn to\n14 page 2?\n15 A One moment. I'm there.\n16 Q Okay. Now, section 6 in that\n17 page --\n18 A Wait. Which page 2, David. I'm\n19 sorry. I'm on Summary of Opinions.\n20 Q Sorry. Table of Contents, the\n21 literal second page of the PDF. There's\n22 99 pages.\n23 A PDF page 2?\n24 Q Yep. PDF page 2.\n25 A Okay. So if we're just looking,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 45 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 338\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 without having the benefit of reading the\n3 report --\n4 Q And we will get to the reading.\n5 Don't -- trust me. We'll get to what's in\n6 the report. I just want to know where to\n7 start. That's it. It -- really, that's\n8 it.\n9 A So if -- if we're focusing on\n10 section 6 and we're just focusing on the\n11 Table of Contents, I'm happy to opine.\n12 So here it says, \"Dr. Bozanic\n13 fails to reliably establish that the\n14 alleged misrepresentations caused\n15 investors loss -- caused investor losses.\"\n16 I disagree with that; right? This is what\n17 I have -- I have shown in -- in my report\n18 in terms of loss causation.\n19 And so then he goes through\n20 multiple subsections. And we can look at\n21 each of those in turn if you would like.\n22 Do I opine on each? A, B, C?\n23 Q Yes. I'd like to know what\n24 specific points you think are misguided.\n25 A Okay. Sure. So let's go to A.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 46 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 339\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I disagree with his assessment of\n3 statistical significance and how we\n4 interpret statistical significance. I\n5 disagree that I failed to establish that\n6 the alleged misrepresentations caused\n7 investor losses.\n8 And again, under the sub-bullets\n9 of section 6B, he makes several points\n10 with regards to statistical significance\n11 and value relevance. Which, I disagree\n12 with some of his points there, if not all.\n13 And this is what I discussed in my merits\n14 reply report.\n15 Subpoint C, again, he's looking\n16 at a different date. But he's reiterating\n17 the same with regards to the alleged\n18 misreps causing investor losses. And so I\n19 have amply shown evidence that those\n20 misreps caused investor losses.\n21 And then it goes on to other\n22 dates at issue in the case, August 17th.\n23 So I disagree with that I failed to\n24 establish that the alleged misreps caused\n25 investor losses on August 17th.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 47 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 340\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And I think he makes some claims\n3 about what information was new. And so I\n4 disagree with his conclusions in regards\n5 to what he found to be new or redundant\n6 information with the dates referenced in\n7 that section.\n8 So this is -- this is high\n9 level. And this is why, you know, I'm --\n10 I'm actually not accustomed, David, to\n11 such a broad question. And so this is\n12 where I'm trying to figure out what the\n13 exact question is.\n14 And so I can tell you that I\n15 disagree with the way that those bullets\n16 are phrased in the Table of Contents. But\n17 I was hoping you'd ask a more specific\n18 question. Because it seemed very broad.\n19 So that's why I was trying to\n20 figure out what you were going for so I\n21 can respond appropriately. Again, it's\n22 not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to\n23 figure out what you're trying to ask.\n24 Q Okay. Thanks for all of that.\n25 I would say that -- okay. I want you to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 48 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 341\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 go look at -- back at Exhibit 95.\n3 A Exhibit 95? I didn't mark mine.\n4 This is my merits reply report, dated\n5 October 9th?\n6 Q Should -- yes.\n7 A Sorry?\n8 Q Mm-hmm.\n9 A Yeah. Okay.\n10 Q Yes.\n11 A Okay. I'm back there.\n12 Q What do you mean by, \"It's not\n13 my burden to prove Plaintiff's case\"? The\n14 first sentence of paragraph 111?\n15 A Back there?\n16 Q Mm-hmm.\n17 A So just as it says, this is --\n18 this is not my burden. So Plaintiff's\n19 legal counsel has the burden to prove the\n20 case in terms of the veracity of the\n21 claims and the complaint.\n22 I am taking those claims on\n23 face. And then I'm trying to provide\n24 economic evidence consistent with what I'm\n25 seeing, in terms of my professional\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 49 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 342\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 experience and judgment, to see whether or\n3 not I can show some of these properties\n4 with respect to loss causation and damages\n5 and so forth.\n6 Q Okay. And was your burden to\n7 establish, therefore, loss causation?\n8 That was your burden?\n9 A In a legal sense, no. But in an\n10 economic sense, to show that it appears\n11 that there seems to be a connection with\n12 what were the facts of the case in terms\n13 of the misreps and the corrective\n14 disclosures.\n15 Q Okay. Was it your job to\n16 quantify artificial inflation on each day\n17 of the class period caused by the alleged\n18 misstatements or omissions?\n19 A I did quantify it. Yes.\n20 Q But was that your job? Was it\n21 your job in this report?\n22 A This was what I was asked to do.\n23 Yes.\n24 Q Okay. Now, can you go back to\n25 Exhibit 90? And I want to direct your\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 50 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 343\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 attention to paragraph 103.\n3 A Paragraph 103?\n4 Q That's correct.\n5 A Okay. I'm there.\n6 Q Now, I want you to read the\n7 first sentence of that. Do you see where\n8 it says, \"As an initial matter, I note\n9 that Dr. Bozanic's measure of inflation\n10 implies that, absent the alleged\n11 misrepresentations, CleanSpark's stock\n12 price on December 10, 2020, would've been\n13 $3.70 rather than 15.39\"? Do you see\n14 that?\n15 A I do.\n16 Q Okay. Do you dispute that\n17 statement?\n18 A I don't have an opinion on that\n19 statement. So I don't dispute it.\n20 Q Okay. Now, if you read the next\n21 sentence, it says, \"It's shown in\n22 Exhibit 5 this corresponds to a price\n23 decline of $9.39 or 71.7 percent, relative\n24 to the closing price on December 9 (the\n25 prior trading day).\" Do you see that?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 51 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 344\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I do.\n3 Q Do you dispute that statement?\n4 A Assuming the math is correct,\n5 no.\n6 Q Okay. Now, do you think it's\n7 reasonable that, in a scenario where\n8 CleanSpark had adequately disclosed\n9 information about the ATL acquisition, in\n10 your view, for example, that it had not\n11 misrepresented or omitted the information\n12 that the plaintiff alleges --\n13 Do you think it's reasonable in\n14 such a scenario that CleanSpark's stock\n15 price would've declined by 71.7 percent?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n18 Q Relative to the closing price?\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 THE WITNESS: I haven't formed an\n21 opinion on that today. And so that\n22 opinion is also not expressed in my\n23 report.\n24 I -- I do have some opinions on this\n25 matter in this report. With -- with\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 52 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 345\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 respect to that specific question, I don't\n3 have an opinion, as I sit here today.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Okay. So you don't have an\n6 opinion on whether or not it's reasonable\n7 that, in a scenario where CleanSpark had\n8 adequately disclosed information about the\n9 ATL acquisition, that CleanSpark's stock\n10 price would've declined by 71.7 percent,\n11 relative to the closing price before the\n12 announcement of the ATL acquisition?\n13 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n14 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't have an\n15 opinion. But in -- in terms of the clause\n16 that you proceeded with, with respect to\n17 the disclosures, I think that's part of\n18 what's at issue here is what was disclosed\n19 upon acquisition versus what wasn't.\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q But -- okay. So that's fine.\n22 You don't have an opinion. Okay. Now, do\n23 you agree that the value of the ATL\n24 facility implied by the December 10, 2020,\n25 transaction was 23 point -- 26.3 million?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 53 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 346\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I don't have an opinion. I have\n3 not done those calculations. Those are\n4 Dr. Garmaise's calculations and\n5 assumptions in terms of what he views the\n6 value of that acquisition to be.\n7 Q Okay. So you don't have an\n8 opinion on what was the value of the ATL\n9 facility implied by the December 10, 2020,\n10 transaction?\n11 A I was not asked to create a\n12 valuation analysis of the acquisition upon\n13 acquisition announcement. So therefore,\n14 unfortunately, I have no opinion today.\n15 Q Okay. Now, do you dispute that\n16 your inflation measure implies that \"Upon\n17 the announcement of the acquisition of the\n18 ATL facility, absent the alleged\n19 misrepresentations, CleanSpark's market\n20 capitalization would've declined by\n21 approximately 205 million\"?\n22 Do you see that sentence? Do\n23 you disagree with that?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 THE WITNESS: I see that. I do see\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 54 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 347\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the sentence. And so I'll -- I'll answer\n3 the same. In terms of -- I've not run\n4 these calculations in terms of this\n5 decline. And so I don't have an opinion\n6 on that number that Dr. Garmaise puts\n7 forward.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Okay. Now, do you have an\n10 opinion --\n11 THE REPORTER: I apologize. Before\n12 you get another question in, let me jump\n13 in here.\n14 Doctor, I understand that you may\n15 anticipate some of the answers to these\n16 questions. But it's really important that\n17 I have a full and complete question, a\n18 possible objection from Mr. Linkh, and\n19 then your answer; all right? In that\n20 order.\n21 So when you finish hearing the\n22 question, just wait one to two seconds\n23 before you develop your response so that\n24 he can get an objection in; okay?\n25 THE WITNESS: That sounds great.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 55 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 348\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Thanks, Lindsey. And always feel free to\n3 chime in. I apologize. Thank you for\n4 that.\n5 THE REPORTER: You're welcome.\n6 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So I can re-ask\n7 the question if we need to, Ms. Court\n8 Reporter. Or was that sufficiently clear\n9 that we can move on?\n10 THE REPORTER: No. No. I got the\n11 question and answer.\n12 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n13 THE REPORTER: I just, you know,\n14 wanted to prompt him so that way Mr. Linkh\n15 can make objections without getting\n16 crosstalk of the answer.\n17 MR. PARTIDA: Perfect.\n18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.\n19 THE REPORTER: Right?\n20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Perfect. Just wanted\n22 to make sure. Thank you very much.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q Okay. All right. Well, do you\n25 agree that 205 million is more than seven\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 56 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 349\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 times 26.3 million?\n3 A Without having the benefit of a\n4 calculator, that seems approximately\n5 correct.\n6 Q Okay. Now, I want to go back\n7 to -- let's see -- I think it's --\n8 actually, I'm going to be introducing --\n9 okay.\n10 I want you to go back to what\n11 was previously marked as Exhibit 95, which\n12 is your reply merits report. And I'd like\n13 to direct you to footnote 187 of that\n14 report.\n15 A I'm there.\n16 Q Okay. Just tell me when you've\n17 had a chance to read it.\n18 A I have read it.\n19 Q Okay. Now, I'd like you to go\n20 back to Exhibit 90. And I'd like you to\n21 point me to where, in paragraph 186,\n22 Professor Garmaise makes that implication.\n23 Well, let me do this, just to\n24 make sure the record is clear. So\n25 footnote 187 says -- and you can correct\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 57 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 350\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 me if I misread anything -- \"I further\n3 note that Dr. Garmaise's implied\n4 speculation that artificial inflation must\n5 be capped at 26.3 million is based on an\n6 implied valuation of the ATL transaction.\"\n7 And then you cite Garmaise's\n8 report, paragraphs 15, 103, and 186. So\n9 then is that accurate?\n10 A That appears to be accurate.\n11 Yes. Thank you.\n12 Q Okay. And so then what I'd like\n13 you to do is point to me where, in\n14 paragraph 186 of his report, Professor\n15 Garmaise makes that implication.\n16 A I -- I'm not sure what you mean\n17 by -- well, I think I understand. Hold\n18 on. So the \"implication,\" meaning the\n19 implied valuation? Is that what you mean\n20 by \"implication\"?\n21 Q You stated it.\n22 A Yeah. So --\n23 Q You stated -- I'm asking you.\n24 You cited three paragraphs in this report.\n25 A Right.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 58 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 351\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q I'd like you to point to me\n3 where, in paragraph 186 of Professor\n4 Garmaise's report, you -- why you're\n5 citing that paragraph.\n6 A Sure. I know I stated --\n7 Q Let's put it that way. So --\n8 A Sorry.\n9 Q So let's make this question\n10 clear. 187. You say, \"I further note\n11 that Dr. Garmaise's implied speculation\n12 that artificial inflation must be capped\n13 at 26.3 million is based on an implied\n14 valuation of the ATL transaction.\"\n15 And then you cite three\n16 paragraphs in Professor Garmaise's report;\n17 is that accurate?\n18 A It is.\n19 Q Can you please turn me to\n20 paragraph 186 in Professor Garmaise's\n21 report and explain to me the reason for\n22 which you cited that paragraph in this\n23 footnote?\n24 A Ah. I understand. I was trying\n25 to understand what you meant by \"implied,\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 59 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 352\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 if you were talking about his implication\n3 or my verbiage. And so, in 103, I'm\n4 referring to -- this is where we started,\n5 the 26th point.\n6 Q This is a very simple question.\n7 A I'm not --\n8 Q I just want you to point me to\n9 where in 186 -- why you cited that\n10 paragraph.\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to pause to\n13 give each other times we're not talking\n14 over each other.\n15 We were on 103. And now, you said to\n16 jump to 186. And so I'm happy to go to\n17 186. But we were first looking at 103,\n18 where they talked -- where Dr. Garmaise\n19 talked about the 26 million. Let me go to\n20 186 now.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q Thanks.\n23 A Yeah. That appears to be a\n24 typo.\n25 Q Doesn't exist. Okay.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 60 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 353\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Doesn't exist. That's a typo.\n3 Yeah.\n4 Q Can you tell me what the typo\n5 was? Can you tell me -- well, let me ask\n6 you this. Do you cite check your reports?\n7 A I check my reports. But it\n8 doesn't mean that they're completely\n9 100 percent immune from the occasional\n10 typo. And so there could be typos. And\n11 it appears we've -- we found a typo.\n12 Q So tell me which paragraph you\n13 did mean to cite.\n14 A 103. The paragraph we were on.\n15 Q And so you just added an\n16 additional phantom citation?\n17 A Again, it's a typo. I am not\n18 sure --\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form --\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q What is the typo? What is the\n22 typo? There's a paragraph cited here in\n23 this report that doesn't exist. That's\n24 been -- that's --\n25 So what I want to be very\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 61 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 354\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 careful about is -- okay. You're saying\n3 it's a typo. That's great. What's the\n4 typo? Did you mean to type a different\n5 paragraph? Did you just add a paragraph?\n6 What's the typo?\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 THE WITNESS: As I sit here today,\n9 David, I don't recall what the typo was.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay.\n12 A Or what paragraph that I was\n13 intending to refer to. Obviously, there's\n14 an error here. So perhaps the 8 was\n15 transposed with something that else ended\n16 in 6. But this would be speculation.\n17 I'm not sure, in terms of when\n18 this was written, what I was thinking in\n19 terms of what paragraph. So it was\n20 probably a keystroke typo.\n21 And if you'd like, I can start\n22 to go through every other paragraph that\n23 seems to fit that \"1X6.\" Because\n24 obviously, there's not an -- there's not\n25 an 8 in terms of Dr. Garmaise's report.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 62 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 355\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But perhaps there's some other paragraph\n3 that starts with a 1 and ends in a 6. So\n4 let's see.\n5 Q Oh. We don't need to do that\n6 exercise right now. I think it's clear\n7 that there's a mistake and that there's\n8 just non-existent paragraphs cited.\n9 So we don't need to get into the\n10 why of it. It just seems like -- I don't\n11 know. Let's leave it at that.\n12 A I apologize. That's what I\n13 thought you would ask.\n14 Q Okay. Can you point me then --\n15 so I guess paragraphs 15 and 103 do exist.\n16 So that's helpful. And so I would like\n17 you to point me to where first, in\n18 paragraph 15, Professor Garmaise suggests\n19 that artificial inflation must be capped\n20 at 26.3 million.\n21 A So what I'm doing here is, I'm\n22 citing relevant paragraphs with this\n23 issue. So in paragraph 15, what I'm\n24 citing there is that 71 percent and the\n25 205 million.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 63 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 356\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But importantly, you see the\n3 parenthetical, which also is duplicated in\n4 paragraph 103, with regards to -- this is\n5 when I -- when we were discussing about\n6 \"implied.\" Were you talking about when I\n7 was saying \"implied\" or he was saying\n8 \"implied?\"\n9 'Cause he says here, \"The total\n10 value of ATL 'implied' by the December 10,\n11 2020, transaction (estimated at up to\n12 26.3 million).\" Which, I believe he has\n13 some footnotes that detail his\n14 calculations behind that estimate. So\n15 this is what I'm referring to. That 26.3.\n16 Q Okay. So again, we'll do the\n17 same game. Can you please go to\n18 paragraph 15 of Professor Garmaise's\n19 report?\n20 A I am there.\n21 Q Okay. Can you read that for the\n22 record?\n23 A The entire paragraph?\n24 Q The entire paragraph.\n25 A Yes, sir. I can. \"First,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 64 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 357\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Dr. Bozanic's inflation measure implies\n3 that, absent the alleged\n4 misrepresentations, CleanSpark's stock\n5 price would have declined by 71.7 percent\n6 upon the announcement of the acquisition\n7 of the ATL facility.\n8 \"And the company's market\n9 capitalization would have declined by\n10 approximately 205 million, more than seven\n11 times the total value of ATL, implied by\n12 the December 10, 2020, transaction\n13 (estimated at up to 26.3 million).\n14 \"Dr. Bozanic provides no\n15 justification for this implication of his\n16 proposed measure of artificial inflation,\n17 including the implication that investors\n18 would've also substantially lowered their\n19 valuation of CleanSpark's other businesses\n20 (i.e., energy and digital agency, which I\n21 understand are unrelated to the\n22 allegations in this matter) by at least\n23 179 million, absent the alleged\n24 misrepresentations.\"\n25 End of paragraph, I believe.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 65 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 358\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Yes.\n3 Q Okay. Where in that paragraph\n4 does Professor Garmaise suggest that\n5 artificial inflation must be capped at\n6 26.3 million?\n7 A I -- I'm assuming that he's\n8 making a claim with regards to artificial\n9 inflation and damages in terms of what a\n10 potential cap could be.\n11 And so all I am -- all I am\n12 saying in -- in my footnote 187 of my\n13 merits reply report is that there's\n14 academic research that's inconsistent with\n15 his claim in regards to what the potential\n16 valuation of the ATL facility would be\n17 whereby they show losses upon acquisition.\n18 This is the point of the footnote.\n19 Q So again, my question -- my --\n20 so that's fine; but --\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Sorry, Ms. Court\n22 Reporter.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q That's fine. But again, my\n25 question is, can you please point me\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 66 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 359\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 where, in paragraph 15 of Professor\n3 Garmaise's report, Professor Garmaise\n4 suggests that artificial inflation must be\n5 capped at 26.3 million?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: David. He doesn't say\n8 those exact words. We can agree to that.\n9 What I'm assuming here is -- the\n10 implication here is, he's trying to put\n11 some sort of cap on a damages measure on\n12 the basis of a valuation of the ATL\n13 acquisition, upon acquisition.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q Why is that the assumption\n16 you're making? What language in this\n17 paragraph allows you to make that\n18 assumption?\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 THE WITNESS: I am inferring.\n21 Perhaps I'm incorrect with what he is\n22 trying to imply. But this is what I'm\n23 assuming his implication to be.\n24 Perhaps I'm incorrect. But this is\n25 what I took at -- from -- from this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 67 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 360\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 particular paragraph, though his verbiage\n3 is not specifically the verbiage that I\n4 have used. Correct. But I'm trying to\n5 make an inference from his assertion.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q That was a mercifully\n8 straightforward answer. Okay. Let's go\n9 to paragraph 103.\n10 A Paragraph 103? Same report?\n11 Q Mm-hmm. Same report.\n12 A Come on. Almost there. I am\n13 back there.\n14 Q Okay. Would it be fair to say\n15 that your view of Professor Garmaise's\n16 critique, in terms of as it was stated in\n17 115, is similar to your view of it, as\n18 it's stated in 103? Does that then -- and\n19 maybe I'll just forget this as a question.\n20 What I want to understand is,\n21 can you point to me where, in paragraph\n22 103, Professor Garmaise suggests that\n23 artificial inflation must be capped at\n24 26.3 million. And I guess my question to\n25 that is, would your answer be the same as\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 68 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 361\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 your answer was with respect to\n3 paragraph 15?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: As -- as the paragraphs\n6 are largely duplicative, yes. My answer\n7 would be the same in terms of what I was\n8 reading from this paragraph and picking up\n9 on and -- and discussing in my report.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay. Fair enough. And that\n12 makes sense. Okay. Now, going back to --\n13 THE WITNESS: And David, I think\n14 that -- sorry. If I may interject? So\n15 for a comfort break, at some point when\n16 we're done with this topic of questioning,\n17 perhaps we can take a break for a few\n18 minutes?\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Sure. We could do that\n20 now. Or whatever's best for you.\n21 THE WITNESS: As you wish. The --\n22 the coffee has pulsed through me. So\n23 yeah.\n24 MR. PARTIDA: Well, why don't -- we\n25 certainly don't want to make you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 69 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 362\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 uncomfortable. Why don't we come back\n3 at -- does 11:30 work?\n4 THE WITNESS: That sounds fantastic.\n5 MR. PARTIDA: Do you want to come\n6 back sooner? Okay. Let's come back at\n7 11:30.\n8 MR. LINKH: 11:25?\n9 THE WITNESS: 11:25 is fine too.\n10 Yeah.\n11 MR. LINKH: Okay. All right.\n12 MR. PARTIDA: Sure. 11:25 works.\n13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.\n14 MR. PARTIDA: Thanks.\n15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of\n16 media unit number 1. We are off the\n17 record at 11:17 a.m.\n18 (Off the record.)\n19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n20 beginning of media unit number 2. We are\n21 on the record at 11:28 a.m.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q All right. We're back. So,\n24 Dr. Bozanic, I want to point you back to\n25 your 187 of your report. Your reply\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 70 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 363\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report, I should say, which is Exhibit 95.\n3 MR. LINKH: Is that footnote 187,\n4 David?\n5 MR. PARTIDA: That's correct.\n6 Footnote 187. Yes.\n7 THE WITNESS: I'm there.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Okay. What argument does the\n10 paper that you cite in footnote 187, the\n11 Moeller, et al. article, support?\n12 A So I'm referencing this article\n13 in regards to its analysis that pertains\n14 to losses upon acquisition and how the\n15 losses can exceed the value of the\n16 acquisition.\n17 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Now, I'm going\n18 to introduce, as Exhibit 96, that paper.\n19 And you all can tell me when you've\n20 received it.\n21 (Exhibit 96 was marked for\n22 identification.)\n23 MR. LINKH: I just got mine.\n24 THE WITNESS: I have it.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 71 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 364\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. Do you agree that the\n4 paper finds a loss of 12 cents a dollar --\n5 12 cents per dollar spent on acquisition?\n6 A So the paper says a lot of\n7 things. But just looking at the abstract,\n8 yes. It does say, \"Acquiring firm\n9 shareholders lost 12 cents around\n10 acquisition announcements per dollar\n11 spent.\"\n12 Q Okay. And does this mean that\n13 if you had invested $1, you were left with\n14 88 cents?\n15 A Let me see what the implication\n16 would be. So it's basically saying, \"Yes.\n17 You're -- you have a discount. You invest\n18 $1. And what you invest is going to be\n19 worth less than that upon the investment.\"\n20 So I think that's accurate, what you said.\n21 Q And \"what I said\" meaning, \"So\n22 that means if you invested $1, then you\n23 were left with 88 cents\"?\n24 A I -- I think that's reasonable.\n25 I think that would be an implication for\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 72 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 365\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this. I'm not sure if they -- they say\n3 that. But that's -- that's the -- the\n4 implication, I believe.\n5 Q Okay. Now, I'd like you to go\n6 down to page 759 of the paper; and --\n7 A This is numbered page 759. Not\n8 PDF page. Okay.\n9 Q That is correct.\n10 A I'm there.\n11 Q Okay. Now, I want you to direct\n12 your attention to the very last full\n13 sentence on the bottom of that page, where\n14 it says, \"Large loss deals have a\n15 negative average abnormal return of\n16 negative 10.6 percent.\" Do you see that?\n17 A I do see it.\n18 Q Okay. Now, is that saying that\n19 the deals in which there was a large loss,\n20 the average observed loss in the market\n21 value was 10.6 percent?\n22 A I would have to go back. I\n23 haven't memorized this paper. So it\n24 depends on what they meant by \"large loss\n25 deals.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 73 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 366\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So I don't know what they mean\n3 by \"large loss deals.\" But however those\n4 are defined, they're saying, \"Yes. They\n5 have a negative abnormal average return\n6 around negative 10.6 percent.\" That seems\n7 to be true, what they're saying.\n8 Q And so the average observed loss\n9 in the market value would be 10.6 percent,\n10 if I'm understanding what this sentence\n11 means correctly?\n12 A Well, I mean, I -- I don't know\n13 what the average is in terms of which\n14 benchmark. But they're saying for the --\n15 for that subset; right?\n16 Q Right. Right.\n17 A For that subset, it seems.\n18 They're bracketing it. But they, on\n19 average -- so obviously, that's just an\n20 average. That could be higher. It could\n21 be lower.\n22 Q Okay. All right. Now,\n23 switching to a different topic, I want to\n24 talk -- so do you agree that the amount of\n25 revenue expected from an increase in a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 74 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 367\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 hash rate of 100 petahashes a second\n3 depends on multiple factors?\n4 A Repeat the question. You said\n5 that quickly. And it was awfully\n6 technical, David. Go ahead, please.\n7 Q Sure. Do you agree that the\n8 amount of revenue expected from an\n9 increase in hash rate of 100 petahashes a\n10 second depends on multiple factors?\n11 A I -- I agree with the latter\n12 part. I don't -- I don't know the\n13 consequences of the -- the former part\n14 with the 100 petahashes. I don't\n15 understand the relevance of that.\n16 But I would agree that the\n17 revenue that one can gain, there's a\n18 multitude of factors that contribute to\n19 any revenue stream. And this is no\n20 different in this case.\n21 Q Okay. I understand. And\n22 100 petahashes a second is tied to\n23 allegations in the complaint. But really,\n24 the -- you could put, you know, an\n25 increase in the hash rate of any sort of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 75 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 368\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 amount. And so I think I understand your\n3 answer with that caveat.\n4 Okay. Now, would you agree that\n5 one of those factors would be the -- an\n6 increase in the hash rate? Well, let me\n7 strike that.\n8 Do you agree that the amount of\n9 revenue that you would expect from an\n10 increased hash rate depends on how\n11 difficult it actually is to mine the\n12 bitcoin? Or what they refer to as\n13 \"network difficulty\"?\n14 A It's -- it's my understanding.\n15 So I'm not a bitcoin expert. But I have\n16 familiarity with bitcoin and its nuances\n17 through this case.\n18 And so \"network difficulty\" does\n19 seem to be a contributing factor to the\n20 amount of revenue achieved. This is just\n21 supply and demand, in terms of how the\n22 network difficulty is reset as -- as more\n23 miners start to enter the fray. That's my\n24 understanding.\n25 Q Okay. And would you also agree\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 76 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 369\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that the amount of revenue expected from\n3 an increase in a hash rate would also\n4 depend on the price of Bitcoin?\n5 A Absolutely.\n6 Q Okay. Now, was the price of\n7 Bitcoin constant throughout the class\n8 period?\n9 A To my knowledge, it was not. It\n10 did fluctuate throughout the class period.\n11 Q Okay. And would you agree that\n12 the price of Bitcoin is volatile during\n13 the class period?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 THE WITNESS: I'm not -- yeah. I'm\n16 not sure what you mean by \"volatile.\" Did\n17 it go up? Did it go down? Likely, it\n18 did. I -- I haven't looked at a trend;\n19 right? You know, recently, in terms of\n20 the Bitcoin price throughout the class\n21 period.\n22 What I can say, in looking at\n23 analysts' reports, it -- it did seem that\n24 there -- there was some variation.\n25 Whether it's volatility, I don't -- I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 77 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 370\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 don't know.\n3 But it did seem that the -- the price\n4 did change throughout the class period.\n5 That's true, to my knowledge.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Okay. Do you have a sense of\n8 how you view what the meaning of\n9 \"volatility\" is?\n10 A When I think \"volatility\" versus\n11 \"variation,\" volatility seems more\n12 extreme. I mean, so you can talk about\n13 volatility in scales.\n14 But when we talk about\n15 volatility, it's usually implying\n16 something that is extremely volatile, just\n17 like the -- the normal adjective, meaning\n18 it's going up and down.\n19 Q Mm-hmm.\n20 A We would put it in terms of\n21 means and standard deviations, where you'd\n22 have a large standard deviation. So\n23 \"volatile\" just seems a little more loaded\n24 than \"variation.\"\n25 And so I'm aware of there --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 78 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 371\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 there being variation. But whether there\n3 was volatility or excessive volatility,\n4 that I'm not. I'm not sure if I have a --\n5 I have an opinion on that. I haven't\n6 looked at a graph in some time.\n7 Q Okay. I understand. And I will\n8 just note for the record, I agree with you\n9 about the meaning of volatility. And\n10 that's specifically why I was asking the\n11 question.\n12 And it sounds like, for me, it's\n13 that -- what I'm understanding your\n14 testimony is to be that you do understand\n15 that there was a variation in the price of\n16 Bitcoin.\n17 But you would have to look\n18 closer at a chart to determine whether or\n19 not you would say it was variation that,\n20 you know, reached the level of volatility.\n21 Is that an accurate understanding of your\n22 view?\n23 A Sort of. One -- one is more\n24 colloquial. One is more technical. And\n25 so I want a measure of the volatility to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 79 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 372\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 assess how volatile it is. And that's\n3 why -- why I referenced \"standard\n4 deviation.\" Right?\n5 So it's just a matter of degree;\n6 right? And so I -- I can't say whether it\n7 was volatile; right? But I can say I know\n8 there was variation. That -- that's all\n9 I'm saying.\n10 Q Okay. Now, was the network\n11 difficulty constant throughout the class\n12 period?\n13 A It's my understanding that\n14 network difficulty changed through the\n15 class period as well.\n16 Q Okay. And would you agree that\n17 there was a very sharp decline in network\n18 difficulty at the end of June 2021?\n19 A I -- I don't have an opinion on\n20 that. I have not looked specifically at\n21 that time period to look at this\n22 particular metric.\n23 So as I sit here today, I don't\n24 have an opinion. I don't know that\n25 particular fact for that specific\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 80 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 373\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 subperiod. If we had a graph, then\n3 perhaps I could opine to further --\n4 further speak to it.\n5 Q All right. Is it your opinion\n6 that the constant dollar methodology is\n7 generally used in 10b-5 securities cases?\n8 A It's a widely used approach.\n9 Yes.\n10 Q In securities cases?\n11 A Oh. Sorry. Yes.\n12 Q Yes. So yeah. So my -- yeah.\n13 Just to be clear, is it -- so it is your\n14 opinion that the constant dollar\n15 methodology is generally used in 10b-5\n16 securities cases? Is that your opinion?\n17 A I -- I've seen that it's widely\n18 used.\n19 Q Would that be different from\n20 \"generally used\"?\n21 A Generally, in the sense that I\n22 haven't surveyed a -- a mass sample of\n23 cases. So this is, you know, going back\n24 to, say, \"averages.\"\n25 And so I haven't taken all cases\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 81 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 374\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and -- and looked to see what approach was\n3 used. But I'm -- I'm aware that this is a\n4 commonly used approach.\n5 Q Okay. Now, is it your opinion\n6 that the constant dollar methodology is\n7 appropriate to use in all 10b-5 securities\n8 cases?\n9 A I -- I have not made that\n10 opinion. And so what I'm saying is that,\n11 in this case, given the facts and\n12 circumstances and my review of this case,\n13 it would be appropriate in this matter.\n14 Q But my question is a little bit,\n15 intentionally so, broader than that. And\n16 my question is whether or not, leaving\n17 aside this case, the constant dollar\n18 methodology would be appropriate for use\n19 in all 10b-5 securities cases?\n20 A I -- I can't speak to that. I\n21 need to look to the facts and\n22 circumstances of the specific case. So I\n23 don't -- I don't have an opinion on that\n24 other than I can't say without the benefit\n25 of assessing the individual specifics of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 82 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 375\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the case.\n3 Q Okay. Now, is it your opinion\n4 that CleanSpark's business outlook on\n5 December 9, 2020, was similar to its\n6 business outlook on August 17, 2021?\n7 A So in -- in terms of the\n8 outlook, with respect to its pivot and\n9 then the -- as the truth came out through\n10 the class period, we see that the share\n11 price and we see that the market cap kind\n12 of was deflated throughout that class\n13 period. Going back to similar amounts\n14 that we had seen at the start of the class\n15 period.\n16 Q So I think maybe perhaps you\n17 misunderstood the question a little bit.\n18 Because I'm asking something a little bit\n19 different, which is that, you know, its --\n20 Was CleanSpark's business\n21 outlook, as a company, its business\n22 outlook at the beginning of the class\n23 period and/or right before, on December 9,\n24 2020 --\n25 If you were to look at\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 83 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 376\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 CleanSpark's business outlook then, is it\n3 your opinion that its business outlook on\n4 that date, December 29, 2020, was similar\n5 to its business outlook on August 17,\n6 2021?\n7 A If -- if I could back -- could\n8 you help me since I didn't understand the\n9 question per your words?\n10 Q Sure.\n11 A Can you help understand what you\n12 mean by \"business outlook\" since I -- I've\n13 clearly missed this question. And you --\n14 you referenced December 9th? Or\n15 December 10th?\n16 Q December 9. So just before the\n17 announcement.\n18 A Ah.\n19 Q So I'll give a little\n20 background, I guess, just so you can -- so\n21 I can explain what I'm saying. And then\n22 I'll re-ask the question.\n23 So in general layman's terms, if\n24 I was looking at a company -- you would\n25 look at a company. And, say, you know, a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 84 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 377\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 business analyst gives out a report. And\n3 they would say, \"The outlook of this firm\n4 is, you know, A to F.\" However they want\n5 to rank it; you know? And they did some\n6 analysis of it.\n7 And then you would say -- you\n8 know, later on, on this date, you know,\n9 another, you know, person or somebody who\n10 is covering the stock or the company says,\n11 \"Ah. This is the outlook. And it's, you\n12 know, this or that.\"\n13 And so with that in mind, my\n14 understanding -- or what I'm trying to\n15 understand is, kind of in a general way,\n16 is it your -- do you have an opinion that\n17 what CleanSpark's business outlook was on\n18 December 9, 2020, was similar to its\n19 business outlook on August 17, 2021?\n20 I guess another way of asking --\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q Another way of asking the\n24 question would be, did CleanSpark have\n25 similar business outlooks on December 9,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 85 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 378\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 2020, and August 17, 2021?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: So I -- I have to\n5 admit, I'm a little confused by the\n6 grading of business outlook.\n7 When I think of business outlook, I\n8 think about the prospects before the firm\n9 with respect to the activities that\n10 they're going to undertake to generate\n11 revenues. That's kind of what I think of\n12 business --\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q Perfect. Using that -- sure.\n15 So use that definition. Great. Do you\n16 think that was the same or similar for\n17 CleanSpark as it was on December 9, 2020,\n18 and August 17, 2021?\n19 A So \"same\" might be strong. But\n20 \"similar\" might be better in terms of -- I\n21 think I make a point in my report.\n22 And this is why I referred back\n23 to price of the -- the per share price and\n24 the market cap in regards to the\n25 expectations embedded at that time, i.e.,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 86 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 379\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 December 9th versus August 17th. They\n3 seemed similar at the -- you know, just\n4 before the start of the class period\n5 versus just after the -- the class period.\n6 So after this artificial\n7 inflation was dissipated through\n8 corrective disclosures towards the end of\n9 the class period, we see this dissipation\n10 in share price. We see a drop in market\n11 value.\n12 And so on the basis of future\n13 expectations and with respect to\n14 revenue-generating abilities, I would say\n15 they appear similar between those two\n16 dates. Does that help?\n17 Q That answers my question.\n18 A Thank you, sir.\n19 Q All right. Now, would you agree\n20 that CleanSpark made substantial\n21 investments in increasing its bitcoin\n22 mining capacity during the class period?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 THE WITNESS: Substantial? I don't\n25 know. Did they make investments? Yes.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 87 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 380\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. Now, would you agree that\n4 those investments were beyond what was\n5 initially announced on December 10, 2020?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: I do know that it would\n8 appear they attempted to place mining rigs\n9 at another facility, which is inconsistent\n10 with the ATL announcement.\n11 And I don't recall with certainty.\n12 But I thought they might've acquired other\n13 facilities throughout the class period.\n14 But I'm not 100 percent sure if it was\n15 within the class or after the class.\n16 But I -- but I do recall there being\n17 other investments being made in the\n18 bitcoin mining domain, beyond the ATL\n19 acquisition announcement commitments that\n20 they had promised.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q All right. And would you also\n23 agree that CleanSpark underwent a\n24 substantial transformation from energy\n25 management to bitcoin mining during the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 88 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 381\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 class period?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: So adjectives aside,\n5 I -- I do understand that they were into\n6 providing hardware. Providing energy\n7 management services.\n8 And they were using bitcoin to\n9 demonstrate, like they tried to do with --\n10 with other initiatives, the viability of\n11 their approach with respect to their\n12 ability to reduce energy consumption.\n13 Yeah.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q So would you agree that\n16 CleanSpark underwent a transformation from\n17 an energy management to a bitcoin mining\n18 company during the class period?\n19 A I -- I would say the firm\n20 would -- would say -- say so; right? They\n21 claim in -- in some of their documents\n22 that they've become a bitcoin miner. And\n23 so they did shift from their traditional\n24 businesses to this new business.\n25 Q Okay. So that's a yes?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 89 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 382\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Well, a yes to what? So like I\n3 said, you had a lot of adjectives. I'd\n4 say there was a shift in their business\n5 with respect to their legacy services\n6 towards the nascent bitcoin mining\n7 initiative.\n8 Q So I guess we could have the\n9 question read back. I think it was\n10 adjective-free. But I'll just ask it\n11 again.\n12 Would you agree that CleanSpark\n13 underwent a transformation from an energy\n14 management to a bitcoin mining company\n15 during the class period?\n16 A I -- I would say they shifted;\n17 right? So they -- they didn't just --\n18 they didn't abandon the -- the old legacy.\n19 They shifted in terms of -- technology.\n20 Q Did I use the word \"abandon\"?\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Sorry, Ms. Court\n22 Reporter.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q So I think, if I'm\n25 understanding -- and correct me if I'm\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 90 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 383\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 wrong -- that CleanSpark transitioned from\n3 an energy management to bitcoin mining\n4 during the class period. Could we agree\n5 on that basic statement?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: What I'm -- what I'm\n8 having issue with is, I just want to make\n9 it clear they didn't abandon it.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Sure.\n12 A They were utilizing their\n13 technology. And so they found an\n14 application where they could utilize that\n15 technology. And so they did so.\n16 And so when I say \"transform,\"\n17 I'm just worried that there's some\n18 supposition or notion that they abandoned\n19 the legacy. They did not abandon the\n20 legacy.\n21 But there was a pivot; right?\n22 There was a shift, in terms of their\n23 initiatives, where they were putting some\n24 of the resources. But they didn't abandon\n25 the legacy. That's my only point in -- in\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 91 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 384\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 mincing with this word, David.\n3 Q Okay. Well, let's get into that\n4 for a minute. So what I'm going to do\n5 is -- a new -- this is going to be 97.\n6 Exhibit 97. Bear with me for one minute.\n7 You know what? I'm actually going to go\n8 ahead and move on.\n9 Okay. Now, I want to actually\n10 go back to -- let me make sure the copy\n11 that I introduced -- okay. I want you to\n12 go back to Exhibit 90, which is your reply\n13 merit's report. And then I want to direct\n14 your attention to Exhibit 1.\n15 THE REPORTER: And then, I'm sorry.\n16 Just before you get any questions in, two\n17 questions. Exhibit 1 is contained within\n18 Exhibit 90?\n19 MR. PARTIDA: That is correct. There\n20 is Exhibit 90, which is Dr. Bozanic's\n21 expert merits reply report. And subsumed\n22 within that, as sort of an appendix, are a\n23 series of exhibits.\n24 THE REPORTER: Understood.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: And Exhibit 1 --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 92 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 385\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 yeah -- is on page 58 out of 99 of the\n3 PDF.\n4 THE REPORTER: Okay.\n5 MR. LINKH: David, are --\n6 THE WITNESS: I apologize. I'm\n7 confused now.\n8 MR. LINKH: David, are you talking\n9 about Dr. Garmaise's report instead?\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. You know what?\n11 You're exactly right. I'm sorry. I'm not\n12 talking about Exhibit 90. I want to talk\n13 about -- sorry -- Exhibit 95. So my\n14 apologies.\n15 What I'd like to direct your\n16 attention to is your reply merits report,\n17 which is Exhibit 95. And that final page\n18 has document a titled Exhibit 1.\n19 THE REPORTER: And then I know the\n20 doctor is getting there. But then did you\n21 mark 97. Or it hasn't been sent out just\n22 yet?\n23 MR. PARTIDA: There is no 97. I was\n24 going to introduce it. And then I decided\n25 to move on to a different question.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 93 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 386\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE REPORTER: Understood.\n3 MR. PARTIDA: My apologies for the\n4 confusion.\n5 THE REPORTER: It's okay. I just --\n6 I've got to make it clear.\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. No, 100 percent.\n8 And I appreciate you doing your job; so --\n9 All right. If everyone can tell me\n10 when they're there?\n11 THE WITNESS: Been there.\n12 MR. PARTIDA: We're all there? Okay.\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q The blue line in this exhibit --\n15 A Ooh. The color.\n16 Q Which is the top line if you're\n17 looking at a black copy. It's the top\n18 line.\n19 A The dash line? Or the -- which\n20 line?\n21 Q No. No.\n22 A The very top.\n23 Q The very top line that starts at\n24 like between 10 and 15, then spikes up to\n25 40, and then goes down. Like that line?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 94 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 387\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Stock price. Yes. Stock price.\n3 Q Okay. That's -- exactly. So\n4 that's CleanSpark's stock price. Okay.\n5 And then the black dotted line. The one\n6 that's like a dash line, not little dots.\n7 So I shouldn't say dots.\n8 The dash line, that shows the\n9 artificial inflation on each day during\n10 the class period, based on the constant\n11 dollar method; is that correct?\n12 A Yes. That's correct.\n13 Q Okay. And now, from this\n14 exhibit, can you tell me; approximately\n15 what was CleanSpark's stock price on the\n16 first day of the class period,\n17 December 10?\n18 A Around $15, it appears.\n19 Q Okay. And also from this\n20 exhibit, could you tell me approximately\n21 what CleanSpark's stock price was on\n22 the -- on January 13, 2021?\n23 A Approximately, just looking at\n24 the one interval that's listed, which is\n25 1/9/21, and going slowly to the right,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 95 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 388\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 it's tough to triangulate. But it looks\n3 like maybe around high 30s.\n4 Q Okay. So like -- it looks to me\n5 like -- and maybe you could tell me if\n6 this is fair or not -- like 39 to 40.\n7 Something around there.\n8 A It -- it could be. Without the\n9 benefit of additional interval markers or\n10 the underlying data, that sounds\n11 reasonable, David.\n12 Q Okay. But high 30s. Okay. All\n13 right. Now, do you agree that the price\n14 on December 10, 2020, was substantially\n15 lower than the price on January 13th?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: I mean, ten to $15\n18 is -- is lower than 35 to $40. Yes.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q Okay. You would agree that it's\n21 lower?\n22 A Absolutely.\n23 Q And you'd agree it's halfway\n24 lower? About half?\n25 A It would appear to be so. Yeah.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 96 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 389\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. Now, do you agree that\n3 between December 10 and January 13, 2021,\n4 the artificial inflation is constant,\n5 based on your merits report?\n6 A Please repeat the question. I'm\n7 sorry.\n8 Q Yep. Do you agree that between\n9 December 10, 2021, and January 13, 2021,\n10 that artificial inflation is constant,\n11 based on your merits report?\n12 A Yes.\n13 Q Okay. Now, from this exhibit,\n14 can you tell me approximately what was\n15 CleanSpark's stock price in February 12,\n16 2021? And I understand you're not going\n17 to be able to give me an exact number.\n18 But just --\n19 A I'm trying,\n20 Q Just approximate. Yeah.\n21 A Yeah.\n22 Q I, myself, am holding a letter\n23 opener up to the screen.\n24 A I'm doing the same, my friend.\n25 Around $35. Maybe under $35.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 97 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 390\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q I have it as around like 28.\n3 A It's tough, David, with this.\n4 Q Yeah.\n5 A You said December -- or sorry --\n6 February 12th; right?\n7 Q Yeah. February 12th. Yeah.\n8 A Ah. That looks -- yeah. It --\n9 it could be what you said. Sorry. It's\n10 tough from this graphic here to ascertain.\n11 I apologize.\n12 Q No. No apologies necessary. I\n13 think I also have a little bit of an\n14 unfair advantage. I actually know what\n15 the exact stock price was on these days;\n16 so --\n17 But, you know, on this exhibit,\n18 you know, I think it's approximately -- we\n19 could see that there, it's approximately,\n20 you know, $28.\n21 A Okay.\n22 Q Okay. And then also from this\n23 exhibit, same exercise, you know, when we\n24 get to August 16, 2021. Can you tell me\n25 approximately what the stock price was?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 98 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 391\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A It would appear to be under $15.\n3 This one seems a little clearer to\n4 ascertain.\n5 Q Yeah. It was like between 13\n6 and 14.\n7 A Okay.\n8 Q Okay. Now, would you agree then\n9 that the price on February 12, 2021, was\n10 higher than the price on August 16, 2021?\n11 A Yes.\n12 Q And again, by about half? About\n13 double, I guess. Yeah.\n14 A Assuming your metric with\n15 regards to the February 12th price is\n16 accurate, yes. I would think that implies\n17 roughly half across that time interval.\n18 Q Roughly. Yeah. Okay. Now, is\n19 it your opinion that the only two\n20 methodologies to measure artificial\n21 inflation are the constant dollar method\n22 and the constant percentage method?\n23 A These are inputs to the\n24 out-of-pocket methodology. So these are\n25 different approaches to this particular\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 99 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 392\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 methodology.\n3 Q And are they the only two\n4 methodologies that you would measure\n5 artificial inflation?\n6 A These are the methodologies that\n7 I've offered in my report today.\n8 Q Are they the only ones that\n9 could be used? That's what I'm saying.\n10 Are they the only ones that would be\n11 available? I get that you used two in\n12 your report. Are there others outside of\n13 those?\n14 A I haven't considered others. So\n15 I have no opinion today.\n16 Q Okay. Now, you are aware,\n17 though, that there are other methods?\n18 A I -- I believe there's a lot of\n19 methodologies out there in regards to how\n20 experts go about their reports. But in\n21 terms of what I've offered today, I'm\n22 looking at these two inputs to the\n23 out-of-pocket methodology.\n24 Q Right. So did you consider\n25 specifically any other methodologies for\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 100 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 393\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 measuring artificial inflation aside from\n3 the two you used?\n4 A I -- I considered the\n5 out-of-pocket method, that it would be\n6 appropriate in this matter with the\n7 constant dollar inflation.\n8 And then consequent to\n9 Dr. Garmaise's report and some of his\n10 criticisms, this is why I looked into also\n11 the -- the constant percentage method,\n12 which is an alternate input.\n13 Q Okay. And prior to preparing\n14 your merits report, had you considered\n15 applying any other methods other than the\n16 ones that you applied?\n17 A I did not.\n18 Q Okay. Now, going back to\n19 Exhibit 90, Professor Garmaise's report, I\n20 want to direct your attention to\n21 paragraph 109, which is on page 49 of the\n22 internal pagination of the report or 52 of\n23 the PDF.\n24 A Which paragraph, David? Sorry.\n25 Q I'm doing -- going to direct you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 101 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 394\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to paragraphs 109 and 110. So feel free\n3 to make yourself familiar with those two.\n4 A Thank you. I've read those two\n5 paragraphs. Thank you for that\n6 opportunity.\n7 Q Yeah. And do you dispute\n8 Professor Garmaise's assertion in these\n9 paragraphs that securities analysts'\n10 projections of CleanSpark's bitcoin mining\n11 revenues varied with changes in the\n12 economic environment?\n13 A Repeat the question, that last\n14 part again?\n15 Q Sure. Would you dispute\n16 Professor Garmaise's assertion in these\n17 paragraphs that securities analysts'\n18 projection of CleanSpark's bitcoin mining\n19 revenues varied with changes in the\n20 economic environment?\n21 A So, as we discussed earlier,\n22 there are a lot of different ways in -- in\n23 which revenue is formed in terms of the\n24 constraints and the opportunities. And so\n25 I agreed with you earlier that these are\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 102 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 395\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 elements that analysts would've considered\n3 as well.\n4 So the short answer is -- is, I\n5 don't disagree with his statement that\n6 analysts looked at Bitcoin prices in terms\n7 of revenue projections. That's absolutely\n8 true.\n9 Q And also the part about that\n10 those projections varied in connection\n11 with changes in the economic environment?\n12 A I would say that the analysts'\n13 projections varied on the basis of a\n14 multitude of factors, including the\n15 promises made by CleanSpark with regards\n16 to the ATL facility. But other inputs are\n17 those, as you've mentioned, such as\n18 Bitcoin price. Absolutely.\n19 Q Understood. Okay. Now, do you\n20 also dispute -- or I shouldn't say \"also.\"\n21 Do you dispute that, during the class\n22 period, H.C. Wainwright changed the\n23 projected number of bitcoins mined per\n24 day, per unit of hash rate?\n25 A Repeat that? Sorry. Slower.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 103 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 396\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q No problem. So I'll direct your\n3 attention -- maybe it'll help you if\n4 you're looking at it too.\n5 But if you look at paragraph\n6 110; right? There's an H.C. Wainwright\n7 report. A set of reports, right, that are\n8 stated there. So I'll let you take a look\n9 at those and then I'll ask the question\n10 and see if that helps.\n11 A Thank you. Just paragraph 110?\n12 Q Yeah. You could read\n13 paragraph 111 again. But the points I'm\n14 focusing on are the ones H.C. Wainwright\n15 made in its reports that are identified in\n16 110.\n17 A Wonderful. Thank you, sir. One\n18 moment.\n19 Q Mm-hmm.\n20 A \"Per -- prices -- would imply\n21 lower productivity at a higher Bitcoin\n22 price.\" Understood. So I've -- I've read\n23 this. And I think I largely understand\n24 it.\n25 There's -- there's one question\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 104 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 397\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that I have that I'm not quite sure\n3 Dr. Garmaise explains, in terms of the\n4 implication of lower productivity. But I\n5 see when -- when China's crackdown\n6 occurred, that would increase productivity\n7 because of -- the mining difficulty was\n8 reduced.\n9 So I -- I largely understand the\n10 paragraph. So we can proceed with your\n11 question. I might have to refer back to\n12 it. There's a lot of information there.\n13 Q There is indeed. Okay. So my\n14 question then is, would you dispute during\n15 the class period -- or dispute that,\n16 during the class period, H.C. Wainwright\n17 changed the projected number of bitcoins\n18 mined per day, per unit of hash rate?\n19 A On the basis of what\n20 Dr. Garmaise has here, without having the\n21 benefit of those reports in front of me to\n22 read them myself, and taking this on face\n23 value, it seems to be the case that their\n24 projections change.\n25 And so, as I would expect,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 105 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 398\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 throughout the class period, as -- as\n3 things change, that projections would\n4 change. So this is -- as information\n5 comes out, analysts are always revising\n6 their projections and expectations.\n7 Q Okay. And then if you look at\n8 the third to the bottom line on page 50,\n9 at the end of paragraph 110, it says, \"On\n10 February 16, 2021, H.C. Wainwright & Co\n11 stated, 'We are now revising our Bitcoin\n12 price assumptions to assume -- to\n13 approximately 30,000 during F2Q21 from\n14 17,500 previously.'\" Do you see that?\n15 A I do, sir.\n16 Q Okay. And is it your\n17 understanding, based on the language\n18 quoted in this paragraph, that was that\n19 changing price which H.C. Wainwright had\n20 focused on in this quoted language, in\n21 changing its revenue projections?\n22 A Well, I think there's a lot of\n23 reliance on what Dr. Garmaise has -- has\n24 chosen to selectively cite. So I can't\n25 answer the question without having a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 106 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 399\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report.\n3 You, yourself, I think, used the\n4 word \"focus,\" perhaps. I don't recall.\n5 But in terms of what their focus was, I'd\n6 need to see the entirety of the report and\n7 to understand perhaps how their -- their\n8 focus shifted across reports.\n9 But I don't disagree that this\n10 would be one element factoring into their\n11 projections. But there will be other\n12 elements, particularly with respect to --\n13 maybe not with this individual report --\n14 but whether or not the firm was producing\n15 the hash rate capacity that was\n16 anticipated at the acquisition of the ATL\n17 facility.\n18 And so there are several reports\n19 that I referenced in my reports that talk\n20 about the expansion delays. And so that\n21 would be an element that's missing here.\n22 That's -- that's extremely salient with\n23 respect to the projections.\n24 And so this would be one\n25 element, for sure. Whether it was the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 107 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 400\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 focus or not, I -- I can't speak to. If\n3 we have the reports in front of us, I'm\n4 happy to read them and then ascertain what\n5 I believe the focus to be.\n6 Q Yeah. Let's not get hung up on\n7 the word \"focus.\" I think you -- perhaps\n8 rightfully so, you're the deponent,\n9 injected that with far more meaning than I\n10 intended to have it.\n11 I just meant the focus of the\n12 language. That it -- you know, this\n13 sentence states, \"We're revising our\n14 Bitcoin price assumptions to approximately\n15 30,000 from 17,500.\" And they talked\n16 about that in connection with changing the\n17 revenue.\n18 So just to be clear, I think\n19 what I understood you say is that you\n20 don't dispute that H.C. Wainwright\n21 discussed the changing price of Bitcoin\n22 when discussing bitcoin mining revenue\n23 projections? You don't dispute they\n24 discussed the two together?\n25 A I -- I don't. I don't.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 108 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 401\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay.\n3 A Assuming that everything is\n4 accurate in the report. Yeah.\n5 Q Okay. Oh. Yeah. Of course.\n6 Assuming that this is the accurately\n7 quoted language. Understood.\n8 Okay. Now, do you -- let me\n9 see. Now -- and then do you -- so I want\n10 to draw your attention to -- up to\n11 paragraph 109. Just right before it.\n12 A I am there. Shall I read it?\n13 Q You could look. Yeah. You\n14 could certainly read through it. I'm\n15 going to focus on the second part of that\n16 paragraph that's right before\n17 paragraph 110. But feel free to\n18 familiarize yourself with that.\n19 A Wonderful. Thank you. One\n20 moment. And this was 109; right?\n21 Q Yes.\n22 A Perfect.\n23 Q I'm focusing on the part of that\n24 paragraph on the second page that starts,\n25 \"Analysts' commentary further\" --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 109 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 402\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Got it.\n3 Q But again, feel free to read\n4 everything.\n5 A Okay. I've refreshed myself.\n6 Thank you.\n7 Q Okay. Now, would you agree that\n8 BTIG commented on the following issues?\n9 First is changes in network difficulty?\n10 A Let me look to see where he\n11 quoted them directly.\n12 Q Yep.\n13 A You have Dr. Garmaise's words\n14 and then the quotations.\n15 So they talk about -- the\n16 July 15, 2021, BTIG report, It says, \"The\n17 global hash rate has dropped. The\n18 collapse has dropped the difficulty rate.\"\n19 So they do talk about that. He\n20 does talk about -- the report talks about\n21 the difficulty rate there.\n22 Q Okay. And also the global hash\n23 rate, as you just mentioned. And then if\n24 I'm looking at it, without pretending to\n25 myself know, you know, exactly how it all\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 110 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 403\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 works --\n3 But it does look like in the\n4 July 15, 2021, quoted language, BTIG\n5 comments on how these factors impacted how\n6 much bitcoin miners earned from mining\n7 bitcoin. Is that how you read this\n8 paragraph?\n9 A It's my lay understanding, not\n10 being a Bitcoin expert, that all of\n11 these -- yeah -- factors would contribute\n12 to the price of Bitcoin in terms of\n13 difficulty and global hash rate. In terms\n14 of supply and demand of who's doing the\n15 mining, and so forth. Was that your\n16 question?\n17 Q Yes.\n18 A Okay.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Now, I'm about\n20 to jump into another topic. I think we've\n21 been going -- I'm happy to keep going.\n22 But I just wanted to give anyone the\n23 opportunity to take a break if they need\n24 it.\n25 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to keep going\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 111 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 404\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 unless anyone else needs a break. And\n3 perhaps we can go until we decide it's\n4 time for lunch?\n5 MR. PARTIDA: Ms. Court Reporter?\n6 Anyone?\n7 THE REPORTER: So I'll mention both;\n8 right? So I would appreciate five minutes\n9 now.\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n11 THE REPORTER: And then in terms of a\n12 lunch break, what I do is normally\n13 30 minutes after the third hour. So that\n14 would be 30 minutes after one.\n15 But because we're close to one, we\n16 could take 30 minutes now. Come back at\n17 12:40. Whatever you guys want to do. I\n18 don't want to, you know, pressure.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: So I'm happy to do\n20 whatever works best. You need five\n21 minutes now. So there's no question we'll\n22 take that.\n23 And I guess for you, Greg, and\n24 Dr. Bozanic? I really defer to you guys\n25 as to if you would prefer to do 30 now.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 112 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 405\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Or you'd prefer to do five now and then\n3 take 30 at, you know, sometime after one.\n4 MR. LINKH: Yeah. Well, you know, we\n5 can go off the record; right? And discuss\n6 this?\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. Yes. I'm sorry.\n8 Yes.\n9 MR. LINKH: Yeah.\n10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the\n11 record at 12:11 p.m.\n12 (Off the record.)\n13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the\n14 record at 12:48 p.m.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: All right. Welcome\n16 back, everyone. Hopefully, we all had a\n17 nice break.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q What I'd like to turn you back\n20 to, Dr. Bozanic, is to Professor\n21 Garmaise's report, which is Exhibit 90.\n22 And where I'd like to direct you to is\n23 footnote 47 of this report. And you can\n24 tell me when you've -- there.\n25 A I am there.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 113 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 406\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q So do you -- well, have you had\n3 a chance to read the footnote?\n4 A I have not. One moment, please.\n5 Thank you. I have read it. Thank you.\n6 Q Okay. So I'm just going to read\n7 it for the record. I wanted to give you\n8 the opportunity to try and comprehend it.\n9 But it says, \"An alternative and\n10 equivalent way to determine statistical\n11 significance is to calculate the\n12 'p-value,' which is the probability that\n13 an abnormal return of a certain magnitude\n14 or greater would occur by chance, assuming\n15 the abnormal return is actually zero\n16 (i.e., assuming that the 'null' hypothesis\n17 is true).\n18 \"Or under the standard\n19 95 percent confidence level threshold or\n20 5 percent significance, if the p-value is\n21 less than or equal to 0.05 or 5 percent,\n22 then one would reject the null hypothesis\n23 in favor of the 'alternative' hypothesis\n24 that the abnormal return was\n25 distinguishable from zero.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 114 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 407\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So with that mouthful read, my\n3 question for you is, do you agree with\n4 Professor Garmaise's description of what\n5 \"p-value\" is?\n6 A One moment. I have no issue\n7 with his description of a p-value here.\n8 Q Now, is the null hypothesis that\n9 you tested with your event study that the\n10 abnormal return on a given day is actually\n11 zero?\n12 A So this would be the implied\n13 null hypothesis. So I'm not sure if I\n14 refer to a null hypothesis.\n15 But in general, in terms of\n16 statistical testing, you're saying that,\n17 well, it -- it would appear as if the\n18 return is zero.\n19 But if I can show that this\n20 return is different than zero, the\n21 \"p-value\" or the \"t-statistic,\" which are\n22 two sides of the same coin, would indicate\n23 that this return seems to be different\n24 than those in the population.\n25 Q Okay. So could you please state\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 115 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 408\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 for me, keeping in mind I'm a lawyer, not\n3 an economist, in very simple terms, what\n4 is the null hypothesis that you tested in\n5 your event study model?\n6 A So I wouldn't say that I\n7 asserted a null hypothesis explicitly in\n8 the report.\n9 But what we're trying to do in\n10 any statistical test is to say, \"Does this\n11 look different? Does it look like this is\n12 occurring by random chance?\" Where if\n13 we're -- if it's occurring by random\n14 chance, it could be the case that returns,\n15 on average, are zero.\n16 But then we say -- if this\n17 return looks different than random chance,\n18 then we say that it has some statistical\n19 significance. We're able to show through\n20 that p-value or through that t-stat the\n21 strength of the relationship and how\n22 different the returns are, relative to,\n23 say, a null hypothesis of zero.\n24 So the expectation is to say\n25 that returns are zero and, you know, could\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 116 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 409\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 be random chance. Just we have a -- a\n3 different -- a whole distribution of\n4 returns.\n5 And the mean could be, of those\n6 returns, zero in the aggregate. But then\n7 you look for different returns on\n8 different days. And you say, \"Does this\n9 return seem different than the other\n10 returns?\"\n11 And so that's what we're going\n12 after. So \"null hypothesis/alternative\n13 hypothesis\" can get confusing. And so --\n14 but the -- the basics of what we're trying\n15 to do, in terms of a simple explanation,\n16 is to say, \"There's a series of returns.\"\n17 And so if we look at those\n18 returns and we're looking at a return on a\n19 given day, does this return on a given day\n20 appear different than the others that\n21 we're analyzing?\n22 That's -- that's the most basic\n23 description. I think a lot of students\n24 that I teach, they too, David, get\n25 confused with respect to null hypotheses\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 117 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 410\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and alternative hypotheses as well.\n3 But at the end of the day, we're\n4 trying to ascertain through statistical\n5 means, looking at distributions of data,\n6 whether a certain point in that\n7 distribution appears to be different than\n8 the other data points. Does that make\n9 sense?\n10 Q Actually, that all makes perfect\n11 sense. But I have a -- there is an\n12 implicit null hypothesis. What was it?\n13 A So the implicit null hypothesis\n14 could be that the returns are zero or that\n15 they're not different than the other\n16 returns in the sample. So they differ\n17 than the mean in the sample. So, for\n18 example, does the return on a given day\n19 differ from the returns in the sample?\n20 Q And that's the implicit null\n21 hypothesis that was used in your event\n22 study model?\n23 A I -- I suppose so.\n24 Q Okay.\n25 A I mean, in terms of an implied\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 118 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 411\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 null hypothesis. Like I said, I've not --\n3 in terms of my event study, I don't think\n4 I ever said, \"Here's the -- the null\n5 hypothesis that I'm -- that I'm testing,\"\n6 per se.\n7 This is saying, again, I'm just\n8 looking at a distribution of returns\n9 and -- to say, \"Does it appear as if this\n10 return looks different than the other\n11 returns in that distribution?\"\n12 Q Okay. Now, is the alternative\n13 hypothesis that you tested with your event\n14 study that the abnormal return on a given\n15 day is related to the information released\n16 on that day?\n17 A I'm sorry. Repeat that\n18 question?\n19 Q Is the alternative hypothesis\n20 that you tested with your event study that\n21 the abnormal return on a given day is\n22 related to the information released on\n23 that day?\n24 A Right. I understand the\n25 question. So on a given day's return;\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 119 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 412\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 right? And so what we're looking at is to\n3 say, \"On a given day, the price movement\n4 could be zero.\"\n5 And so here, now that I\n6 understand your question a little bit\n7 better, the null hypothesis on that\n8 particular event day could be zero. And\n9 so yes. It would be an implied zero,\n10 speaking specifically versus in more\n11 general terms.\n12 But then the alternative\n13 would -- hypothesis would be, \"Is this\n14 different than zero on this day?\" And\n15 then yes. If we're looking at a\n16 particular event date, then we're trying\n17 to say, \"Okay. Does this return on this\n18 event date, in consideration of the\n19 information that arrived on that event\n20 date, seem to be different than zero?\"\n21 Right?\n22 And so, again, this goes back to\n23 this notion of random chances. To what we\n24 might expect for random movements versus\n25 movements that appear to be different than\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 120 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 413\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 those in the distribution of the sample.\n3 And so yes. I am definitely --\n4 going back to the -- the question, I'm\n5 trying to tie the information released to\n6 that return to say, \"It appears as if this\n7 information is associated with the return\n8 that we observe on a given day.\"\n9 Q Okay. Is the confidence level\n10 of a statistical test a measure between\n11 zero percent and 100 percent?\n12 A Yes. So we can look at this as\n13 an interval. This is a range, in terms of\n14 how confident we are that this return is\n15 different.\n16 Q Okay. Now, is -- yes or no? Is\n17 the confidence level of a statistical test\n18 for an abnormal return equivalent to the\n19 probability that there is a price impact?\n20 A Can you repeat the latter half?\n21 Q Sure. I'll just repeat it in\n22 full. Is confidence level of a\n23 statistical test for an abnormal return\n24 equivalent to the probability that there\n25 is a price impact? Yes or no?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 121 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 414\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A That last part, I'm confused by.\n3 \"Equivalent to the probability that there\n4 is price impact\"?\n5 I would say this is a\n6 probabilistic assessment to say the\n7 likelihood that this return is different.\n8 And then we make the inference, given the\n9 presence of information, that this\n10 response, this price response that could\n11 be statistically different than -- than\n12 our expectations, is tied to the\n13 information on that day.\n14 And so the way you phrased it\n15 was a little awkward. I had trouble\n16 understanding it. But I think what you're\n17 getting at is, we're trying to say that\n18 the test is -- is not necessarily saying\n19 that it's tied to that information; right?\n20 There's another link to say that\n21 this movement seems to be in response to\n22 the information that has been released on\n23 that day.\n24 Q So I appreciate that. I think\n25 the question I'm trying to understand\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 122 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 415\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is -- maybe put it in layman's terms.\n3 If you say that you have a\n4 specific confidence level of a statistical\n5 test, 90 percent -- you have a 90 percent\n6 confidence level -- is that the same thing\n7 as saying there's a 90 percent probability\n8 this happens?\n9 Different example. I have a\n10 50 percent confidence level on this\n11 statistical test. Is that the same thing\n12 as saying, \"This is 50 percent likely to\n13 happen?\"\n14 Do you see what I'm saying?\n15 That's what I'm trying to understand. And\n16 it's for that reason that I say, is the\n17 confidence level of a statistical test the\n18 same thing or equivalent to the\n19 probability that there was a price impact?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: That latter jump is\n22 where I got uncomfortable. With the\n23 probability of there being price impact.\n24 That's not the intent of the test. The\n25 test is not trying to say, in terms of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 123 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 416\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 strictly interpreting statistical\n3 significance, that somehow it's the\n4 confidence that there's price impact.\n5 What we're saying is, we need to be\n6 able to assert that this information is --\n7 is novel that day, is new that day, that\n8 there's not the arrival of other\n9 information.\n10 And so there is a link, in terms of\n11 getting to -- to price impact, to say that\n12 this statistical significance is\n13 indicative of price impact, in the absence\n14 of other information arriving, the absence\n15 of other compounds, and so forth.\n16 So that -- that little jump is where\n17 I got a little uncomfortable, David, in\n18 terms of trying to strictly interpret what\n19 statistical significance means versus how\n20 we're using that to support the -- the --\n21 with -- with evidence of price impact.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q Okay. Now, I want to talk a\n24 little bit about the standard for\n25 statistical significance. And so is it\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 124 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 417\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 standard practice in academic literature,\n3 particularly in finance and economics, to\n4 regard results with a confidence level of\n5 less than 90 percent as statistically\n6 significant?\n7 A So as I discussed in -- in my\n8 reports, there are conventions used. And\n9 so in academic practice, when we're\n10 looking at academic research, whether it\n11 be accounting, finance, or economics,\n12 there are conventional cutoffs used.\n13 And I think we've -- we've\n14 identified those before. At the 1 percent\n15 level, the 10 percent level, the 5 percent\n16 level, and so forth. And these are the\n17 standards that we see in economic\n18 research. That's true with respect to\n19 statistical testing.\n20 Q Okay. Sorry. I don't know what\n21 happened. My monitors just turned off.\n22 A Uh-oh.\n23 Q Okay. And would you agree that\n24 a lack of statistical significance does\n25 not tell us that it is more probable than\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 125 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 418\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 not that there was no price impact?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: A -- a few\n5 double-negatives. Please repeat?\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Yeah. Do you agree that lack of\n8 statistical significance does not tell us\n9 that it is more probable than not that\n10 there was no price impact?\n11 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n12 THE WITNESS: Lack of statistical\n13 significance does not tell us that it's\n14 more probable than not?\n15 What -- what I would say, without\n16 getting tripped up on all the\n17 double-negatives, is -- is we have to\n18 start to look at the preponderance of\n19 evidence with regards to the overall\n20 likelihood. Going back to whether it's\n21 more likely than not that this return is\n22 different than others in the distribution.\n23 But a lack of statistical\n24 significance depends at what convention.\n25 What level; right? So if we were to say,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 126 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 419\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 \"Hey, this is statistically significant at\n3 the 90th percentile,\" right, \"in terms of\n4 a standard convention,\" then we'd say,\n5 \"Well, no. Actually, I -- I found that\n6 the test shows that it's statistically\n7 significant at the 89.9 percent confidence\n8 interval.\"\n9 From a materiality perspective, I\n10 don't view those to be terribly different;\n11 right? In terms of the evidence that I am\n12 bringing forward when we use these\n13 bright-line cutoffs. Because at the end\n14 of the day, it goes back to, as you said,\n15 what's that test telling us?\n16 It's telling us that this return is a\n17 little bit different than the other\n18 returns in the sample. And so if we say\n19 that it's statistically significant at the\n20 89th percent level, right, that means that\n21 return is different than 89 -- 89 percent\n22 of the other returns in that sample.\n23 And so when we get to that\n24 bright-line cutoff, at that 90 percent\n25 versus 89 percent, even though academics\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 127 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 420\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 regularly use those cutoffs of 1, 5, and\n3 10 percent, we have to start to look and\n4 think about, \"What is this test telling\n5 us? What is it telling us in terms of\n6 materiality? In terms of the evidence\n7 that we're bringing?\"\n8 So that's kind of how I'd answer\n9 that. The double-negatives, I -- I\n10 apologize. It was rather confusing.\n11 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n12 Q I appreciate all of that\n13 explanation, particularly since you\n14 explained a sentence that's in your\n15 report. And so I appreciate the clarity\n16 now.\n17 And so why don't we go ahead and\n18 go to Exhibit 95, which is your report.\n19 And go ahead and look at paragraph -- your\n20 reply report, I should say. And go ahead\n21 and look at paragraph 18.\n22 And you can feel welcome to read\n23 the whole paragraph. But I'd like to\n24 point you to the sentence beginning, \"Per\n25 Brav and Heaton\" --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 128 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 421\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And that sentence says, \"Per\n3 Brav and Heaton, 2015, it is crucial to\n4 understand that statistical significance\n5 is simply describing a set of returns that\n6 would be unusual to observe if there was\n7 no price impact.\"\n8 And then this is the language I\n9 was quoting. \"Lack of statistical\n10 significance does not tell us that it is\n11 more probable than not that there was no\n12 price impact.\" And so my question to you\n13 is, do you agree with that statement?\n14 A Sure. Let me read the paragraph\n15 in full. But I'll respond. Thank you.\n16 So I do agree with this\n17 statement. So lack of statistical\n18 significance is not evidence of lack of\n19 price impact.\n20 So you could have lack of\n21 statistical significance at these\n22 conventional levels. But there still\n23 could be price impact when we go back to,\n24 say, using those bright-line thresholds\n25 versus going from the 90th percentile to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 129 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 422\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the 89th percentile; right?\n3 So you might have the absence of\n4 statistical significance, importantly,\n5 using the conventional cutoffs. But just\n6 because we fail, using those conventional\n7 cutoffs, to assess statistical -- or\n8 ascertain -- obtain statistical\n9 significance doesn't mean there's lack of\n10 price impact. That's how I'm interpreting\n11 that sentence.\n12 Q Okay. But that's not what that\n13 sentence actually says. So I guess I\n14 would just ask you to answer \"yes\" or\n15 \"no.\"\n16 Do you agree with the following\n17 quote: \"Lack of statistical significance\n18 does not tell us that it is more probable\n19 than not that there was no price impact\"?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: The way that I'm\n22 interpreting that sentence out of context\n23 is saying the lack of statistical\n24 significance does not imply lack of price\n25 impact.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 130 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 423\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q And is that because statistical\n4 significance is simply describing a set of\n5 returns that would be unusual to observe\n6 if there was no price impact?\n7 A I -- I think that's what you\n8 were saying there. Right. You're just --\n9 you're quoting from Brav and Heaton.\n10 Again, yeah.\n11 Q All right. Now, I just want to\n12 walk through a hypothetical so I can just\n13 kind of understand a little bit more about\n14 statistical significance.\n15 Let's consider for a moment that\n16 you have a negative abnormal return on a\n17 given date with a confidence level of\n18 exactly 60 percent. What would be the\n19 p-value for the abnormal return?\n20 A Repeat the question?\n21 Q Yep. If there was a negative\n22 abnormal return on a given date that has a\n23 confidence level of exactly 40 -- or\n24 60 percent; right? What would be the\n25 p-value for that abnormal return?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 131 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 424\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A So I assume you want me to say\n3 0.4. You're just going for the simple\n4 math in terms of interpreting the other\n5 side?\n6 Q Correct. Right.\n7 A Okay.\n8 Q Okay. So I just -- yeah. I\n9 just -- that's -- exactly. I just wanted\n10 to confirm that I understand.\n11 So what is the probability then\n12 that the decline on that date was related\n13 to information released on that day, as\n14 opposed to random price movements?\n15 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n16 THE WITNESS: See, this is -- this is\n17 similar to the question you asked\n18 previously, where there was a disconnect.\n19 And I'm -- I'm uncomfortable. Because\n20 you're taking a statistical test. And\n21 then you're making an inference where\n22 you're saying the statistical test is --\n23 is making an assumption about that\n24 information.\n25 And so we have to say -- as I said\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 132 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 425\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 before, we can't just simply interpret the\n3 test in isolation; right? We have to\n4 interpret the test with respect to the\n5 information environment, other\n6 information.\n7 So to be able to assert that there is\n8 a price movement that's not only\n9 statistically significant, we have to look\n10 at the information that's arriving.\n11 Because we're saying that there's\n12 information that's arriving; right?\n13 And then hopefully, there's not other\n14 information that's arriving that would\n15 confound this inference to say that this\n16 is the information that was in the market\n17 this day. And we saw that the return had\n18 a statistically significant return.\n19 But this probability with respect to\n20 price impact, that next leap, is -- is --\n21 I'm a little uncomfortable with. Because\n22 the -- that's not what the statistical\n23 test is meant to test in terms of pure\n24 statistical testing.\n25 The inference that we're able to make\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 133 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 426\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 from it, we're using this as evidence to\n3 make that inference that you just kind of\n4 leapt to. Does that make sense? This --\n5 because it feels similar to the question\n6 you asked previously. But maybe I'm\n7 misunderstanding.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q No. You're not\n10 misunderstanding, I don't think. But I --\n11 yeah. I -- you're not misunderstanding\n12 what I'm saying. And I appreciate your\n13 answers. That they're -- your answer\n14 answering my questions.\n15 A Okay. I'm really trying, David.\n16 Thank you.\n17 Q So if -- going back to the issue\n18 about the cutoff levels for confidence\n19 levels and statistical significance, is it\n20 your opinion that 50 percent is the\n21 conventional confidence level threshold to\n22 assess statistical significance?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 THE WITNESS: In -- in terms of\n25 academic literature, no. That's not my\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 134 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 427\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 opinion. Nor do I believe that I stated\n3 as such in my reports.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q No. Okay. What -- so I guess\n6 then, is it your opinion that 50 percent\n7 is the conventional confidence level\n8 threshold to assess whether it's more\n9 likely or not that information released on\n10 a given date impacted the price?\n11 A Again, same answer. You used\n12 the word \"convention.\" I assume you're\n13 referring to convention in academia. And\n14 so no. That would not be my opinion\n15 that's the convention in academia.\n16 Q Sorry. I want to make sure\n17 you -- I understand the answer. You're\n18 saying it's the conventional competence\n19 level in academic literature? That's not\n20 your opinion? I didn't understand your\n21 answer. I'm sorry.\n22 A Sorry. Let me repeat. A\n23 50 percent level is not the convention in\n24 academic literature.\n25 Q Okay.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 135 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 428\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Nor have I offered that opinion\n3 in my report.\n4 Q Okay. So can you then\n5 explain -- well, let me ask this little\n6 bit more basic question.\n7 Is 50 percent confidence level\n8 the threshold to assess that it's more\n9 likely than not that there's a price\n10 impact?\n11 A This is \"a\" threshold in terms\n12 of more likely than not in terms of random\n13 chance; right? So this is \"a\" threshold\n14 that that can be used.\n15 But this goes back to the\n16 argument that I was making in terms of how\n17 one interprets these tests. Are they\n18 different than the others?\n19 And so if it's a 50 percent\n20 threshold, we would say this return is\n21 different than half of the returns in the\n22 distribution; right? So this is all this\n23 is -- this is all this is saying.\n24 But I haven't spoken to that\n25 particular threshold being a convention.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 136 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 429\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 By no means. In fact, I speak of the\n3 academic conventions going back to the\n4 10 percent, the 95 percent, and the\n5 1 percent levels.\n6 Q Okay. Can you take a look at\n7 paragraph 69 of your report?\n8 A This is my merits reply report?\n9 Exhibit 95; correct?\n10 Q Yes. No. No. Not your --\n11 sorry. Not your merits. Your -- not your\n12 reply report. Your original merits\n13 report.\n14 A Oh. Sorry. Has this been\n15 introduced as an exhibit?\n16 MR. LINKH: Hey.\n17 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. Did I not\n18 introduce that yet?\n19 MR. LINKH: Not yet.\n20 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So sure we can\n21 do that, unless it's been previously\n22 introduced as an exhibit, Greg, in this\n23 case?\n24 MR. LINKH: It was not at Garmaise's.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. So then bear\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 137 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 430\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 with me a moment. All right. I just\n3 circulated, as Exhibit 97, the merits\n4 expert report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic, dated\n5 July 18, 2025.\n6 (Exhibit 97 was marked for\n7 identification.)\n8 MR. PARTIDA: If you can let me know\n9 when guys receive that?\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q I know, Dr. Bozanic, you have a\n12 paper copy with you. I just want you to\n13 confirm we're looking at the same\n14 document.\n15 A Yes, sir. Absolutely. Yeah. I\n16 have it. It's one and the same.\n17 Q Okay. You just want to take\n18 a -- let me find -- take a minute to look\n19 at this paragraph if you'd like. Now --\n20 A I'm sorry. Paragraph -- which?\n21 Q Paragraph 69. So then I'd like\n22 to direct your attention to the second\n23 sentence.\n24 And can you explain what you\n25 mean in your report when you say, \"The\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 138 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 431\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 corrective disclosure events caused stock\n3 price movements that were statistically\n4 significant at better than the 50 percent\n5 level, i.e., that it is 'more likely than\n6 not' that the declines were related to\n7 information released on these dates as\n8 opposed to random price movements\"?\n9 A Mm-hmm. So this is referring to\n10 my Exhibit 4 as well. And so if we look\n11 at statistical significance, what I'm\n12 doing here is trying to support that the\n13 movement in price that we see is related\n14 to the information that is arriving in the\n15 market.\n16 And with respect to that\n17 50 percent, I'm summarizing the findings\n18 with respect to the individual drops that\n19 are outlined in Exhibit 4, with respect to\n20 the Culper Report and then the press\n21 releases in regards to the expansion\n22 delays.\n23 And so if you see, statistical\n24 significance across the individual drops\n25 varies between -- in Exhibit 4 -- between\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 139 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 432\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 57 percent up to 99.3 percent. And so\n3 this is summarizing that. If we look at\n4 the individual drops over the four drops\n5 that I am analyzing, they are\n6 statistically significant at the\n7 50 percent level or better; right?\n8 And so this goes back to the\n9 idea of, as we talked about, how to\n10 generally interpret these tests. Is this\n11 return different than the others? Right?\n12 And so if this return is\n13 different than 51 percent or 50 percent\n14 than -- than the other returns in the\n15 distribution, it would give us some\n16 evidence to say that perhaps this is not\n17 due to random chance.\n18 And so, obviously, statistical\n19 significance is a continuum in terms of\n20 the strength of the relation. But that\n21 sentence is merely summarizing what my\n22 findings were in Exhibit 4.\n23 Q Okay. Fifty percent confidence\n24 level is not the same as 50 percent\n25 probability of a price impact; is that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 140 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 433\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 true?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: Well, again, it goes\n5 back to what you were saying. I'm saying\n6 that there's an association here.\n7 And so absent the arrival of other\n8 information, we're trying to tie this\n9 association with respect to the level of,\n10 you know, statistical significance or\n11 confidence with the price movements on\n12 that day.\n13 To say that the price seems to have\n14 moved with respect to the information that\n15 arrived. And this is different than, say,\n16 a random price movement, the way that the\n17 event study regression is set up.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q But I'm asking for a simple\n20 yes-or-no answer. And yes or no? Isn't\n21 it true that 50 percent confidence level\n22 doesn't say that the probability of price\n23 impact is more than 50 percent? Yes or\n24 no?\n25 A Again, I'm uncomfortable. I --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 141 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 434\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I would agree 'cause that latter half --\n3 this is the third time this question's\n4 come up. That's an -- an odd way to -- to\n5 phrase, \"The probability of price impact.\"\n6 I'm looking back to interpreting\n7 the test strictly in statistical terms.\n8 And then we make other inferences and\n9 assumptions to say that this appears to be\n10 associated with the price on -- price\n11 movement on that date.\n12 Q So that's a yes.\n13 A The information is tricky to\n14 associate with the price movement on that\n15 date.\n16 Q So that's a yes. And I'm not\n17 trying to ask a trick question. I'm just\n18 trying to make sure I understand that it\n19 is true to say -- it's true that you\n20 cannot say because you have a 50 percent\n21 confidence level, the probability of the\n22 price impact is more than 50 percent.\n23 That's not something you can say?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 142 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 435\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Is that true?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: You kind of cut off\n6 there, David. I apologize. Like you went\n7 low. Can you repeat your question? I'm\n8 sorry.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Yes. So the question I want to\n11 understand is that 50 -- is it true that\n12 50 percent confidence doesn't say that the\n13 probability of price impact is more than\n14 50 percent?\n15 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n16 THE WITNESS: I -- I think we've\n17 covered this. But I -- I'm uncomfortable\n18 with this. The \"probability of price\n19 impact\" language; right?\n20 I'm trying to interpret the test.\n21 And so that's -- at the end of the day,\n22 I'm trying to look at this as a\n23 statistical test that we can -- that is\n24 conventional, that we can interpret.\n25 And so, at first, you're asking how\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 143 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 436\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I -- how I interpret these tests. And so\n3 hopefully I've given responses that are\n4 satisfactory to you. But that link that\n5 you keep trying to make, I'm a little\n6 uncomfortable with. \"The probability of\n7 price impact.\"\n8 I'm interpreting the test on that\n9 date with regards to the returns. And\n10 then I'm inferring, on the basis of what I\n11 observe from the test, that this is\n12 related to the information arriving that\n13 day. This price movement is different;\n14 right?\n15 And then later, we can start to\n16 establish whether or not there was other\n17 information arriving, whether there were\n18 compounds, and so forth. So that's why I\n19 have to bracket this a little bit to say,\n20 \"Yes, but\" -- right?\n21 And so -- but this \"probability of\n22 price impact\" language is -- is not\n23 something that we -- we would speak of\n24 when -- when we look at, you know, event\n25 study testing. So this -- this language\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 144 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 437\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is what I'm -- I'm struggling with,\n3 honestly.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Right. So what I'm struggling\n6 with is, then why did you say that in\n7 paragraph 69 of your merits report?\n8 You -- the link -- and what I'm\n9 trying to probe here is, I have the exact\n10 same discomfort you seem to have with\n11 making what you say is the leap I'm\n12 making. I don't think there's the leap to\n13 be made.\n14 But what you said in\n15 paragraph 69 of your report, \"Overall, the\n16 corrective disclosure events caused stock\n17 price movements that were statistically\n18 significant at better than the 50 percent\n19 level, i.e., that it is more likely than\n20 not that the declines were related to\n21 information released on these dates, as\n22 opposed to random price movements.\"\n23 And I -- so I'm trying to\n24 understand the basis for that opinion. If\n25 it's not -- if you don't have the opinion,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 145 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 438\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what do you mean by that statement? So\n3 let me just ask this again. Because I\n4 asked this question earlier.\n5 What do you mean, in\n6 paragraph 69 of this report, your merits\n7 report, where you say, \"Overall, the\n8 corrective disclosure events caused stock\n9 price movements that were statistically\n10 significant at better than the 50 percent\n11 level, i.e., that it is 'more likely than\n12 not' that the declines were related to\n13 information released on these dates, as\n14 opposed to random price movements\"?\n15 A Absolutely. I can do so. So\n16 two quick points. One, I haven't had the\n17 full benefit of reading the entire\n18 paragraph. I think we kind of bracketed\n19 that first part of the paragraph.\n20 But then second, I'm happy to\n21 explain that sentence again. But where I\n22 had discomfort was you kept referencing\n23 the \"probability of price impact.\"\n24 And so I don't think I see this\n25 in that paragraph, that specific language.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 146 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 439\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I don't think I've made that statement.\n3 But let me take a moment to read the full\n4 paragraph to make sure I didn't miss\n5 anything here.\n6 Yeah. So here, the -- the\n7 punchline in the end of the paragraph is,\n8 \"Whether or not the information on that\n9 date could have altered the total mix of\n10 information on the basis of the\n11 statistical test.\" Right?\n12 So I'm saying here, in that\n13 sentence at issue, the price movements\n14 were statistically significant, better\n15 than 50 percent level. And we have some\n16 that are significant at the 99 percent\n17 level.\n18 And so with any statistical\n19 test, as we discussed at length earlier,\n20 we're trying to say, \"Is this return\n21 different than the others?\" Right?\n22 And so if we can start to say\n23 that this return seems different than\n24 99 percent of the others, or 95, or\n25 90 percent, this is giving us some -- some\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 147 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 440\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 evidence to make this inference that it\n3 appears that this return on this date is\n4 different.\n5 And then the question is why?\n6 Sometimes we have returns on dates where\n7 there's not the arrival of information,\n8 where there's statistical significance.\n9 And here, we do have the arrival of\n10 information.\n11 And so in interpreting the test,\n12 the inference is to say that this\n13 non-random price movement that has a\n14 high -- high threshold of statistical\n15 significance is associated with the\n16 information released on that day.\n17 That's what I'm trying to make.\n18 But again, this -- this sentence is a\n19 summary sentence that is trying to explain\n20 the individual drops for the different\n21 dates in question, as outlined in\n22 Exhibit 4.\n23 Q Okay. We're going to do this a\n24 different way. Bear with me.\n25 MR. LINKH: Just checking, Andrew.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 148 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 441\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Are you still okay with your time?\n3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Ten minutes max.\n4 Or right now, we could start a new one.\n5 And we could go for another hour and a\n6 half.\n7 MR. LINKH: David, what are your\n8 thoughts about just -- if we're going to\n9 get into a big back and forth, it may make\n10 more sense not to break it up.\n11 MR. PARTIDA: Totally fine.\n12 MR. LINKH: Okay.\n13 MR. PARTIDA: We can go off the\n14 record and switch the tapes.\n15 MR. LINKH: Great.\n16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This is the\n17 end of media unit number 2. We are off\n18 the record at 1:26 p.m.\n19 (Off the record.)\n20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n21 beginning of media unit number 3. We are\n22 on the record at 1:34 p.m.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: All right. Welcome\n24 back.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 149 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 442\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Dr. Bozanic, standing alone by\n4 itself, does a confidence level of greater\n5 than 50 percent mean that the probability\n6 of a price impact is greater than\n7 50 percent?\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 THE WITNESS: So I think I've\n10 answered this a few times already at this\n11 point. And I think you want me to say\n12 that it has some causal link here. Or the\n13 statistical test somehow speaks in\n14 interpreting the convention to price\n15 impact, in particular.\n16 I'm providing evidence, using the\n17 event study to support price impact by\n18 way -- by way of interpretation of the\n19 statistical significance. And so what I'm\n20 going back to is what I've said before,\n21 which is in regards to what the\n22 statistical significance is trying to show\n23 us in terms of, \"This return stands out to\n24 be as different from the other returns\n25 under analysis.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 150 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 443\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And so this is the strength of the\n3 relationship in showing that it appears as\n4 if this return on this date is different\n5 than others in the sample distribution.\n6 And so on the basis of that threshold,\n7 whether it's 50 percent or higher, we're\n8 going to -- I can say that this is more\n9 likely than not that this return is -- is\n10 something that is substantive versus\n11 occurring from -- by -- by random chance.\n12 And then I make the jump to say that\n13 this is evidence of price impact with\n14 respect to the information arriving that\n15 day and the results of the statistical\n16 test.\n17 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n18 Q But, in and of itself then, a\n19 confidence level of 50 percent -- standing\n20 alone, a confidence level of 50 percent is\n21 not by itself enough to conclude that the\n22 probability of a price impact is more than\n23 50 percent?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 THE WITNESS: There -- there's the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 151 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 444\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 test and then the interpretation of the\n3 test. And so then we have the\n4 interpretation of the test.\n5 You've asked in terms of how I\n6 interpret the test with respect to what\n7 statistical significance is and what it\n8 means. And so hopefully, I've answered\n9 that for you.\n10 And then on the basis of this\n11 evidence, we make an inference. And\n12 that's what I'm saying.\n13 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n14 Q Okay. What do you mean\n15 specifically when you say, in paragraph 69\n16 of your merits report, \"It is more likely\n17 than not\"? What do you mean when you say,\n18 \"It's more likely than not\"?\n19 \"Probabilistically, it's more\n20 likely than not\"? \"I feel like it's more\n21 likely than not\"? What does that mean?\n22 \"More likely than not.\" What do those\n23 words mean?\n24 A So more likely that this return,\n25 in terms of its statistical significance,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 152 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 445\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is different than the others in the\n3 distribution; right? We're providing\n4 evidence.\n5 I'm providing evidence that this\n6 return is somehow different, right, than\n7 others. So if this return looked like\n8 every other return in the distribution,\n9 I -- I wouldn't have much to go off of.\n10 But if we can say, \"Hey, you\n11 know, there's -- there's ten different\n12 returns.\" I'm just throwing it out there.\n13 You know, one -- one is 1 percent. One is\n14 10 percent. One is 20 percent. All the\n15 way up to 100 percent.\n16 And we say, you know -- and we\n17 can -- we can go up higher. Say now,\n18 there's one at 1,000 percent return. Is\n19 the 1,000 percent return different than\n20 the others? That's all that we're after\n21 here.\n22 And so if all the returns were,\n23 say, 10 percent; right? And then there\n24 was another return that popped up on\n25 another day. It's also 10 percent. It's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 153 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 446\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 tough to say that that 10 percent is\n3 different from all the other 10 percents\n4 in the sample distribution.\n5 And so we're trying to assess,\n6 financial economists looking at event\n7 studies and understanding event studies\n8 and what they can imply, is that this\n9 return is -- is a bit different than\n10 those. It's not occurring by random\n11 chance.\n12 There's all sorts of reasons why\n13 prices move in the market. It can be\n14 front information. There can be price\n15 movements without information.\n16 And so I'm trying to triangulate\n17 to say that information arrived. The\n18 price moved. This was not just by random\n19 chance that this price moved. It's more\n20 likely than not that this price is moving\n21 on this date. And it's different than\n22 others.\n23 And then we make the inference\n24 that it has to do with the information\n25 that arrived. And that's why it's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 154 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 447\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 special. That's why it's different in\n3 terms of the rest of the returns in the\n4 distribution.\n5 But I -- I thought I've -- I've\n6 answered this a few times, at least to the\n7 best of my ability. I apologize if I\n8 missed the mark. But I'm -- I'm trying my\n9 best, David.\n10 Q Is the probability that the\n11 return is different than the rest greater\n12 than 50 percent?\n13 A Say that again?\n14 Q Is the probability that the\n15 return is different than the rest of the\n16 abnormal returns greater than 50 percent?\n17 A What we're saying here, in -- in\n18 the report with this language here, is\n19 that this return is different than the\n20 others; right? And so financial\n21 economists are interpreting this to say,\n22 \"This return is different.\"\n23 So when you keep saying\n24 \"probability of, probability of,\n25 probability of,\" I'm not quite sure what\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 155 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 448\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you mean. But what I can say today, in\n3 the opinion that I'm offering today, is\n4 that this return is different.\n5 Q Well, I keep going back to\n6 \"probability\" because of the words \"more\n7 likely than not.\" And at least in common\n8 vernacular in the English language, as I\n9 have encountered it, that is a description\n10 of probability of an event occurring.\n11 So it's with that statement in\n12 mind that I'm trying to understand whether\n13 or not it's your opinion -- and it sounds\n14 very clearly like it's not -- that having\n15 a confidence level --\n16 That by itself, having a\n17 confidence level of greater than\n18 50 percent is not enough to be able to\n19 conclude that there's a probability of\n20 greater than 50 percent that there was a\n21 price impact. So it seems to be very\n22 clearly that that's not your opinion.\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q Is that accurate?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 156 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 449\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I think you put a lot of words\n3 out there and a lot of words in my mouth.\n4 And I don't think that's exactly what I\n5 said.\n6 I'm trying to explain this\n7 phrase to the best of my ability with\n8 respect to the distribution of properties\n9 of a sample to say, you know --\n10 Let's assume that the\n11 significance level was at 40 percent;\n12 right? So this return is only different\n13 than 40 percent of the returns in the\n14 distribution.\n15 Then we can't say that this is\n16 more likely than not; right? That this is\n17 different than the others. Or is it just\n18 the \"not\" is occurring by random chance?\n19 So there is a probabilistic element to\n20 this phraseology; right?\n21 But what it's saying is, did\n22 this return that we observed on this\n23 day -- does it appear as if it is\n24 different than the rest in the sample?\n25 And if we say that this return\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 157 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 450\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is different than 89 percent of the\n3 returns in the sample -- right? So this\n4 is more likely than not as well that this\n5 return is -- is different and is likely\n6 associated with the information that\n7 arrived on that day.\n8 If we start to go below\n9 50 percent, right, then that gets us away\n10 from this \"more likely than not.\" Right?\n11 If it's 40 percent, well, then you've got,\n12 you know, far fewer returns that are --\n13 that are different than the return that\n14 we're observing on that date.\n15 Q How does a 50 percent confidence\n16 level allow you to conclude that there\n17 is -- that it's more likely than not there\n18 was a price impact?\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 THE WITNESS: So again, this is\n21 evidence that I'm bringing to bear to show\n22 that this particular price on this day is\n23 different, right, than others in the\n24 sample. It's not occurring by random\n25 chance.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 158 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 451\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A lot of times, we can see returns in\n3 the market whereby there's some return.\n4 It is statistically significant. But it's\n5 unclear, the information that arrived to\n6 create that statistically significant\n7 return.\n8 And so this is using probabilistic\n9 methodologies to say, again, \"Does this\n10 return look different than the others?\"\n11 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n12 Q Right. But you're not saying\n13 and it's not your opinion that having, by\n14 itself, a confidence level of greater than\n15 50 percent is the same as saying there's a\n16 50 percent probability that this will\n17 happen? Or a greater than 50 percent\n18 probability?\n19 So let me ask that question\n20 again so it's clear. Standing alone by\n21 itself, you cannot conclude that -- based\n22 solely on having a confidence level of\n23 greater than 50 percent, that there also\n24 is greater than 50 percent probability\n25 there was a price impact? You cannot?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 159 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 452\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 That's not your opinion?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: I feel like you've\n5 asked the same question several times at\n6 this point. Before the break. After the\n7 break. And I've answered it the same way\n8 each time. And so I'm not quite sure what\n9 you're after here in terms of this\n10 \"probability of price impact.\"\n11 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n12 Q I'm trying to understand whether\n13 or not that's your opinion. So it seems\n14 to me you should be able to say, \"Yes.\n15 That is my opinion,\" or \"No. That's not\n16 my opinion.\"\n17 So I'll ask it again. And then\n18 I'll just have to ask the court reporter\n19 to keep reading it to you until I get a\n20 yes-or-no answer to it.\n21 Because I'm trying to ask, is an\n22 opinion that you're offering -- is it your\n23 opinion that a greater than 50 percent\n24 confidence level, by itself, means that\n25 there is a greater than 50 percent\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 160 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 453\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 probability of a price impact? Is that or\n3 is that not your opinion?\n4 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n5 THE WITNESS: What I have said is the\n6 event study is bringing to light evidence\n7 that I can use to assess the probability\n8 of price impact; right? So what -- \"the\n9 probability of price impact,\" that -- that\n10 statement is difficult to understand the\n11 way you're phrasing it.\n12 With regards to probability, all\n13 we're saying in the event study here is\n14 that this is different; right? And so on\n15 the basis of this being different, I can\n16 say that this appears to be evidence in\n17 support of price impact because of this\n18 return.\n19 Like, you're almost asking, \"What is\n20 the probability of price impact?\" And\n21 I -- I don't -- I don't understand what\n22 that means when you say, \"What is the\n23 probability of price impact?\" I -- I\n24 don't know.\n25 But when we say, \"Is there evidence\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 161 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 454\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 showing that this return, on this date\n3 where information was released, is\n4 different than other returns in the sample\n5 distribution?\" that gives me some comfort\n6 knowing that that return is related to\n7 that information on that day.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Okay. Now, if the lack of\n10 statistical significance does not tell us\n11 that it's more probable than not that\n12 there was no price impact -- and that's\n13 what I understand from your hypothetical\n14 with the 40 percent.\n15 So if that's true, if the lack\n16 of statistical significance does not tell\n17 us that it's more probable than not that\n18 there was no price impact, then is the\n19 opposite also true? That a finding of\n20 statistical significance does not tell us\n21 that it's more probable than not that\n22 there was a price impact?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I\n25 answered this already. This goes back to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 162 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 455\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the materiality of the evidence I'm\n3 bringing to bear with respect to how a\n4 given return looks different than other\n5 returns in the sample distribution. Thus,\n6 going back to that \"more likely than not\"\n7 language.\n8 And the example that I gave\n9 previously was in regards to these\n10 bright-line thresholds that academics use.\n11 And then I say, well, it's fine if we --\n12 you know, if we have statistical\n13 significance at the 90 percent level or\n14 greater, that's great.\n15 But if we assume that statistical\n16 significance is at the 89 percent level,\n17 is that meaningless? Does that mean that\n18 return is no different than other returns\n19 in the sample? No.\n20 We have to go back to how we\n21 interpret this test. And this is saying\n22 that this return is different than\n23 89 percent of the returns in the\n24 distribution.\n25 So this return is greater in absolute\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 163 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 456\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 magnitude than the other returns in the\n3 sample. So this gives me pretty strong\n4 evidence to say that this return, on this\n5 date, is not occurring by random checks.\n6 And that's the only opinion here that\n7 I'm offering on this particular issue\n8 today, is to say that this is how I\n9 interpret statistical significance with\n10 regards to these bright-line thresholds.\n11 And perhaps where sometimes the\n12 statistical significance that I'm able to\n13 bring to bear might not exceed the\n14 standard conventional thresholds that we\n15 see in academic literature.\n16 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n17 Q So is your opinion that because\n18 a confidence level of greater than\n19 50 percent is evidence in support of price\n20 impact, more likely than not -- let me ask\n21 that question again.\n22 On what basis do you form the\n23 opinion that because there is a confidence\n24 level of greater than 50 percent, which is\n25 evidence in support of price impact, allow\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 164 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 457\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you to conclude that it's more likely than\n3 not?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q That there was a price impact?\n7 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n8 THE WITNESS: So this is going\n9 back -- sorry --\n10 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n11 It was the same objection. You may\n12 answer.\n13 THE WITNESS: So -- so this is going\n14 back to what statistical significance is\n15 telling us. So I keep repeating myself.\n16 The same thing. That's the basis.\n17 On the basis of interpreting what\n18 statistical significance is. What it\n19 means when you have an 89th percentile.\n20 If you have a 70th percentile, a\n21 50th percentile, what this implies?\n22 And -- and that's the basis, is the\n23 interpretation of the statistical test.\n24 That's my basis.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 165 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 458\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q And how --\n4 A It's my understanding, as an\n5 economist, of how statistics work. My\n6 training. My experience.\n7 Q I don't think there was a\n8 question pending.\n9 A Oh. I thought I heard, \"How?\"\n10 Q But I appreciate you\n11 volunteering information. I was going to\n12 ask a question. You're right.\n13 A Sorry.\n14 Q But sometimes you have to accept\n15 you're not going to get one. So okay.\n16 We'll go ahead and move on.\n17 And what I want to -- I want to\n18 go to -- back to your reply merits report.\n19 And it's Exhibit 95. And I want to direct\n20 your attention to paragraph 16.\n21 A Which paragraph again? Sorry.\n22 Q I want you to go to your expert\n23 reply report, the report that was\n24 introduced as Exhibit 95 and dated\n25 October 9, 2025.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 166 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 459\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Now, in paragraph 16 -- do you\n3 want to take a look at it? Familiarize\n4 yourself with it?\n5 A Please. Thank you. One moment.\n6 I have familiarized myself with the\n7 relevant paragraph. Thank you.\n8 Q Okay. And in paragraph 16 of\n9 that report, you cite three academic\n10 articles by Professor Garmaise; is that\n11 correct?\n12 A I do.\n13 Q Did you review all of Professor\n14 Garmaise's academic articles?\n15 A I reviewed a -- a sampling of\n16 his more recent articles. He has a long\n17 career and many papers. So I just looked\n18 for some more recent examples from the\n19 last ten or 15 years.\n20 Q How did you determine which\n21 articles to look at? How did you select,\n22 search for, and identify them?\n23 A I went to his CV on his website\n24 to -- to see what -- his list of\n25 publications. And then I looked for more\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 167 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 460\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 recent papers.\n3 Q Approximately how many did you\n4 read?\n5 A In full? I don't think I -- I\n6 read them all verbatim. I was looking\n7 through them cursorily to understand his\n8 use of statistical tests and conventions\n9 in his papers.\n10 I don't recall off the top of my\n11 head how many I looked at it. And so he\n12 has ample papers. So I -- I grabbed a few\n13 recent versions.\n14 Q Okay. And so is that the only\n15 basis upon which you conclude that, \"A\n16 review of his recent empirical work, i.e.,\n17 where he analyzed data and made\n18 statistical inferences, his standard\n19 practice commonly employs a 90 percent\n20 confidence level\"?\n21 A Sorry. You're -- you're reading\n22 where from?\n23 Q I'm asking you, what is the\n24 basis for your conclusion that, \"A review\n25 of his recent empirical work, i.e., where\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 168 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 461\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 he analyzed data and made statistical\n3 inferences, his 'standard practice'\n4 commonplace -- commonly employs a\n5 90 percent confidence level\"?\n6 A So the basis is finding papers\n7 where he is using -- well, so finding\n8 papers where he uses alternate thresholds\n9 than the ones -- than the one he espouses\n10 in his report.\n11 So his report seems to give the\n12 impression that all law and all finance\n13 seems to use some bright-line threshold at\n14 the 95 percent level. And he -- he seems\n15 to hold it out as some gold standard. And\n16 so it was interesting for me to see that,\n17 in terms of his academic work, he has a\n18 different convention that he also uses.\n19 And so one would expect, given\n20 his position, that consistently throughout\n21 his work, if this were the standard in\n22 academia, if this were the standard, i.e.,\n23 95 percent level or greater, that he would\n24 also adhere to that.\n25 And so, both in his research and\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 169 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 462\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 his deposition testimony, I think he has\n3 shown by his research that he uses a lower\n4 threshold. And I think he admitted as\n5 such in his -- his deposition testimony as\n6 well.\n7 Q What do you mean with the words\n8 \"standard practice\"? What did you use\n9 those words to mean? You put it in a\n10 quote.\n11 You say, \"A review of his recent\n12 empirical work, i.e., where he analyzed\n13 data and made statistical inferences, his\n14 'standard practice'\" -- how did you\n15 determine it's his standard practice?\n16 A I -- I'm probably referring to\n17 language in his report that he uses a\n18 standard practice. So if I'm quoting it,\n19 it's likely this is verbiage used from his\n20 report where he refers to \"standard\n21 practice.\"\n22 Q Well, you're not talking about\n23 that though. That's not what the sentence\n24 says. This sentence says, \"A review of\n25 his recent empirical work\" -- mentioned\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 170 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 463\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 nothing about his report in this case.\n3 \"A review of his recent\n4 empirical work, i.e., where he analyzed\n5 data and made statistical inferences, his\n6 'standard practice' commonly employs a\n7 90 percent confidence level.\" What do you\n8 mean when you say \"his standard practice\"?\n9 A I -- I think I answered it.\n10 If -- if I have this in quotations, what I\n11 believe I was thinking at the moment here\n12 is, I'm probably referring to his report,\n13 where he uses this terminology, \"standard\n14 practice.\"\n15 I can look at adjacent\n16 paragraphs to see if there's some other\n17 source of it.\n18 Q But you're referring to --\n19 you're -- sorry. You're referring to \"his\n20 standard practice.\" Not some standard\n21 practice he refers to. You're saying,\n22 \"His standard practice is\" --\n23 You say, \"A review of his recent\n24 empirical work, i.e., where he analyzed\n25 data and made statistical inferences, his\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 171 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 464\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 standard practice employs\" --\n3 My understanding -- and correct\n4 me if I'm wrong -- from this statement,\n5 you read his reports and came to a\n6 conclusion that, in his \"standard\n7 practice,\" your words, \"commonly employs a\n8 90 percent confidence level.\" What's the\n9 basis for that conclusion?\n10 A The basis is the evidence that I\n11 cited with respect to his published works.\n12 And I'm sure there's other evidence out\n13 there as well. But at least in terms of\n14 what I've given in this report, there are,\n15 at minimum, three examples of him using an\n16 alternate cutoff regularly.\n17 Q Okay. Why did you only list\n18 these three papers? Did you review only\n19 these three papers? Or did you list --\n20 look at additional papers?\n21 A I probably looked at additional\n22 papers. Again, just looking at -- I -- I\n23 would say if you look at his CV and look\n24 at the --\n25 Q Probably? Or did?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 172 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 465\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I don't recall which -- all\n3 papers I looked at. But what I said is, I\n4 looked at recent papers. So any papers in\n5 the last ten or 15 years.\n6 And so there are -- there are\n7 other papers I -- I looked at. Which\n8 papers and, you know, how far back I went?\n9 I -- I think I went back ten or 15 years\n10 to look at how he was assessing\n11 statistical significance in his academic\n12 work.\n13 Q Are you aware that you're\n14 supposed to list all of the sources that\n15 you look at and identified and reviewed in\n16 connection with the preparing of your\n17 expert report?\n18 A So I --\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q List it so that I have a fair\n22 opportunity to be able to look at what\n23 you've seen and cited?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 173 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 466\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q And so my question is, did you\n4 review articles, to the best of your\n5 recollection, other than these three that\n6 you cited?\n7 A There -- I -- I'm -- there could\n8 have been other articles that I cited\n9 that -- or that I reviewed that I did not\n10 cite. Perhaps because they -- they were\n11 not on point. Or perhaps because he\n12 didn't use the 10 percent statistical\n13 threshold.\n14 And so I am just giving\n15 examples. This isn't -- I never said this\n16 was an exhaustive search of all of his\n17 academic work, where I listed a table and\n18 gave the counts of the number of papers\n19 and the number of times in each paper\n20 where he uses it.\n21 All I'm saying is that, despite\n22 his opinion -- very strong opinion with\n23 regards to this 95 percent threshold\n24 cutoff, he tends to use, in his -- in --\n25 in his academic papers, alternate cutoffs.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 174 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 467\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And that's the mere point here.\n3 And so in terms of an exhaustive\n4 search, I don't claim to do an exhaustive\n5 search. But when -- I looked at more\n6 recent papers. And the evidence that I've\n7 used in this -- in -- in this report is\n8 cited in this report.\n9 Q Okay. Well, why didn't you list\n10 them, all of the reports, in Appendix A?\n11 If you considered them, why didn't you\n12 list them? Even if you decided not to\n13 cite them, why didn't you list them?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 THE WITNESS: Perhaps because it --\n16 it wasn't on point. It wasn't relevant in\n17 terms of what I was trying to look for in\n18 his -- in his papers.\n19 There could be other papers where he\n20 uses other thresholds. But again, I'm\n21 looking at more recent examples of his\n22 recent work to understand his more recent\n23 opinions with respect to academic work.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q Okay. Did you find any academic\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 175 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 468\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 article by Professor Garmaise where he\n3 regarded results with a confidence level\n4 of less than 90 percent as statistically\n5 significant?\n6 A Repeat the question? The first\n7 half?\n8 Q Did you find any academic\n9 article by Professor Garmaise where he\n10 regards results with a confidence level of\n11 less than 90 percent as statistically\n12 significant?\n13 A I -- I don't believe so. But I\n14 didn't look. So I don't recall if he --\n15 if he had.\n16 Q Okay. Did you find any academic\n17 article by Professor Garmaise where he\n18 regards results with a confidence level of\n19 50 percent as statistically significant?\n20 A Again, I didn't look. I don't\n21 recall. So I don't have an opinion today.\n22 Q Okay. Now, in paragraph 16 of\n23 your expert report -- since these are the\n24 articles you chose to rely on, we will\n25 look at them.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 176 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 469\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So in paragraph 16, you have a\n3 quote here where you say, \"With Garmaise\n4 and Natividad, 2010\" -- that's the first\n5 bullet you cite with paragraph -- with\n6 footnote 25.\n7 You cite a quote that -- you\n8 say, \"We show that multi-province firm\n9 borrowing is also sensitive to local\n10 mining windfalls [statistically\n11 significant at the 90 percent level].\"\n12 Correct?\n13 A That's correct.\n14 Q Okay. Bear with me a moment.\n15 And while I'm doing this, you read these\n16 articles? The -- you -- I just want to be\n17 clear on your testimony that, at least\n18 these three articles that were cited; you\n19 read? Is that correct, Dr. Bozanic?\n20 A Not verbatim.\n21 Q Okay. But you what? How\n22 closely did you look at them?\n23 A So you can go through papers.\n24 And you can look at the tables to assess\n25 statistical significance. So this -- this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 177 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 470\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is the easiest way to look at the\n3 empirical analysis by way of the tables\n4 that are reported.\n5 And then, usually, the tables\n6 have some notations that indicate levels\n7 of statistical significance. Usually,\n8 asterisks, for example.\n9 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. I just\n10 circulated an exhibit. Exhibit 98. This\n11 is -- you can let me know when you get it.\n12 (Exhibit 98 was marked for\n13 identification.)\n14 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm getting it.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Can you tell me what this\n17 document is?\n18 A Let's see here. This is one of\n19 Dr. Garmaise's papers with Natividad.\n20 Q And which paper is that,\n21 specifically?\n22 A I'm reading the title as,\n23 \"Information, the Cost of Credit, and\n24 Operational Efficiency: An Empirical\n25 Study of Microfinance.\"\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 178 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 471\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. And now, that's the very\n3 same article that was cited in\n4 paragraph 16 of your merits report that we\n5 were just looking at; right?\n6 A Yes.\n7 Q And the one that's footnoted\n8 2025. Now, I know that you said you\n9 didn't read the papers. But I would\n10 assume that you read the quoted language?\n11 A Correct. So what I'm trying to\n12 do is look at --\n13 Q Okay. And put it here. So\n14 just -- let's just -- just give me a\n15 chance to ask my question.\n16 A Sorry.\n17 Q And then we'll give you a chance\n18 to give your answers; okay? What I want\n19 you to do is, I want you to look through\n20 the exhibit that I just sent. And I want\n21 you to tell me where in this document that\n22 quote is from.\n23 A I apologize. So I'm not seeing\n24 it. I recall seeing this sentence. The\n25 question is if the citation is incorrect\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 179 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 472\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 or not. But I recall this sentence. I'm\n3 not seeing it in this citation.\n4 Q So I'll represent to you that\n5 the -- and Plaintiff's counsel can confirm\n6 for themselves. But the sentence isn't in\n7 here.\n8 A Okay.\n9 Q So there's no need to beat your\n10 head against it. I just --\n11 A Yeah. I don't see it.\n12 Q It's interesting. So that's why\n13 I asked if you cite checked earlier.\n14 A Mm-hmm.\n15 Q Because I've got a couple of\n16 phantom citations. But that's okay.\n17 Why don't we go to the next\n18 bullet point; okay? In your report, 95;\n19 okay? And let's go ahead and look at what\n20 you quote there; correct? You quote,\n21 \"MFIs that\" --\n22 A I'm sorry. Where are we going?\n23 Q Sure. Paragraph 16.\n24 A Yes.\n25 Q Exhibit 95. Paragraph 16 of\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 180 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 473\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 your expert merits reply report.\n3 A Mm-hmm.\n4 Q Okay. I want to go to the\n5 second bullet. The one right below the\n6 one we were just looking at.\n7 A Got it.\n8 Q Where you cite a paper with\n9 Garmaise and Natividad, 2013, with\n10 footnote 26.\n11 And there you quote, \"MFIs that\n12 met the eligibility criteria just before\n13 the rating fund was announced are\n14 significantly [at the 90 percent level],\n15 more likely to be evaluated after its\n16 inception.\" Do you see that quote?\n17 A I do see it.\n18 Q Okay. It looks like you're\n19 doing something on your computer there.\n20 A Yeah.\n21 Q Are you listening to the\n22 questions I'm asking? Or are you doing\n23 something else?\n24 A I am.\n25 Q Because I'd appreciate if you go\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 181 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 474\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 ahead and listen to the questions I'm\n3 asking.\n4 A Look -- sure. Sure.\n5 Q Thank you. Okay. Now, what I'm\n6 going to send you is -- and can you tell\n7 me what you have opened on your computer\n8 right now?\n9 A Exhibit 98 and Exhibit 90.\n10 Q Are there any background\n11 programs running on your computer?\n12 A Outlook and Zoom.\n13 MR. PARTIDA: All right. I'm going\n14 to send another exhibit. This is going to\n15 be Exhibit 99. And --\n16 (Exhibit 99 was marked for\n17 identification.)\n18 MR. PARTIDA: All right. I've just\n19 sent Exhibit 99. So you guys can let me\n20 know when you get it. And you can let me\n21 know when you have it.\n22 THE WITNESS: Nothing yet. Sorry.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: No problem.\n24 THE WITNESS: Okay. Coming through.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 182 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 475\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. So can you identify what\n4 this document is?\n5 A So Exhibit 99 is a paper by\n6 Dr. Garmaise entitled \"The Attractions and\n7 Perils of Flexible Mortgage Lending.\"\n8 Q Okay. Now, can you go back to\n9 paragraph 16 of your merits reply report?\n10 A Yes.\n11 Q Okay. Now, one question is, can\n12 you -- the first question is, can you\n13 please direct me to the quote that you\n14 included from this paper?\n15 A So I think what I'm seeing here,\n16 David, is I may have inverted the\n17 citations. And so I think, instead of a\n18 phantom cite, I think I just have the\n19 citations across papers inverted is what\n20 I'm seeing here.\n21 Q Okay. Well, I asked a question.\n22 And my question is, do you see that quote\n23 in this paper?\n24 A Let me see -- paper. No. This\n25 would be the quote in the other paper.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 183 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 476\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q The quote in the other paper. I\n3 appreciate the specificity. Okay. But\n4 we'll stick with my questions. And that's\n5 fine. So this paper is not the right\n6 citation either.\n7 And we're going to go ahead and\n8 we're going to go to the next citation.\n9 And that's to the third paper; correct?\n10 And you -- let's go back to paragraph --\n11 are you at -- do you have your merits\n12 reply -- merits report up?\n13 A I -- I have my merits report\n14 printed. I don't have the third paper\n15 yet. You're -- you're sending that?\n16 Q No. No. The reply paper. I'm\n17 asking if you're looking at your reply\n18 report, paragraph 16?\n19 A I am. Yeah.\n20 Q Okay. Now, do you see where, on\n21 paragraph 16, you have a quote that you\n22 say, \"The estimated coefficient of\n23 negative 0.268 is marginally significant\n24 at the 90 percent level\"? Do you see\n25 that?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 184 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 477\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I do.\n3 Q Okay. And you attribute that to\n4 a paper from Garmaise and Natividad of\n5 2021; that's correct?\n6 A I'm sorry. Repeat the question?\n7 I didn't understand -- hear the question.\n8 Q You attribute that quote to a\n9 title -- to a paper by Professor Garmaise?\n10 That's Garmaise and Natividad, 2021;\n11 correct?\n12 A Right. I'm just looking at the\n13 footnote. \"Financial Flexibility: At What\n14 Cost?\"\n15 Q Yes. Okay. I'm going to\n16 send -- you can let me know when you have\n17 it.\n18 A Oh. Thank you. Which exhibit\n19 is this?\n20 Q One hundred.\n21 (Exhibit 100 was marked for\n22 identification.)\n23 A Nothing yet.\n24 Q Okay. And, of course, going\n25 back to the previous bullet point, I just\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 185 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 478\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 also wanted to ask. Could you confirm\n3 that Natividad is not actually an author\n4 on that paper? The 2013 paper?\n5 Exhibit 99?\n6 A In Exhibit 99, just Dr. Garmaise\n7 is coauthor if the -- is the author of the\n8 paper.\n9 Q Right. Okay. Let me know when\n10 you get 100.\n11 A Oh. Here it comes.\n12 Q And I would like to just ask you\n13 to confirm, when you get that, that the\n14 quoted language cited in your report\n15 doesn't actually appear in this article.\n16 A Oh. Let me see here. Page\n17 number is two -- 261. No, David. I -- I\n18 think what I've done here is, I've\n19 inverted some citations.\n20 I think that these quotes are\n21 from the papers that you have shared with\n22 me in terms of these exhibits. But there\n23 seems to have been some inversion of the\n24 order of the citations. And so this typo\n25 can easily be corrected.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 186 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 479\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But this language does exist in\n3 certain papers of his. But I think that,\n4 like I said, I -- like some of these\n5 quotes are in the papers you've already\n6 shared with me.\n7 Q Okay. I would like to have you\n8 go to -- back to Exhibit 97. And this is\n9 your July 18 merits report.\n10 A I have it.\n11 Q Okay. Can you please go to\n12 footnote 78?\n13 A Okay. I'm there.\n14 Q Okay. Now, in footnote 78 of\n15 your merits report, you state that, \"After\n16 the start of the class period, only the\n17 February 18, 2021, alleged\n18 misrepresentation was followed by a\n19 positive and statistically significant\n20 stock return.\" Is that correct?\n21 A May I have a moment to read it?\n22 Q Please.\n23 A Thank you. Okay. I've -- I\n24 have read it. Thank you.\n25 Q Okay. So you see that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 187 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 480\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 statement; correct? \"After the start of\n3 the class period, only the February 18,\n4 2021, alleged misrepresentation was\n5 followed by a positive and statistically\n6 significant stock return.\" You see that?\n7 A I do.\n8 Q That's correct. Okay. What\n9 confidence threshold did you use to assess\n10 the statistical significance of the\n11 alleged misrepresentation dates?\n12 A So here, I'd have to go back to\n13 the event study. But the statistical\n14 significance of this is irrelevant, given\n15 that there was a repetition of\n16 information.\n17 However, I'd have to go back to\n18 the event study to look at the different\n19 thresholds. But I would assume that this\n20 is using conventional thresholds. But I\n21 don't have the benefit of those documents\n22 in front of me.\n23 But regardless, the main thrust\n24 of this footnote is to state that there\n25 was a repetition of information. And so\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 188 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 481\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 statistical significance or not, this is\n3 redundant information.\n4 Q But my question is, what\n5 confidence threshold did you use to assess\n6 statistical significance of the alleged\n7 misrepresentation dates?\n8 A I would --\n9 Q And if I understand your\n10 testimony, you don't know, as you sit\n11 here?\n12 A What I don't have the benefit of\n13 is having the events study in front of me\n14 in terms of all of the dates and all of\n15 the levels of statistical significance.\n16 But I would imagine that I was doing so\n17 using conventional levels.\n18 Q Okay. I would like to have you\n19 go to Exhibit 90.\n20 A Ninety?\n21 Q Which is -- yes. That's the --\n22 Professor Garmaise's report.\n23 A I'm there.\n24 Q Okay. And I would like you to\n25 go down to Exhibit 1, which is on page 58\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 189 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 482\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 of the PDF.\n3 A Fifty-eight. I am there.\n4 Q Okay. Do you agree that\n5 March 3, 2021, was another alleged\n6 misrepresentation date?\n7 A This, I believe, was another\n8 alleged misrepresentation date. Yes.\n9 Q Okay. And do you agree that the\n10 abnormal return for that date was\n11 positive?\n12 A Yes.\n13 Q Okay. And do you agree that the\n14 confidence --\n15 A I mean, assuming that this is\n16 accurate, yes.\n17 Q Do you agree that the confidence\n18 level of the abnormal return for March 3,\n19 2021, was 67.23?\n20 A As indicated by Dr. Garmaise's\n21 report, yes.\n22 MR. LINKH: Just to be clear here,\n23 David, are -- is it March 3rd or\n24 March 7th -- March 2nd?\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Second, I believe.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 190 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 483\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Yes.\n3 THE WITNESS: Oh. I think there was\n4 some confusion about the aftermarket, 3/1,\n5 3/2. So yeah.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Yes. Yes. That -- with\n8 footnote 3. Okay. Now, and that was not\n9 statistically significant or identified as\n10 statistically significant in your previous\n11 report; correct?\n12 A I believe that's correct. So\n13 under conventional thresholds.\n14 Q Okay. Now, in your 2017 paper\n15 co-authored with Dietrich and Johnson,\n16 which is titled \"SEC Comment Letters and\n17 Firm Disclosure\" --\n18 MR. PARTIDA: And let me actually go\n19 ahead and introduce that as an exhibit.\n20 Okay. And you can let me know whenever\n21 this goes through.\n22 MR. LINKH: David, this is 101?\n23 Exhibit?\n24 MR. PARTIDA: Yes. That's correct.\n25 MR. LINKH: Okay.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 191 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 484\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 (Exhibit 101 was marked for\n3 identification.)\n4 THE WITNESS: I have it up and open\n5 now.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Okay. And this is the\n8 two-seven -- 2017 paper, coauthored by\n9 yourself with Dietrich and Johnson titled\n10 \"SEC Comment Letters and Firm Disclosure.\"\n11 Correct?\n12 A Correct.\n13 Q Okay. And I'd like to direct\n14 your attention to page 353.\n15 A Okay. I'm there.\n16 Q Okay. Now, on page 353, you\n17 state there -- and sorry. My computer's\n18 freezing. So I'm going to have to look\n19 for a second.\n20 \"In Table 10\" -- so this is\n21 right after footnote 35 in the\n22 above-the-line text. It says, \"In\n23 Table 10, consistent with H4, the positive\n24 coefficient on Post*QDF in column 1\n25 suggests that disclosure improvements\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 192 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 485\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 increase analyst following.\n3 \"However, the result from the\n4 matched pre-post design found in column 2,\n5 coefficient on CL by post by QDF, is not\n6 statistically significant at conventional\n7 levels.\" Do you see that statement?\n8 A I -- I don't. Let me catch --\n9 'cause you -- you focused me on a certain\n10 page. Then you talked about Table 10.\n11 Where are you? You're on page 353?\n12 Q Sorry. Yeah. Yes. We are on\n13 page 353.\n14 A Okay.\n15 Q After footnote 35, there is a\n16 sentence where you say, \"In Table 10,\n17 consistent with H4, the positive\n18 coefficient\" -- that sentence I just read.\n19 A I see it now. I'm sorry.\n20 Footnote 35 is at the bottom of page 353.\n21 That's where I got confused. Okay.\n22 Q Oh. I was looking at\n23 footnote 355, in the above-the-line text.\n24 I thought I had stated above-the-line\n25 text.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 193 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 486\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I think I'm with you now on that\n3 sentence. Yes.\n4 Q Okay. Now, what are the\n5 conventional levels that you used to\n6 assess statistical significance in that\n7 case?\n8 A Sure. Let -- it's been a while\n9 since I've looked at this paper. If I\n10 could have the benefit of reading the\n11 paragraph and looking at the -- the\n12 respective table?\n13 Q Certainly.\n14 A Okay. \"Column 2 versus\" -- so\n15 here, what I am asserting in this paper is\n16 that this particular result for this\n17 variable, as reflected by the coefficient\n18 estimate, is not statistically significant\n19 at conventional levels.\n20 And conventional levels would be\n21 the ones that are denoted in the tables\n22 within academic research. And so we see\n23 those asterisks that I referred to\n24 previously, where you have, \"Denotes\n25 statistical significance at the 10, 5th,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 194 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 487\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and 1 percentile, respectively --\n3 1 percent level, I should say.\n4 And so that's what I'm referring\n5 to. Those conventions are beneath the\n6 table. So the asterisk refers to the\n7 level of statistical significance. That's\n8 what is meant there.\n9 Q I want you to go back to\n10 Exhibit 90, which is Professor Garmaise's\n11 report.\n12 A Yeah.\n13 Q Okay. And then I want to go\n14 back to Exhibit 1.\n15 A I'm there.\n16 Q Okay. Even before me. Okay.\n17 So based on your event study model, is the\n18 abnormal return on December 10, 2020,\n19 statistically significant?\n20 A So this goes back to what we\n21 mean by \"statistical significance.\"\n22 Right? This goes back to this -- this\n23 notion of conventional levels per academia\n24 versus what one can interpret this to mean\n25 with respect to the evidence that I'm\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 195 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 488\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 bringing to bear.\n3 And so this -- this is the same\n4 discussion that we had earlier about\n5 statistical significance at the 10 percent\n6 level or a confidence interval of\n7 90 percent.\n8 And so the economic magnitude --\n9 so even though that this cutoff -- this\n10 bright-line cutoffs would say, according\n11 to conventional levels used in academia,\n12 that -- at the start of the class period,\n13 that 15 percent positive abnormal return\n14 is not statistically significant at\n15 conventional levels.\n16 But to me, 89.63 percent is not\n17 far off of 90.00 percent. And so in terms\n18 of materiality, it seems as if this return\n19 is -- is quite an important one insofar as\n20 it's greater than 89 percent of the\n21 returns and absolute value in the\n22 distribution.\n23 And so this goes back to this\n24 notion of, \"Is this return happening by\n25 random chance or not?\" And so it would\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 196 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 489\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 appear, on the basis of the strength of\n3 this confidence level, that this is not\n4 occurring by random chance.\n5 Q Is the abnormal return on\n6 December 10, 2020, statistically\n7 significant at the 95 percent level?\n8 A It is not.\n9 Q Is the abnormal return on\n10 December 10, 2020, statistically\n11 significant at the 90 percent level?\n12 A It also is not, using\n13 conventional thresholds.\n14 Q Based on your event study model,\n15 what was the abnormal price increase on\n16 December 10, 2020, in dollars?\n17 A In dollars? I don't have that\n18 off the top of my head. The abnormal\n19 return in a percent is 15 percent.\n20 Q I'm going to send a new exhibit.\n21 So I'll represent to you that -- rather\n22 than -- because we're going to end up\n23 running short on time.\n24 But rather than showing you,\n25 I'll just represent to you that it was\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 197 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 490\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 based on your event study model, as\n3 reflected in cell T255 of that, the\n4 abnormal price increase was assigned a\n5 value of $1.96.\n6 And is it correct that you\n7 estimate artificial inflation at the start\n8 of the class period is $11.69?\n9 A That is my -- my estimate of\n10 artificial inflation at the start of the\n11 class period. That's correct. Yes.\n12 Q Okay. And is $11.69 more than\n13 five times $1.96?\n14 A I'm sorry. Repeat the question?\n15 Q Is 11.69 more than five times\n16 1.96? Five times as much?\n17 A I believe so. Yes. Yes.\n18 Q Okay. Is it correct, in your\n19 merits report, that you state that March 2\n20 and July 14, 2021, were dates when\n21 CleanSpark or then CEO, Mr. Bradford,\n22 provided updates on the ATL expansion\n23 timeline?\n24 A I would have to go back to the\n25 relevant paragraphs in my reports. If you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 198 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 491\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 can point me to those, then I can look to\n3 see what I stated.\n4 There's a lot of information in\n5 these reports. And I haven't memorized it\n6 all. So that would be helpful for me.\n7 Q Sure. Paragraph 44.\n8 Paragraph 44.\n9 A Sorry. Say again?\n10 Q Paragraph 44.\n11 A Which exhibit?\n12 Q Ninety-seven.\n13 A Ninety-seven. Thank you.\n14 Q So then my question is --\n15 A A moment, please?\n16 Q Okay. Yeah. No problem.\n17 A So here, I'm talking about that\n18 they did talk about the expansion and its\n19 estimate for completion. Whether or not\n20 this is new information on this date is\n21 the second question.\n22 Q Okay. You state that the tweet\n23 by Culper Research -- and this is -- if\n24 you want to look at it, you can go to your\n25 reply merits report.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 199 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 492\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Which paragraph in Exhibit 95?\n3 Q It is paragraph 23.\n4 THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I wasn't\n5 sure if we were finishing the last line of\n6 questioning or if we're starting anew.\n7 But when we do finish whatever line of\n8 questioning, a comfort break would be\n9 appreciated.\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Let's just take five.\n11 THE WITNESS: And this is\n12 paragraph 29 in Exhibit 95?\n13 MR. PARTIDA: This is Exhibit 95.\n14 But why don't we just take five minutes?\n15 And then we'll come back.\n16 THE WITNESS: Okay. Perfect.\n17 Thank you, gentlemen.\n18 MR. PARTIDA: So 2:37.\n19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of\n20 media unit number 3. We are off the\n21 record at 2:32 p.m.\n22 (Off the record.)\n23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n24 beginning of media unit number 4. We are\n25 on the record at 2:39 p.m.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 200 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 493\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: All right. Welcome\n3 back.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Dr. Bozanic, I'd like to direct\n6 you to -- back to Exhibit 95, your expert\n7 merits reply. And paragraph 23 of that\n8 report. And you can tell me when you get\n9 there.\n10 A I am there.\n11 Q Okay. And when you -- in that\n12 paragraph, you state that the tweet by\n13 Culper Research on January 15th brought\n14 greater visibility to the Culper Report;\n15 isn't that correct?\n16 A May I have the benefit of\n17 reading the full paragraph?\n18 Q Sure.\n19 A Thank you, sir.\n20 Q And specifically, I'd direct you\n21 to the sense that says, \"Hence, these two\n22 days reflect the market's response to the\n23 same corrective event entering the market.\n24 \"First, the release of the\n25 report. And then second, the tweet, which\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 201 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 494\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 brought greater visibility to the report.\"\n3 Correct?\n4 A Pardon?\n5 Q You made that statement? You\n6 see that sentence; correct?\n7 A I'm sorry. I haven't finished\n8 reading the paragraph. I've read it.\n9 Thank you.\n10 Q Do you see the sentence I\n11 directed you to?\n12 A I do. Yes.\n13 Q Great. Thanks. Now, did you\n14 analyze the channels through which the\n15 Culper Report was disseminated?\n16 A I'm sorry. I don't understand\n17 what you mean by, \"Did I analyze the\n18 channels by which the Culper Report\n19 disseminated?\"\n20 Q Sure. Did you consider how the\n21 Culper Report might have been disseminated\n22 to the public?\n23 A So it's my understanding that\n24 the Culper Report was disseminated to the\n25 public by way of Culper Research's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 202 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 495\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 website. And that it was further\n3 distributed by Twitter, at the time, X\n4 now.\n5 And so those are the ways in\n6 which I was aware of which the Culper\n7 Report was distributed.\n8 Q Did you analyze how many people\n9 viewed, liked, or shared the January 15th\n10 tweet by Culper Research?\n11 A I -- I think in the tweets, at\n12 least with regards to the historical\n13 tweets that I had access to, I believe\n14 there are some other statistics in terms\n15 of maybe comments or -- or views. But I\n16 did not analyze those.\n17 Q Okay. And are you providing any\n18 expert opinion on the reach or visibility\n19 of channels through which Culper Research\n20 disseminated its report?\n21 A Only insofar as the -- the tweet\n22 would garner greater visibility of the\n23 report than just simply putting a report\n24 on a website. It would bring more\n25 attention. And there's academic research\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 203 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 496\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that -- that supports that.\n3 Q And where is that academic\n4 research cited in your report?\n5 A So the Blankespoor, et al., this\n6 is on disclosure processing costs. And so\n7 this is about how information is -- is\n8 disseminated.\n9 And so there's other research,\n10 whether I cited it or not. But academic\n11 research does support that Twitter, for\n12 example, does help give more reach to\n13 information in the market.\n14 Q So are you providing an expert\n15 opinion on the reach and visibility of the\n16 channels through which Culper Research\n17 disseminated its report?\n18 A The only opinion I'm giving is\n19 that Twitter would've increased\n20 dissemination. It would've increased\n21 visibility. That's it. To the extent? I\n22 have not analyzed that. No. I have not.\n23 Q And so you are offering an\n24 expert opinion here today that publishing\n25 a tweet increases its exposure?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 204 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 497\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 THE WITNESS: I -- I think, yes.\n4 Academic research would support that as\n5 well. But a tweet versus a single post on\n6 a website whereby others are able to see\n7 this information, i.e., the Culper Report\n8 and associated comments within the tweet,\n9 would allow for others to have access to\n10 that information.\n11 Perhaps in the absence of that, it\n12 would be more difficult, is all I'm\n13 saying. So it increased the visibility of\n14 the report.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q And the basis for your expert\n17 opinion that the January 15th tweet\n18 increased the visibility is based on what?\n19 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n20 THE WITNESS: So -- so one, there's\n21 academic research. But two, just on the\n22 basis of one disclosure versus multiple\n23 disclosures. So you have a disclosure.\n24 Then you have another disclosure.\n25 So the tweet itself can be considered\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 205 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 498\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 as a separate disclosure that could\n3 potentially increase the reach of that --\n4 that report being published on a website.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q What specific training and\n7 method, in your background and experience\n8 as an economist, qualifies you to state\n9 that basic logical conclusion that you've\n10 stated as an expert?\n11 Why would we need an expert to\n12 say that? Isn't that just a logical\n13 argument you're making? What does that\n14 have to do with any expert analysis that\n15 you're offering?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: It -- it's a logical\n18 statement that I'm making, which is\n19 predicated on my experience and expertise.\n20 And as I've said, there's academic\n21 research that supports this view that\n22 Twitter can increase the visibility of a\n23 given firm disclosure.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q What new corrective information\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 206 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 499\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 was disseminated by the January 15th tweet\n3 beyond what was conveyed in the January 14\n4 Culper Report.\n5 A So can we bring up the tweet\n6 itself, so we can review it?\n7 Q Well, I'm asking you, as you sit\n8 here today, do you recall what if any new\n9 corrective information was disseminated by\n10 the January 15 tweet by Culper Research\n11 beyond what was obtained in the report?\n12 A So without having the benefit of\n13 reviewing the report in real time and the\n14 tweets in real time, the tweet repeated\n15 information that was contained within the\n16 report.\n17 And as I said, the value\n18 relevance here is with respect to the\n19 broader dissemination of that report in\n20 the marketplace.\n21 Q Is it your opinion that the\n22 January 15, 2021, tweet by Culper Research\n23 had greater visibility than, for example,\n24 the December 12, 2020, video by RexFinance\n25 that Professor Garmaise referenced in his\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 207 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 500\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report?\n3 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n4 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question\n5 once more? Sorry, David.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Is it your opinion that the\n8 January 15, 2021, tweet by Culper Research\n9 had greater visibility than the\n10 December 12, 2020, video by RexFinance\n11 that Professor Garmaise referenced in his\n12 report?\n13 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n14 THE WITNESS: I don't think I've\n15 offered an opinion on the relative reach\n16 of the relative information that you've\n17 quoted.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q Okay. Now, did you review the\n20 transcripts of the RexFinance YouTube\n21 video that were cited in the Garmaise\n22 report?\n23 A I am familiar with that video\n24 and the transcript. Verbatim, from\n25 memory? Not so much. So if we have\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 208 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 501\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 something to put in front of me, that\n3 would be very helpful.\n4 Q Sure. But my question is, did\n5 you review those transcripts?\n6 A I -- I have seen a transcript of\n7 the -- the RexFinance video. Yes.\n8 Q And you reviewed it?\n9 A Well, I listened to the video.\n10 And I believe there might be like a\n11 subpanel or something where the transcript\n12 was generated. And so I could hear it and\n13 see it.\n14 Q Okay. So if we go to -- let me\n15 just -- okay. Your -- just trying to\n16 remember the exhibit numbers of the\n17 different reports. Oh. Yeah. So back on\n18 95. Mm-hmm. I want to go down to\n19 footnote 52.\n20 A Footnote -- which? Sorry.\n21 Q Five-two.\n22 A Five-two. Okay. I'm at the\n23 footnote.\n24 Q Okay. So in that footnote --\n25 and this is related to what I asked you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 209 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 502\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 about the transcripts. I'm trying to\n3 understand. What is the basis for your\n4 statement in footnote 52 that says -- and\n5 this is right after Garmaise's report.\n6 Paragraph 68. In that footnote.\n7 But what is the basis for your\n8 statement that, \"While the video discusses\n9 CleanSpark's ATL facility acquisition,\n10 with respect to Marathon, the influencer\n11 only focuses on CleanSpark's touted\n12 ability to lower its cost of energy below\n13 that of Marathon.\"\n14 A Thank you. One moment. Let me\n15 review the footnote in full. So here, in\n16 reviewing the video and transcript, what\n17 I'm discussing is Dr. Garmaise's point\n18 about what was in the public at this time.\n19 And he was pointing, I believe,\n20 to this video as evidence, at least as --\n21 by way of an example, of information that\n22 was contained in the public.\n23 So when he has this statement\n24 about ATL being linked to Fastblock --\n25 Fastblock. And Fastblock had been a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 210 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 503\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 target of a failed acquisition by Marathon\n3 and so forth. And, you know, the -- the\n4 particular point about withdrawing it\n5 because of the expiration of the\n6 subsidized power agreement.\n7 That was a lot of information.\n8 And so it was unclear if Dr. Garmaise was\n9 trying to tie all of that information\n10 perhaps to this YouTube video.\n11 Upon my review of the YouTube\n12 video, what the influencer talks about is\n13 Marathon, a competitor; right? A very\n14 large, established competitor.\n15 With their energy costs. And\n16 they could not achieve what CleanSpark\n17 stated it could achieve. And so the --\n18 the media influencer was excited about\n19 CleanSpark's touted claims to reduce the\n20 energy cost beyond that of a major\n21 competitor.\n22 And so that was the takeaway\n23 that I saw with respect to the public\n24 information in the sphere, relative to\n25 what Dr. Garmaise was claiming in his\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 211 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 504\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report.\n3 Q So the basis -- to get back to\n4 my question, the basis for your sentence\n5 that I read in the report is your viewing\n6 of the video?\n7 A That's right. I -- I viewed the\n8 video and looked at the transcript.\n9 Q Okay.\n10 A And that was my takeaway. Yeah.\n11 Q Okay. Thank you. Now, that\n12 video also includes lots of other topics;\n13 isn't that true?\n14 A I -- I don't recall all the\n15 topics.\n16 Q Okay.\n17 A But I'm sure there were other\n18 topics discussed. What they were, I don't\n19 recall off the top of my head.\n20 Q Understood. So we're going to\n21 go ahead and help you with that. I'm\n22 going to pull up the transcripts.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: And actually, Greg, I\n24 seem to recall that the transcripts were\n25 previously introduced in Professor\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 212 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 505\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Garmaise's deposition. If that is the\n3 case --\n4 MR. LINKH: Do you want me to see if\n5 I can get it? And I'll put it up on\n6 the -- on our email?\n7 MR. PARTIDA: You could circulate it.\n8 Yeah. You could do that if it's -- if you\n9 want to use that. Either way. Or I could\n10 throw up a new exhibit.\n11 I just would prefer to keep, if we're\n12 going to use the previous exhibit number,\n13 that marked exhibit. So we all know we're\n14 talking about the same thing. And it was\n15 Exhibit 93.\n16 MR. LINKH: Okay. Let me send that\n17 off. Just give me a second.\n18 MR. PARTIDA: And it's because I\n19 actually don't have the actual marked copy\n20 of the exhibits. Because I only saw them\n21 as we were --\n22 MR. LINKH: Okay. I just sent off.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Thank you.\n24 THE WITNESS: It's coming through.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. I haven't\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 213 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 506\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 received it yet; but --\n3 THE WITNESS: I have it open, David.\n4 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. No problem. I'm\n5 just waiting for it to come through on my\n6 end. And it has.\n7 THE WITNESS: Good.\n8 MR. PARTIDA: Thank you very much,\n9 Greg.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay. So if you go and open\n12 Exhibit 93, which was previously marked in\n13 the deposition of Professor Garmaise?\n14 I'll represent this to you as a\n15 transcript of the RexFinance video of\n16 December 12, 2020, that we were talking\n17 about. Now, the video states that ATL was\n18 formerly known as Fastblock; correct?\n19 A I -- I haven't reviewed this\n20 transcript in some time. So I'd have to\n21 go back --\n22 Q I'll direct you to 1:33, for\n23 example.\n24 A To -- to where? I'm sorry.\n25 One -- oh. It's date -- time marked 1:33.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 214 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 507\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Okay.\n3 Q Yes. And do you see where it\n4 says, \"And that's\" -- starting at 1:31?\n5 \"And that's all because ATL Data Centers,\n6 or formally known as Fastblock Mining, is\n7 such a huge player in the mining space.\"\n8 You see that?\n9 A I -- I see the same language.\n10 Q Okay. Now, I would direct you\n11 down further to 2:57 through 3:02. And do\n12 you see where it says, \"So we're going to\n13 start off at ATL Data Centers' website,\n14 formerly known as Fastblock\"?\n15 A I see that.\n16 Q Okay. Fastblock Mining --\n17 sorry. I just -- this -- my computer\n18 skipped a -- something's weird with\n19 pagination. So let me read it, just so\n20 we're clear.\n21 On 2:57 through 3:04, it says,\n22 \"So we're going to start off at ATL Data\n23 Centers' website, formerly known as\n24 Fastblock Mining, as I previously\n25 mentioned. We'll get into why that's\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 215 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 508\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 important.\" Is that correct? You see\n3 that language?\n4 A I do.\n5 Q And the video also states that\n6 Fastblock had been a target of a failed\n7 acquisition by Marathon; isn't that\n8 correct? And I would direct your\n9 attention to 5:56 through 6:12.\n10 And starting at 5:56, as soon as\n11 I can get there. Do you see that it says,\n12 \"All those companies that look up to\n13 ATL Data/Fastblock Mining, all of a sudden\n14 are going to want to install Fractalgrid\n15 for themselves.\n16 \"Back in August, they were\n17 actually set to be acquired by Marathon.\n18 Which, if you guys don't know, is one of\n19 the two biggest bitcoin mining\n20 publicly-traded companies.\" Do you see\n21 that?\n22 A I do.\n23 Q Okay. Then why did you state in\n24 footnote 52 that we were just looking at\n25 in your reply merits report that, \"With\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 216 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 509\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 respect to Marathon, the influencer\n3 only\" -- your word -- \"focuses on\n4 CleanSpark's touted ability to lower its\n5 energy costs below that of Marathon?\"\n6 A Sure. Happy to answer the\n7 question. So if you keep going in the\n8 minute marks, he says further, \"In the\n9 Nasdaq. But the part I really want to pay\n10 attention to here is that Marathon said\n11 they could cut power costs to 2.85 cents\n12 per kilowatt hour, which would reduce the\n13 mining cost.\"\n14 And so if you listen to the\n15 video, you can hear his intonation come\n16 out, especially in terms of what he's\n17 excited about, this particular influencer.\n18 And so what he's trying to underscore is\n19 that CleanSpark is touting that they can\n20 do better than a major competitor.\n21 And so he was excited about the\n22 potential profitability of CleanSpark on\n23 the basis of those stated claims with\n24 respect to the power agreement and the\n25 potential to keep those costs low, beyond\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 217 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 510\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what the industry standard was, especially\n3 in regards to these major players.\n4 So this is a pretty wild claim\n5 to say that the company can really reduce\n6 the cost of mining using its proprietary\n7 software or whatever the case may be,\n8 however they do so. But this is where the\n9 influencer gets really excited in terms of\n10 the main point that he wants to focus on.\n11 Like he's not saying here that\n12 the reason -- to my knowledge, he's not\n13 saying that, \"Hey, the reason this fell\n14 through is because of the lack of\n15 viability of the power agreement in terms\n16 of its intended expiration date.\"\n17 And so this influencer is -- is\n18 touting the same, with respect to the\n19 ability to mine at a very low cost that's\n20 well below the industry standard.\n21 Q So I'm going to go ahead and cut\n22 through all of that, which is\n23 nonresponsive to my question.\n24 My question is, why did you say\n25 in footnote 52 that, \"With respect to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 218 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 511\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Marathon, the influencer only\" -- that's\n3 different than what you said. You said,\n4 \"Only.\"\n5 Why did you use the word \"only,\"\n6 when we've just read transcripts from this\n7 very video where he discusses something\n8 specific and completely different than\n9 that with regard to Marathon? How is it\n10 that you can say that he \"only\" focused on\n11 that?\n12 A Well, again, I think the\n13 relevant point here -- and this goes back\n14 to Dr. -- Dr. Garmaise's quote.\n15 Q I didn't ask what you thought\n16 the relevant point was, with all due\n17 respect. I asked why you stated in\n18 footnote 52 that the influencer only\n19 focuses on that, when from the transcript\n20 we've just read, that's not true?\n21 A It --\n22 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q If you want to go ahead and say\n25 that maybe the word \"only\" --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 219 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 512\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Let me know when I can answer.\n3 Q Maybe the word \"only\" is a --\n4 quite a bit of an overstatement?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object --\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q I mean, didn't you just read\n8 these -- this previous transcript where we\n9 just saw, on 5:57 through 6:10, a\n10 discussion with respect to Marathon that\n11 focuses on something different than what\n12 you referenced in your footnote? Isn't\n13 that true?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 THE WITNESS: David, when you'll\n16 permit me, I'll answer the question. You\n17 just said a lot there.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q Isn't that true? Isn't -- I'll\n20 say a little less. Isn't it true that you\n21 just read 5:57 through 6:10 of this\n22 transcript? Yes or no?\n23 A Let me --\n24 Q It's an easy question.\n25 A Let me go back.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 220 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 513\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Court --\n3 THE WITNESS: Dave --\n4 MR. PARTIDA: Can I --\n5 THE WITNESS: David, I'm -- I'm\n6 trying to express to you that I have been\n7 unable to answer the question because you\n8 speak -- keep speaking. And so instead of\n9 rattling off a lot of points, if you can\n10 bracket it to a specific question, I'm\n11 happy to answer it.\n12 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n13 Q I asked a very specific\n14 question. Did you or did you not just\n15 read with me 5:57 through 6:10 of this\n16 transcript?\n17 A David, I'm going to go back to\n18 the transcript to affirm what you said.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Can I ask the court\n20 reporter to read back the section of this\n21 deposition where we literally just read\n22 through 5:57 through 6:10 of this\n23 transcript?\n24 THE REPORTER: Absolutely. Just a\n25 second.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 221 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 514\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 (The reporter repeated the\n3 record as requested.)\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Does that refresh your\n6 recollection, Dr. Bozanic, as to whether\n7 or not we just read that part of the\n8 transcript at this deposition?\n9 A Dave, with all due respect, I --\n10 I think you're getting a little animated.\n11 And it would be helpful if I had less tone\n12 in the questioning.\n13 So with respect to your specific\n14 question, there is no 5:57 mark. I simply\n15 wanted to go back to read the specific\n16 sections that you're quoting. If you go\n17 back to the document, there is no 5:57,\n18 which is what you kept saying.\n19 I simply just wanted to look\n20 back at the verbiage, that's all, to\n21 answer your question. So you -- you\n22 rattled off a lot of words. I could not\n23 ascertain where your question was.\n24 And so when you simply wanted to\n25 say, \"Hey, did we read this?\" Sure. I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 222 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 515\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 want to go back to see the relevant\n3 excerpts that you're referring to before I\n4 can answer your question.\n5 Q So with all that said, do you\n6 now agree that we read that portion of the\n7 transcript? Yes or no?\n8 A Yes. We did read that portion\n9 of the transcript.\n10 Q Thank you. Thank you. Now, did\n11 Professor Garmaise claim anywhere in his\n12 report that the video discussed Marathon's\n13 reasons for withdrawing the offer to\n14 acquire Marathon? Yes or no?\n15 A Let me look back at the sentence\n16 that I quoted. I have not memorized his\n17 report. So I quote a sentence about\n18 Fastblock.\n19 And I think after, if I recall,\n20 in his report then he references this as\n21 video, as public evidence -- you know,\n22 information in the public in support of\n23 that statement. And so that statement, I\n24 felt, was broader than what was made in\n25 the influencer's video.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 223 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 516\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And for me, when I listened to\n3 the influencer's video and read the same\n4 as we just read, if you continue, which we\n5 haven't done and which I've tried to\n6 allude to, his point that he weaves\n7 through the video is, he starts to --\n8 Where he -- where he really gets\n9 excited -- and we don't have the tone in\n10 the transcript that we do in the video.\n11 He gets excited by setting up, \"Look at\n12 all these major competitors after this\n13 particular firm. Didn't work out with\n14 those competitors for unspecified\n15 reasons.\"\n16 But then he gets really excited\n17 about this claimed ability to mine bitcoin\n18 at such a low cost. And those are the --\n19 the several sentences that followed that\n20 discussion in terms of how he's teeing up\n21 his -- his video.\n22 Q Did Marathon issue a press\n23 release in September 2020 announcing that\n24 it was withdrawing its offer to acquire\n25 Fastblock and stating the reasons for its\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 224 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 517\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 decision?\n3 A I believe there was a press\n4 release. What the contents were, I would\n5 have to take it on faith.\n6 In terms of what you said with\n7 regards to the date, I don't recollect the\n8 exact date. But I do recall that there\n9 was some announcement in terms of the\n10 withdrawal from the agreement.\n11 Q Okay. Do you agree that, prior\n12 to January 14th, the following items had\n13 been publicly discussed with respect to\n14 the issues in this case? So do you agree\n15 that, prior to January 14, it had been\n16 publicly discussed that ATL was linked to\n17 Fastblock?\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 THE WITNESS: On -- on the basis of\n20 what we just saw, I mean, at minimum,\n21 it -- it seems as if this transcript,\n22 right, is alluding to the same.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q Did it also -- was it also\n25 publicly disclosed that Fastblock had been\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 225 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 518\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 a target of an acquisition by Marathon?\n3 A Again, I don't -- I don't have\n4 the benefit -- I think somewhere in my\n5 report, I might cite the same story that\n6 you're referring to in one of my reports.\n7 But I believe there was a press release by\n8 Marathon that talked about pulling out of\n9 the agreement.\n10 Q And that was also discussed in\n11 the transcript that we just looked\n12 through; correct?\n13 A Yes.\n14 Q Okay. And now, I want to go\n15 to -- you're familiar with the Culper\n16 Report; correct?\n17 A I am indeed.\n18 MR. PARTIDA: Greg, I would have to\n19 dig deep here on this one. In terms of\n20 asking you if there is a previously marked\n21 version of this, I would imagine there is.\n22 But if not, I will just circulate a new\n23 copy.\n24 MR. LINKH: Yeah. I'm sure there is,\n25 David. But I don't know if I can real\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 226 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 519\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 easily find it.\n3 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. I know. We --\n4 MR. LINKH: If we could just bump it\n5 up to the top, that would be fine.\n6 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. No problem.\n7 Just bear with me one second. Sorry.\n8 My computer. I think I have too many PDFs\n9 open. It's extremely slow.\n10 THE REPORTER: I was going to say --\n11 I guess I could say it off the record --\n12 that you were glitching earlier. And I\n13 think it was because you had pulled up\n14 that exhibit with the video transcript.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: Ah. Okay.\n16 THE REPORTER: So if you want to\n17 close everything before 90, that might\n18 help.\n19 MR. PARTIDA: Thank you very much.\n20 All right. Bear with me. I\n21 apologize. Going back to this. Sorry.\n22 I'm having trouble pulling that up.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q Okay. So in moving to a\n25 different topic, there is a paper that you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 227 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 520\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 cite in your reply merits report by these\n3 authors: Blankespoor, deHaan, and\n4 Marinovic. Bear with me one moment. And\n5 here's going to be Exhibit 102, which is\n6 this paper.\n7 (Exhibit 102 was marked for\n8 identification.)\n9 Did it happen to come through?\n10 If not, I guess we can -- while we're\n11 waiting for that to come through, I'll\n12 just ask if you --\n13 MR. LINKH: Just came through for me.\n14 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n15 THE WITNESS: Just now.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Okay.\n17 THE WITNESS: I -- I have it open.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q Okay. And this is -- you cite\n20 this paper in your reply merits report;\n21 correct?\n22 A That's correct.\n23 Q Okay. Is it your opinion that\n24 because Culper Research incurred\n25 processing costs in acquiring, analyzing,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 228 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 521\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and synthesizing the information contained\n3 in it, then that information must impact\n4 CleanSpark's stock price?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: So what I'm arguing\n7 there in my report -- and I'm happy to go\n8 to those paragraphs as well -- is the\n9 author, despite the fact of the claims\n10 that all of this information, as Culper\n11 states and Dr. Garmaise states, was in the\n12 public sphere, the ability to acquire this\n13 information, analyze this information,\n14 synthesize this information, and make\n15 inferences on this information requires\n16 effort. Requires costs.\n17 And so there's costs that are borne\n18 by investors to acquire information. And\n19 these are the disclosure processing costs\n20 that they refer to. Information\n21 acquisition is not -- is not costless.\n22 You know, synthesis is not costless.\n23 And so they discuss the ability to\n24 acquire it. How to know of its existence,\n25 acquire it, analyze it, and then start to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 229 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 522\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 make inferences from it. And so this is\n3 the context by which I discuss disclosure\n4 processing costs in my report.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q But is it your opinion that\n7 because there are processing costs for\n8 information, the information process must\n9 impact the stock price?\n10 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n11 THE WITNESS: This notion of \"must.\"\n12 I'm not sure what -- what do you mean by\n13 \"must\"? That seems awfully strong.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q So I'm trying to understand what\n16 is -- what the point is you're trying to\n17 make with your opinion. The point, to me,\n18 as I read the opinion, seems to be that,\n19 \"Look, there are costs incurred in\n20 acquiring information.\"\n21 And the opinion seems to be --\n22 although you don't state one way or the\n23 other, which I'm trying to therefore ask\n24 what your opinion is and why you're citing\n25 this.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 230 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 523\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But the opinion that seems to be\n3 getting inferred is that because there are\n4 information processing costs associated\n5 with it, or because there are processing\n6 costs associated with information, then\n7 that information impacts the stock price.\n8 So I'll ask it in a specific\n9 different context. Isn't it possible\n10 that, ex ante, Culper Report could have\n11 been wrong about the value of acquiring,\n12 analyzing, and synthesizing the\n13 information in it?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 THE WITNESS: This would be pure\n16 speculation. I -- I don't have any\n17 opinion on that.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q I'm just asking if it's\n20 possible.\n21 A It -- it's possible for people\n22 to get things right. It's possible to get\n23 things wrong. I mean, it's a very general\n24 statement.\n25 But my only point is -- and I'm\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 231 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 524\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 happy to go back to the report, but you\n3 haven't referenced the specific paragraphs\n4 where you say I have an opinion -- is I'm\n5 trying to contextualize this -- this point\n6 with regards to the information being in\n7 the public sphere.\n8 But the literature speaks pretty\n9 clearly about these costs that are borne.\n10 And on the basis of bearing those costs,\n11 the information can be valuable to use.\n12 Q Correct. But isn't it also true\n13 that the person processing the information\n14 could make a mistake about its value,\n15 ex ante?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: I -- I suppose anyone\n18 creating any report, such as an analyst,\n19 could make a mistake with the information\n20 he or she acquires and embeds in a report.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q Okay. And could they make a\n23 mistake about the relative value of the\n24 information?\n25 A Again, this would be\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 232 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 525\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 speculative. I don't know what you mean.\n3 Who is \"they?\" And what's the relative\n4 value of what information?\n5 Q I'm asking, could Culper --\n6 let's put it this way. Let's put it on\n7 Culper. Could Culper; right? Could\n8 Culper have made a mistake, ex ante, about\n9 the value of acquiring, analyzing, and\n10 synthesizing the information that it did?\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 THE WITNESS: I don't have an opinion\n13 on that matter. But consistent with\n14 disclosure processing costs, it would say\n15 that, on the basis of acquiring costly\n16 information, if information has a price\n17 attached to it, then it is valuable.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q And so then is it your opinion\n20 that if information costs money to obtain\n21 that it has value in terms of the stock\n22 price?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 THE WITNESS: In regards to specific\n25 information, I can't say. But in regards\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 233 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 526\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to what the literature says with -- with\n3 respect to disclosure and the acquisition\n4 of disclosures, the acquisition of\n5 information, there's a cost borne.\n6 And for one to bear the cost, there's\n7 a presumption that there would be value in\n8 so doing. Whether there's an error, I --\n9 I don't have an opinion on that.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay. Is it your opinion that\n12 the ATL-related information in the Culper\n13 Report was already publicly available, but\n14 not incorporated into CleanSpark's stock\n15 price?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question\n18 again? Sorry.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q Is it your opinion that the\n21 ATL-related information in the Culper\n22 Report was already publicly available, but\n23 that it was not incorporated into\n24 CleanSpark's stock price?\n25 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 234 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 527\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE WITNESS: It would appear that\n3 the information, as stated by Culper\n4 itself, was culled from public sources.\n5 On the basis of bearing those\n6 disclosure processing costs and\n7 synthesizing all of those relative\n8 sources, it brought -- Culper brought to\n9 bear some allegations that the market\n10 could assess.\n11 Whereas, previously, perhaps this\n12 was -- this was not as a -- as a whole;\n13 right? We call this mosaic theory. In\n14 terms of the overall amount of\n15 information, this was not interpretable by\n16 market participants.\n17 Despite the fact that this -- these\n18 elements of this information were in the\n19 public domain, the -- the accumulation,\n20 the bringing together into one report to\n21 put all these allegations together,\n22 that's -- that's what's essential here in\n23 terms of the disclosure.\n24 And so the -- to get to your\n25 question, that means that that information\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 235 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 528\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that the Culper Report brought to bear was\n3 not embedded in the stock price of\n4 CleanSpark until the -- the publication\n5 and dissemination of that report.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q So yes. Okay. In paragraph 31\n8 of your reply merits report, which is\n9 Exhibit 95 -- so paragraph 31 of that\n10 report.\n11 A Exhibit 95? Paragraph 31?\n12 Q Yes. Exhibit 95, which is your\n13 expert reply merits report, paragraph 31.\n14 A I'm there.\n15 Q And in that paragraph, you cite\n16 to Professor Fama stating that -- is it\n17 \"Fama\"? Is that how you pronounce it?\n18 A Yes.\n19 Q Okay. \"Professor Fama stated\n20 that the 'economically more sensible'\n21 definition of 'semi-strong' efficiency\n22 hypothesis is that 'prices reflect\n23 information to the point where the\n24 marginal benefits of acting on the\n25 information, the profits to be made did\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 236 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 529\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 not exceed the marginal costs.'\" Correct?\n3 A That -- you read that verbatim.\n4 Yes.\n5 Q Okay. Now, does this mean that,\n6 prior to the release of the Culper Report,\n7 the marginal benefit from acting on the\n8 information analyzed and disseminated by\n9 Culper Research in its January 14 report\n10 had to be equal to or less than the\n11 marginal cost of processing that\n12 information?\n13 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n14 THE WITNESS: So what -- what this\n15 means is, information will not be embedded\n16 if the marginal benefit does not exceed\n17 the marginal cost.\n18 So what -- what this implies is that\n19 for those to undertake costly information\n20 acquisition, they do so with the belief\n21 that they'll be able to gain. They'll be\n22 able to profit; right?\n23 And so on the basis of acquiring this\n24 information whereby they have a\n25 profit-motivated objective, that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 237 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 530\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 information could be impounded in price.\n3 And so to -- the -- the spoils go to the\n4 winners that can bring new information to\n5 the market and embed it into price.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Now, what if any analysis did\n8 you do to determine Culper Research's cost\n9 of acquiring, analyzing, and synthesizing\n10 the information contained in its\n11 January 14 report?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 THE WITNESS: So I -- I did not\n14 quantify the explicit cost borne. The\n15 theory would speak to, again, the\n16 knowledge of something's existence.\n17 You have to search to find that\n18 something exists; right? Then you have to\n19 acquire that something that exists. Then\n20 you have to interpret it, synthesize it,\n21 and act upon it.\n22 But in terms of quantifying the\n23 dollar amount of costs, I have not done\n24 so. I have no opinion on that.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 238 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 531\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. So you just assumed there\n4 were costs, but did not quantify them?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: This is a theory as to\n7 why one would be motivated and why we\n8 might see price response post\n9 dissemination of information that might\n10 have existed in the public sphere in -- in\n11 very different areas.\n12 But once brought together into one\n13 report, it brought to light a lot of\n14 allegations and claims that investors\n15 could evaluate and respond to.\n16 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n17 Q But my question is, you did not\n18 quantify the cost to Culper Research of\n19 acquiring, analyzing, or synthesizing the\n20 information in its reports?\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 THE WITNESS: I believe I already\n23 answered that question.\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 239 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 532\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. Thank you. Well, so what\n4 is your answer? You confirmed that you\n5 did not quantify --\n6 A As I stated previously --\n7 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Culper Research's cost?\n10 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n11 THE WITNESS: As I already stated, I\n12 did not quantify explicitly the costs\n13 borne by Culper Research with respect to\n14 the acquisition of this information.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Are you aware that the\n17 RexFinance YouTube channel is referenced\n18 in the Culper Report?\n19 A I don't recall. I just don't --\n20 I'd have to take a look. Off the top of\n21 my head, I can't.\n22 Q I'll represent to you that it\n23 was. And is it possible that, prior to\n24 disseminating its report, Culper Research\n25 knew that RexFinance had publicly\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 240 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 533\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 discussed that ATL and Fastblock were\n3 linked?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: One, it would -- it\n6 would benefit me to see the Culper Report.\n7 But two, ask the question once more. I'm\n8 sorry.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Sure. The Culper Report\n11 references the RexFinance YouTube channel,\n12 the same channel from the video --\n13 RexFinance video transcript we were just\n14 looking at.\n15 And I'm wondering if it's\n16 possible that, prior to releasing its\n17 report, Culper was aware that RexFinance\n18 had already discussed ATL and Fastblock\n19 publicly?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: I -- I think that would\n22 be speculative. I'm not quite sure what\n23 Culper was aware of.\n24 I mean, we can look at the Culper\n25 Report to see what they say. And then\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 241 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 534\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 perhaps I can give more color to that\n3 question.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Okay. But it's possible?\n6 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n7 THE WITNESS: It would be pure\n8 speculation. I -- I don't have -- I don't\n9 have an opinion.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Sure. By nature of the\n12 question, I'm asking if it's possible.\n13 Speculate if it's possible. But that's\n14 okay.\n15 Now, is it -- why do you\n16 think -- let me start with this. Is it --\n17 give me a moment. I want to turn to a\n18 different topic now, slightly.\n19 The reply in your reply merits\n20 report -- well, let me ask it this way.\n21 Did you rely on the academic papers\n22 related to disclosure processing costs,\n23 which are cited in your reply merits\n24 report, when you were preparing your\n25 merits report?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 242 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 535\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 THE WITNESS: I -- I suppose by\n4 \"reliance,\" you mean like explicitly in\n5 the report, did I cite this literature?\n6 I'd have to go back to see if I alluded to\n7 it.\n8 But \"rely.\" in the broader sense,\n9 that I'm well familiar with this\n10 literature and researched this literature?\n11 That sense, yes.\n12 I mean, in terms of my education and\n13 experience. This is a framework, as a\n14 disclosure expert, that -- I approach all\n15 academic research with disclosure.\n16 So the -- the Blankespoor, et al.\n17 paper right now is the -- the state of the\n18 art, if you will. There were other\n19 disclosure theory papers before this.\n20 And -- but in terms of kind of\n21 understanding and sizing up disclosures,\n22 it did a good job of -- it's a literature\n23 review paper. And it did a good job of\n24 talking about the different theories that\n25 are out there.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 243 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 536\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So I -- I guess I'm -- \"rely,\" in the\n3 strict sense of, \"Is this in the report\n4 and cited in the report?\" I don't believe\n5 so. Could there be threads? Perhaps.\n6 But this is, you know, consequent to my\n7 experience and expertise.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Okay. Are you a disclosure\n10 expert? Or are you a damages expert?\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 THE WITNESS: So in terms of my\n13 academic research? So one of my -- one of\n14 my areas of expertise is corporate\n15 disclosure.\n16 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n17 Q So you are a disclosure expert?\n18 And that's at the -- that's the capacity\n19 in which you're opining in this report?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to from.\n21 THE WITNESS: So I'm opining as a\n22 financial economist with a lot of\n23 expertise in different areas, disclosure\n24 being one of them.\n25 But an area that I research quite a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 244 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 537\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 bit is corporate disclosure, regulation,\n3 enforcement, and so forth. So in terms of\n4 my expertise, I --\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q What is your --\n7 A Go ahead.\n8 Q You can finish.\n9 A In terms of my academic\n10 expertise, with respect to the areas that\n11 I research, those are areas that I\n12 research. And so that's why I say I'm\n13 familiar with these -- these theories of\n14 disclosure.\n15 Q Okay. But you are a damages\n16 expert in this case; isn't that correct?\n17 A I am.\n18 Q You are not a disclosure expert\n19 in this case; isn't that correct?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: I -- I think that's a\n22 distinction without a difference. What I\n23 am saying is, with respect to my academic\n24 work, an area of expertise is disclosure.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 245 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 538\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Not under the law. Are you\n4 serving as a disclosure expert in this\n5 case?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: I'm serving as a\n8 financial economist in this case.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Okay. Thank you. Did you talk\n11 to anyone about -- at Culper Research\n12 about the processes that they followed\n13 when they were writing the January 14,\n14 2021, report on CleanSpark?\n15 A I don't know what you mean by\n16 \"processes.\" But I spoke to no one at\n17 Culper Research.\n18 Q Okay. Do you have any actual\n19 knowledge about what Culper Research staff\n20 was thinking about in deciding what claims\n21 or topics to emphasize in the Culper\n22 Report?\n23 A I would not opine on what\n24 they're thinking about.\n25 Q And you also don't have an\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 246 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 539\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 opinion about what they were thinking\n3 about with respect to subsequent tweets?\n4 A Again, with what's in their\n5 head, I -- I can't say. With what I see\n6 on paper, with what is disclosed, then I\n7 can make some judgements and inferences.\n8 Q Is it your opinion that the\n9 claims in the Culper Report which were not\n10 repeated in subsequent Culper Research\n11 tweets were not value relevant?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Repeat the\n14 question?\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Is it your opinion that the\n17 claims in the Culper Report which were not\n18 repeated in the subsequent tweets were not\n19 value relevant?\n20 A So the idea here is to assess\n21 the information brought to the attention,\n22 by way of the tweets, to the marketplace\n23 for information. And so the report itself\n24 has the substantive claims. The tweets\n25 reiterate some of those claims.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 247 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 540\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And so to the extent that the\n3 tweet reiterated or did not reiterate a\n4 claim, is the claim that was not repeated\n5 less value relevant?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: So this was -- so I\n8 know we're not pointing to specific\n9 sections of my report. But this also\n10 dovetails with the discussion about\n11 disclosure processing costs when we get\n12 into disclosure salience.\n13 And so I'm relying on some theory\n14 with respect to disclosure salience to\n15 assess the value relevance of the\n16 information that was given, both in the\n17 Culper Report and the associated tweets.\n18 And so the literature therein would\n19 say that repetition in placement would --\n20 is -- is highly value relevant in terms of\n21 when these studies analyze information and\n22 the impact of that information.\n23 And with respect to the placement,\n24 say, in a headline, or say, the repetition\n25 of the information, how it impacts market\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 248 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 541\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 price.\n3 And so the literature speaks to the\n4 value relevance of these features of\n5 disclosures. That's all I'm saying here.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Okay. But I guess the\n8 understanding I have from that is that\n9 then, if it's not repeated, it's less\n10 value relevant in the overall calculation.\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 THE WITNESS: So I don't know what\n13 you mean by \"overall calculation.\"\n14 MR. LINKH: Yeah. Yeah.\n15 THE WITNESS: But the disclosure\n16 salience literature would say that\n17 repetition and emphasis would be -- in the\n18 investor's eyes, would be viewed as more\n19 value relevant.\n20 And they document this evidence by\n21 looking at how the market reacts when\n22 there are disclosures that are more\n23 repetitious or more emphasized.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q So does more repetition equal\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 249 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 542\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 more value relevance?\n3 A So the literature would speak.\n4 The repetition would increase the value\n5 relevance with respect to the market\n6 reaction.\n7 Q And less repetition would be\n8 less value relevance?\n9 A I -- I suppose the converse\n10 could hold. But then we have to start to\n11 get into other issues with respect to the\n12 information environment. And we have to\n13 get into what's relevant at that time\n14 period.\n15 Q Okay. Well, I'm just going by\n16 what you say in paragraph 45 of your reply\n17 merits report, where you say exactly what\n18 I just asked you if it was true.\n19 So I'll go ahead and point you\n20 to paragraph 45 of your report. And in\n21 that paragraph -- and this is Exhibit 95;\n22 right? You say exactly what I just asked\n23 you. And you --\n24 So here we go. You say that\n25 \"Relying on this literature\" -- at the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 250 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 543\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 very last sentence of page --\n3 paragraph 45. \"Relying on this\n4 literature, I consider the points that\n5 were not repeated across the tweets as\n6 less emphasized. And thus, less value\n7 relevant for Culper Research and its\n8 investors.\"\n9 So I thought I was giving you a\n10 layup. Because I thought you would say,\n11 \"Yes. I wrote that. Of course, I agree\n12 with it.\" But --\n13 So I'm trying to understand. Do\n14 you agree with this sentence? \"Relying on\n15 this literature, I consider the points\n16 that were not repeated across the tweets\n17 as less emphasized. And thus, less value\n18 relevant for Culper Research and its\n19 investors.\" Is that your opinion?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I see what -- I\n22 see what I wrote. And I stand by what I\n23 wrote. But I also augmented the\n24 conversation.\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 251 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 544\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I\n4 appreciate that. Okay. Now, what is the\n5 basis -- well, strike that.\n6 Is it correct that all the\n7 academic papers that you cited in\n8 paragraphs 36 to 40 of your reply merits\n9 reports are related to disclosures by the\n10 issuing firms?\n11 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n12 THE WITNESS: I -- I'll need to\n13 review the paragraphs. You said which\n14 again?\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Yes. Please review\n17 paragraphs 36 through 40. And let me know\n18 if any of the papers you cite in those\n19 paragraphs are related -- well, I'll let\n20 you familiarize yourself with the\n21 paragraphs first. And then --\n22 A Oh. Thank you, sir. Thirty-six\n23 to 43 you said; correct?\n24 Q Correct.\n25 A Thank you.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 252 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 545\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q And just before you start\n3 reading, if it helps, I want to ask you a\n4 question generally about the literature\n5 that you have cited in those paragraphs.\n6 Not necessarily about the content of the\n7 paragraphs.\n8 A Understood.\n9 Q So however you want to read it.\n10 I just want you to more be familiar with\n11 the literature that you're citing in it\n12 because that's the thrust of my questions.\n13 A Okay.\n14 Q Okay. So is it true --\n15 A I have skimmed the relevant\n16 paragraphs.\n17 Q Oh. I'm sorry?\n18 A I have skimmed the relevant\n19 paragraphs. Thank you.\n20 Q Okay. Great. So is it\n21 correct -- and I think it is. But is it\n22 correct that all the academic papers that\n23 you cited in those paragraphs relate to\n24 disclosures by issuing firms?\n25 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 253 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 546\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE WITNESS: So yes. If -- if I\n3 understand what you mean by \"issuing\n4 firms.\" So these are publicly traded\n5 firms that are providing disclosure to the\n6 marketplace.\n7 And this is what the academics, at\n8 least in -- in most, if not all of those\n9 studies, are analyzing.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay. So I understood that\n12 correctly. Okay. Did any of those\n13 papers, the papers that are cited in those\n14 paragraphs, discuss that information that\n15 isn't repeated in subsequent tweets is not\n16 value relevant?\n17 A I don't believe that these\n18 particular papers analyzed tweets. I\n19 believe most of them would've analyzed\n20 earnings press releases. That is true.\n21 Q Okay. Now, in paragraph 40 of\n22 your reply merits report, you cite a\n23 paper. You reference a paper by Henry,\n24 2006?\n25 A I do.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 254 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 547\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Okay. Sorry. I was just\n3 checking. I thought my headset had died.\n4 Tell me if I cut out.\n5 Okay. There's no paper listed\n6 with that citation in your documents\n7 considered list. And I'm wondering why\n8 that is. And then I'd also ask --\n9 A I believe you have it in the\n10 documents that I turned over.\n11 Q I'm just wondering why it wasn't\n12 on the list.\n13 A Perhaps a typo and an oversight.\n14 But I believe that's been turned over.\n15 Q Now, did you rely on -- and this\n16 is about -- I'm asking you questions about\n17 the merits report. The first. Not the\n18 reply.\n19 Did you rely on the Hirshleifer\n20 and Teoh -- and I apologize if I butcher\n21 these academics' names, especially if\n22 they're friends of yours. But I think\n23 it's Hirshleifer and Teoh, 2003. Did you\n24 rely on that article in connection with\n25 your merits report?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 255 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 548\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I -- I'd have to go back and\n3 look. I don't -- I don't know if I cite\n4 it or if I used it in any capacity. I'd\n5 have to look.\n6 Q So it's not cited, that I saw,\n7 or listed. And I just -- that's why I\n8 asked if you relied on it in your original\n9 merits report.\n10 Now, do you recall if this\n11 paper, the Hirshleifer and Teoh paper,\n12 discusses how short sellers organize\n13 information in their reports?\n14 A This paper -- which, as you\n15 said, I referred to it in my reply. But\n16 not in my merits report, which I -- I\n17 think that's consistent with my memory.\n18 I think this -- this paper is\n19 more theoretically oriented in terms of\n20 talking about limited attention. Let's\n21 see here. And prominence. Yeah. This is\n22 talking about limited attention. Okay.\n23 Sorry. What's the question again?\n24 Q I wanted to know if that paper\n25 discusses how short sellers organize\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 256 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 549\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 information in their report. I didn't see\n3 that. I just wanted to know if it --\n4 A I -- I don't believe so. No.\n5 Q Okay.\n6 A Given -- given the timestamp of\n7 2003, I -- I don't believe so. No. No.\n8 Q Okay. Great. Thanks. So you\n9 also -- same question. Did you rely on\n10 the academic article by Huang, Nekrasov,\n11 and Teoh from 2018 that you cite in your\n12 expert reply report? Did you rely on that\n13 with respect to your merits report?\n14 A No. I think the paper that I\n15 cite as a representative paper from the\n16 disclosure salience literature is a paper\n17 by Cheng, et al.\n18 And so what I was bringing to\n19 bear in this report is that the disclosure\n20 salience literature is fairly sizable.\n21 There are several papers on this.\n22 And so that one representative\n23 paper was an example. And so I wanted to\n24 discuss more broadly this literature in\n25 this -- in this report.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 257 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 550\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Do we mind if we\n3 take about a four-minute break until 3:45?\n4 THE WITNESS: Four might be too\n5 quick. Can we do like five or six?\n6 That's barely enough time to use the\n7 restroom.\n8 MR. PARTIDA: Oh. Yeah. I was just\n9 going to -- yeah. Yeah. I was going to\n10 try and find a paper. So yes. If you\n11 need more time, certainly. Why don't we\n12 come back at 3:47? Does that work?\n13 THE WITNESS: 3:47? Sure. Thank\n14 you, sir.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: All right. Yep.\n16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of\n17 media unit number 4. We are off the\n18 record at 3:42 p.m.\n19 (Off the record.)\n20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n21 beginning of media unit number 5. We are\n22 on the record at 3:53 p.m.\n23 MR. PARTIDA: All right. Welcome\n24 back, Dr. Bozanic.\n25 And I believe everyone should now\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 258 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 551\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 have what we have -- I have marked as\n3 Exhibit 103.\n4 (Exhibit 103 was marked for\n5 identification.)\n6 THE WITNESS: David, I -- I have the\n7 same. But I should note that when I\n8 opened it, there was an error message.\n9 But it contains 126 pages on my end; is\n10 that correct?\n11 MR. PARTIDA: I got the same error\n12 message.\n13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q Okay. Now -- okay. So I want\n16 to direct you to the exhibit -- sorry.\n17 Exhibit 2, which is on page 90. Page 90\n18 of the PDF, 90 out of 126.\n19 A We're looking at the Culper\n20 Report in the amended complaint?\n21 Q Yes. Okay. And the first thing\n22 I want you to look at is, there is this\n23 huge block of text; isn't that correct?\n24 That you see under \"Culper Research,\" that\n25 has the heading \"Disclaimer\"?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 259 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 552\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I do see the disclaimer.\n3 Q Okay. And I'm going to point\n4 you to a part in that specific block of\n5 text. I'm just trying to find my notes so\n6 I can find the actual -- sorry -- quote.\n7 If you look down, I would say --\n8 oh, man -- one, two, three, eight lines\n9 down. If you see on the left-hand side,\n10 there is a word, \"Research,\" that begins\n11 with the capital R?\n12 A I see the start of the same\n13 sentence, David.\n14 Q Yeah. Okay. And then if you go\n15 to the sentence after that that begins,\n16 \"To the best of our ability and belief,\n17 all information contained herein is\n18 accurate and reliable.\n19 \"And has been obtained from\n20 public sources we believe to be accurate\n21 and reliable. And who are not insiders or\n22 connected persons of the securities\n23 covered in -- herein or who otherwise may\n24 owe any fiduciary duty or duty of\n25 confidentiality to the issuer.\" Do you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 260 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 553\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 see that sentence?\n3 A I -- I see the same.\n4 Q Okay. Now, what I then want you\n5 to turn to is the first paragraph. So go\n6 to the next page; right? And the first\n7 paragraph, can you tell me what the topic\n8 of this is?\n9 A Let me take a quick read,\n10 please. So there's a lot in that\n11 paragraph. So when you say \"topic,\" I\n12 mean, they have --\n13 Q Okay. Let me ask it this way.\n14 A Yeah.\n15 Q Yeah. So I just wanted you to\n16 familiarize with yourself -- yourself with\n17 it so you know where I'm going.\n18 So in the first paragraph here,\n19 it says, in the second sentence, \"We also\n20 find that CleanSpark is rife with\n21 undisclosed related party transactions\n22 that we believe have effectively siphoned\n23 capital from shareholders to pockets of\n24 insiders.\" Is that -- do you see that\n25 sentence?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 261 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 554\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I do see the same.\n3 Q Okay. Why do you think that\n4 Culper Research chose to highlight claims\n5 about related party transactions in the\n6 first paragraph of the report?\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know what\n9 was in their mind. But it seems as if\n10 they found some records on the web in\n11 terms of different corporations whereby\n12 some of these transactions were with those\n13 that had a relationship with CleanSpark.\n14 And so they're alluding to, I\n15 think -- you know, going back to the prior\n16 sentence about purported customers and\n17 contracts. And so I think part of the\n18 issue here is whether those were\n19 legitimate customers or whether those were\n20 customers party to a related party\n21 transaction.\n22 And so trying to underscore and\n23 undermine this notion about, which\n24 customers does CleanSpark have? Which\n25 contracts do they really have? And so\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 262 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 555\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this is -- the thesis, you know, as you\n3 said, \"the focus\" before, is talking about\n4 those purported customers and contracts.\n5 And then they're providing additional\n6 evidence to talk about and undermine\n7 whether or not these contracts exist and\n8 whether these customers exist. Or is this\n9 just a related party transaction?\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Okay. Understood. And so if\n12 I've understood your reports correctly and\n13 I've understood the literature you've\n14 cited, especially in your reply report --\n15 Or only, I should say. Is -- the\n16 fact that these related party transactions\n17 and purported customers and contracts are\n18 discussed first means that they're more\n19 value relevant than claims discussed later\n20 in the report?\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q Is that accurate?\n24 A So the literature would say\n25 that, as the disclosures highlight in\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 263 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 556\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 terms of the prominence or the placement,\n3 so early on, that that would be more value\n4 relevant. That is correct.\n5 Q Okay. Now, does -- I'm going to\n6 point you back up. I'll scroll you to --\n7 if you scroll up in this same exhibit and\n8 you go up to the actual complaint?\n9 A Okay.\n10 Q I would like to direct your\n11 attention to -- I think it's page 69 of\n12 the PDF. But it's paragraph 147, I\n13 believe, of -- or 142. Sorry. One\n14 four -- excuse me. Pardon me, 142. And\n15 are you there?\n16 A I am there.\n17 Q Okay. And the January 14\n18 tweet -- or the January 15 tweet; correct?\n19 That discusses Green Dragon in contracts\n20 of 0.1; is that correct?\n21 A So this is the January 15th\n22 tweet, that tweet that's enumerated here.\n23 These bullets 1 through 8; correct? We're\n24 on the same page there?\n25 Q Yes.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 264 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 557\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Okay. Perfect.\n3 Q Yes. I'm sorry.\n4 A So yeah. The first bullet\n5 discusses Green Dragon.\n6 Q Okay. And it also discusses --\n7 we also discuss Valle Divino, you know, in\n8 the next bullet point; isn't that correct?\n9 A Yes. That's correct.\n10 Q And then we discuss P2K Labs;\n11 isn't that correct?\n12 A Yes.\n13 Q And then we also discuss Mr.\n14 Tadayon, the chief product officer at\n15 LawClerk, purported customer. That's\n16 discussed; correct?\n17 A Yes.\n18 Q And it also lists a whole bunch\n19 of questions about Green Dragon, Valle\n20 Divino, P2K, LawClerk, and the miss in\n21 revenues in 2020 before we get to ATL;\n22 isn't that correct?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 THE WITNESS: That -- that's what I\n25 was wondering. So, I mean, we just went\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 265 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 558\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 through this. But prior to the ATL\n3 points, there's discussion about Green\n4 Dragon, Valle Divino, and so forth.\n5 That's true.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Okay. And it's not until all of\n8 those are mentioned, the first five\n9 points, that ATL Data Centers is\n10 mentioned; isn't that correct?\n11 A That's correct.\n12 THE REPORTER: And I'm sorry. Just\n13 for clarity, this is still Exhibit 103;\n14 right? That you're referring to?\n15 MR. PARTIDA: That is correct. This\n16 is Exhibit 103. And exhibit 103 is the\n17 amended complaint in the action. And\n18 we're at paragraph 142.\n19 Prior to that, the Exhibit 2 that we\n20 were referring to was the Exhibit 2 to\n21 that complaint, if that helps clarify.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q Okay. So now, in a hypothetical\n24 situation, say, where Culper Research\n25 would've announced that it's taking a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 266 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 559\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 short position in the stock and that it\n3 views as -- CleanSpark as worthless,\n4 without providing any additional support\n5 for their position, would you expect\n6 CleanSpark's stock price reacted\n7 negatively?\n8 So let me ask that in a more\n9 clear way.\n10 A Thank you.\n11 Q If a short -- hypothetically,\n12 you have a short seller; right? Such as\n13 Culper Research, who announces that it's\n14 taking a short position on the stock? You\n15 with me so far?\n16 A Yes.\n17 Q Did I freeze? Oh. Okay.\n18 Sorry. Your screen froze. Okay.\n19 A Oh. Sorry.\n20 MR. PARTIDA: Did he freeze for --\n21 did anyone else freeze?\n22 THE REPORTER: No. I think that may\n23 be on --\n24 MR. PARTIDA: I can hear you. But\n25 your video froze up.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 267 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 560\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE REPORTER: It may be on your end\n3 because I'm -- yeah. I see myself. I see\n4 everyone else. It's on your end.\n5 THE WITNESS: I think it's on your\n6 end, David. You've glitched a few times.\n7 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Well --\n8 THE REPORTER: If you want, we can\n9 stop here.\n10 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Well --\n11 THE REPORTER: And you can turn\n12 everything off and reboot it again.\n13 Because that's usually a good fix. It's\n14 your call --\n15 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. I'll just keep\n16 going as long as everyone else is okay\n17 with it.\n18 THE REPORTER: Okay.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q Okay. So if you have a short\n21 seller like Culper Research and that short\n22 seller announces, \"I'm taking a short\n23 position in this stock. And I think the\n24 company's worthless,\" but then provides\n25 absolutely no supporting evidence, would\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 268 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 561\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you expect the stock price to react\n3 negatively?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't have an\n6 opinion on this hypothetical. Because\n7 there is much that I need to understand in\n8 terms of the standing of this particular\n9 entity in the community; right?\n10 So a random -- anyone can tweet out a\n11 random text. Anyone can say, \"I'm a short\n12 seller firm. And here's my position.\"\n13 Right? But then should the investment\n14 community pay attention to that short\n15 seller, especially absent any evidence\n16 regarding those allegations?\n17 And so I -- I don't have an opinion\n18 on which way the stock would go. Because\n19 we have to look to the credibility of the\n20 source. We have to look to the prominence\n21 of the source in the investment community\n22 to say, \"Is this a particular entity whose\n23 investment advice we can rely upon?\"\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q In your review of the analysts'\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 269 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 562\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 reports for CleanSpark, did you identify\n3 any report issued in the weeks after the\n4 Culper Report that commented on claims\n5 about the Culper Report or the report\n6 itself?\n7 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n8 THE WITNESS: I -- I think I heard\n9 the question. But when you say, \"Are\n10 there other reports?\" do you mean\n11 analysts' reports?\n12 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n13 Q I said -- and I apologize if I'm\n14 glitching. And that's causing the\n15 problem.\n16 But what -- in your review of\n17 analysts' reports for CleanSpark, did you\n18 identify any report that was issued in the\n19 weeks following the Culper Report, which\n20 commented on the claims in that report or\n21 the report itself?\n22 A Ah. So no. I didn't. And I\n23 speak to this in my merits reply report in\n24 regards to how analysts are incentivized;\n25 right? So analysts are incentivized to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 270 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 563\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 curry favor with management.\n3 Q So just because we're running\n4 short on time, all I needed --\n5 A I'm sorry, David. David, you're\n6 glitching.\n7 Q Okay. Let me --\n8 A I -- I might -- I might suggest\n9 you just reboot your connection. Because\n10 I think you're the only one that's\n11 glitching. And I think that's -- that\n12 delay is causing us issues with going back\n13 and forth a little bit. So that might be\n14 helpful.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: Yeah. I'll go ahead\n16 and try and jump out of the deposition,\n17 out of the Zoom, and jump back in.\n18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. I'll\n19 take us off the video record. We are off\n20 the record at 4:07 p.m.\n21 (Off the record.)\n22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the\n23 record at 4:31 p.m.\n24 MR. PARTIDA: Thank you. Thanks,\n25 everyone, for being back.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 271 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 564\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q I am going to now go back to\n4 your reply merits report. And that, I\n5 believe, was Exhibit 95. Now, if you'd go\n6 to paragraph 41?\n7 So just to recap where we left\n8 off, I believe right before we were\n9 interrupted, the question I wanted to ask\n10 was, in your review of analysts' reports\n11 for CleanSpark, did you identify any\n12 report issued in the weeks following the\n13 Culper Report commenting on the claims\n14 about the Culper Report or the report\n15 itself?\n16 And I believe the answer that I\n17 heard back was no?\n18 A That's --\n19 Q Go ahead.\n20 A That correct. That's no. I\n21 explain why in paragraph 41 here that\n22 you've referenced.\n23 Q Okay. Great. So just because\n24 they were a little glitchy -- and tell me\n25 if I'm glitchy -- I just wanted to make\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 272 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 565\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 sure that we're all on the same page.\n3 Okay. In paragraph 41 then of\n4 your reply merits report, you cite\n5 Axel [ph] and Kane [ph], stating that\n6 analysts tend to ignore short seller\n7 reports that disagree with positive\n8 analyst recommendations and price\n9 forecasts; correct?\n10 A That's correct.\n11 Q Now, did Axelson [ph] and\n12 Kane [ph] ever state that analysts never\n13 comment on short seller reports?\n14 A I -- I'm not sure if they use\n15 language so strong as \"never.\" The\n16 language that they're using there is \"tend\n17 to ignore.\"\n18 So I'd have to go back to the\n19 paper to see if that's language that they\n20 referenced. But I'd be surprised if they\n21 would be so strong in their language.\n22 Q Okay. That's -- okay. Then I\n23 want to go to -- is it your opinion that\n24 analysts following CleanSpark chose to\n25 ignore the Culper Research because they\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 273 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 566\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 had an incentive to maintain access to\n3 management?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: So -- so I can't opine\n6 on what was in the minds of the analysts\n7 that were following CleanSpark. But I can\n8 say, in general, what the literature shows\n9 is that analysts have a pro-management\n10 bias.\n11 And so they're disincentivized, the\n12 way the -- their compensation is\n13 structured, to speak ill of the company.\n14 And thus, legitimize short seller reports\n15 and talk about the negative information\n16 they're in.\n17 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n18 Q But you don't have any specific\n19 opinion about the analysts following\n20 CleanSpark, you said, I think; correct?\n21 A A specific opinion in regards\n22 to?\n23 Q Analysts following CleanSpark\n24 and why they chose to ignore the Culper\n25 Research?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 274 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 567\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A My opinion is outlined here, in\n3 paragraph 41, with regards to the\n4 compensation incentives that they have to\n5 not upset management. They want --\n6 analysts want access to management.\n7 Q And so --\n8 A And so if they start to speak\n9 ill of management or give opinions that\n10 are contrary to those beliefs, right, then\n11 they might lose that access to management.\n12 And that means they could lose business in\n13 regards to following that firm.\n14 Q And so there were a lot of\n15 \"coulds\" in that. And my question is, is\n16 it your opinion -- or do you have an\n17 opinion as to whether or not that actually\n18 occurred here?\n19 A I don't have an opinion as to\n20 whether that actually occurred.\n21 Q Okay.\n22 A I'm relying on the incentive\n23 structures.\n24 Q Understood. Okay. That -- I\n25 just wanted to make that clear. Okay. Do\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 275 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 568\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you have any actual knowledge about what\n3 criteria was applied by analysts following\n4 CleanSpark when deciding whether or not to\n5 comment on Culper?\n6 A I -- I'm not opining on what\n7 criteria. I'm not sure what would be in\n8 their heads. But in terms of the\n9 criteria, it goes back to what I outlined\n10 in paragraph 41, with respect to\n11 compensation incentives.\n12 And so if they feel that they're\n13 going to get locked out of access to\n14 management, well, that could be\n15 problematic for the creation of their\n16 reports and distribution of those reports\n17 with respect to the income that they\n18 intend to earn from those reports.\n19 Q And again, I -- you know, I --\n20 and I think intentionally -- I heard a lot\n21 of \"coulds.\" But that's because you don't\n22 have actual knowledge about what they did;\n23 is that correct?\n24 A I -- I do not.\n25 Q Okay.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 276 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 569\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I did not speak to these\n3 analysts in terms of whatever or supposed\n4 criteria you have in mind they might have\n5 used.\n6 Q I have no idea. I wanted to\n7 know if you did. Okay. So have you done\n8 any analysis to establish that investors\n9 did not view the claims about related\n10 party transactions in the Culper Report as\n11 value relevant?\n12 A Have I done any -- any analysis\n13 in regards to the value relevance of the\n14 allegations regarding related party\n15 transactions?\n16 Q Let me re-ask my question. And\n17 if that's the way you understood it, I'm\n18 just not quite sure it's the same.\n19 A Please.\n20 Q My question is, have you\n21 conducted any analysis to establish what\n22 investors -- that investors did not view\n23 the claims about related party\n24 transactions in the Culper Report as value\n25 relevant?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 277 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 570\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A So I -- I did a lot of analysis\n3 in between my merits report and merits\n4 reply report with respect to information\n5 that would drive the revenue of this firm;\n6 right?\n7 In terms of what could drive\n8 those revenues, what could drive those\n9 expenses. And then I looked at the claims\n10 of overstated revenues or understated\n11 expenses.\n12 And so the analysis that I've\n13 done is -- is taken a close look at the\n14 report, taken a close look at the tweets\n15 to ascertain what investors could be\n16 reacting to with regards to what media\n17 said, what the analysts said, as it\n18 pertains to the information contained in\n19 those -- in -- in the report and the\n20 associated tweets.\n21 And so this is -- this is, you\n22 know, outlined in -- in my merits and\n23 merits reply report with respect to the --\n24 the \"analysis\" that I did.\n25 Q In your view, is there an\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 278 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 571\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 agreement in academic literature that\n3 related party transactions are not value\n4 relevant to investors?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: So I'm not sure about\n7 an overall established view in the\n8 literature. But I -- I poked -- I point\n9 to some papers, as has Dr. Garmaise, that\n10 talk about related party transactions and\n11 their potential impact on firm value. And\n12 whether that is value enhancing or value\n13 destroying.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q And in your view, is there an\n16 agreement as to if it is value enhancing\n17 or value destroying?\n18 A I -- I think it depends upon the\n19 specific circumstances of the firm. I\n20 think of the incentives for undertaking\n21 the related party transaction, what type\n22 of related party transaction it is.\n23 And so when we say \"consensus,\"\n24 I -- I think that there's some consensus\n25 that some have the potential to destroy\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 279 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 572\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 value. Some have the potential to create\n3 value if it optimizes efficiency with\n4 respect to the firm's operations.\n5 I mean, so there are some papers\n6 that speak to this. I think Dr. Garmaise\n7 points to some papers in regards to, say,\n8 family firms or -- or firms over in Asia,\n9 in terms of what this means from research\n10 from 20 years ago.\n11 And so I -- I would say that\n12 there's countervailing evidence that --\n13 that are dependent upon maybe the country,\n14 maybe the time period, maybe the type of\n15 related party transaction as well.\n16 Q Got it. So in that sense, it's\n17 possible that certain types of related\n18 party transactions could be value relevant\n19 to investors?\n20 A It -- it could be the case;\n21 right?\n22 Q Okay.\n23 A And then -- then the question\n24 is -- is whether they are value enhancing\n25 or value destroying.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 280 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 573\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 And then, again, as I alluded to\n3 earlier, there's a lot of other\n4 information going on here at this time\n5 that needs to be sifted through to\n6 understand the claims in the Culper\n7 Report. And what would seem to have a\n8 material effect on undermining the claims\n9 in regards to ATL.\n10 Q Okay. Now, you state in your\n11 reply merits report, I think, at page --\n12 at paragraph 47, that, \"Investors are less\n13 likely to be concerned with RPTs as\n14 opposed to overstating revenues and/or\n15 understating expenses since the latter\n16 have a direct impact on company cash\n17 flows, profitability, and value.\"\n18 Correct?\n19 A Can I catch up to you? This is\n20 paragraph what?\n21 Q Sure. Sorry. Paragraph 47.\n22 And it's repeated again in your -- that --\n23 so the same sentence is repeated both in\n24 paragraph 47 of your reply merits report\n25 and paragraph 95 of your original merits\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 281 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 574\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 report.\n3 A Okay.\n4 Q So I had directed you to\n5 paragraph 47 of your reply merits report.\n6 A Wonderful. Let me -- permit me\n7 to take a quick read, please. Okay. I've\n8 read it.\n9 Q So is it your opinion that\n10 investors never ascribe value to claims of\n11 fraud about undisclosed related party\n12 transactions? Yes or no?\n13 A I -- I think, again, it goes\n14 back to the specific facts and\n15 circumstances of the firm and the type of\n16 related party transaction and the evidence\n17 being brought to bear.\n18 Because the -- the value\n19 relevance can be positive. The value\n20 relevance can be negative. Or it could be\n21 nothing; right? In terms of the basis of\n22 the allegations, whether they're founded\n23 or unfounded.\n24 And so I think that there are\n25 larger claims at stake here in this case\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 282 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 575\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 than the related party -- related party\n3 transaction claims, especially with\n4 regards to Green Dragon and Valle Divino.\n5 Q And so you would agree then that\n6 investors could be concerned with more\n7 than one type of information about the\n8 firm; correct?\n9 A That seemed very vague. Can you\n10 repeat it again?\n11 Q You would agree that investors\n12 could be concerned with more than one type\n13 of information about a firm; correct?\n14 A I mean, investors are concerned\n15 about a variety of information that a firm\n16 releases. And so I'm not quite sure\n17 without more specificity what we're going\n18 for here.\n19 Q Okay. So yes. That's it. Yes.\n20 It's possible. I think you've answered my\n21 question.\n22 In your view, is it possible for\n23 different types of information to be value\n24 relevant, even if they're value relevant\n25 to different degrees?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 283 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 576\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Repeat the question?\n3 Q Sure. Is it possible for\n4 different types of value relevant\n5 information to be value relevant just to\n6 different degrees?\n7 A Without more context, David, I'm\n8 not sure I can answer this question.\n9 Because I don't fully understand it. I\n10 mean, it's -- it's again, overly broad and\n11 vague.\n12 Q Okay. Now, are you offering an\n13 opinion that if one piece of information,\n14 for example, like revenues, is value\n15 relevant for investors, that no other\n16 information, for example, related party\n17 transactions, is value relevant?\n18 A I -- I don't think that's the\n19 opinion I gave in my report.\n20 Q Okay. And so it's possible that\n21 information about related party\n22 transactions is value relevant in this\n23 case; correct?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 THE WITNESS: So what I'm opining on\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 284 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 577\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 here today is looking at the main drivers\n3 of expected revenues for -- for this firm\n4 and how that translates to firm value.\n5 And so there are a lot of claims in\n6 the Culper Report. There are a lot of\n7 claims in the tweet in regards to old\n8 transactions that occurred years ago. And\n9 trying to undermine.\n10 At the -- at the end of the day, this\n11 report is about ATL. And so this is about\n12 the recent acquisition and the recent\n13 share price runup between the acquisition\n14 announcement and the dissemination of the\n15 Culper Report.\n16 And so when the Culper Report starts\n17 to bring in claims from years ago with\n18 respect to related party transactions or\n19 estimates that are old, I don't think an\n20 analyst or an investor is going to look at\n21 an estimate from several years ago and\n22 find that terribly value relevant.\n23 But the items that have a direct\n24 translation into the firm's revenues and\n25 expense profile, these would be extremely\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 285 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 578\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 important in terms of the underlying firm\n3 economics, as they translate into firm\n4 value.\n5 And so there are a lot of claims\n6 here. And so when you sift through some\n7 of these older claims versus the newer\n8 claims, my position in my report is that\n9 all of this other evidence that the Culper\n10 Report brings to light, in addition to ATL\n11 and some of the issues with ATL, is meant\n12 to undermine the claims made with regards\n13 to ATL.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q How do you know that if you\n16 never talked with Culper? You have no\n17 idea, as you've testified previously, how\n18 they made their decisions on what to put\n19 in the report, what they were thinking\n20 when they put it in the report. How do\n21 you know that?\n22 A I'm not saying as to what they\n23 decided. What I'm saying in terms of, as\n24 a financial economist, looking at what\n25 drives value, I'm looking for claims. And\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 286 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 579\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I'm looking for discussion pertaining to\n3 what could influence most heavily the\n4 overall valuation of the firm.\n5 And so all I'm saying is, I'm\n6 drawing a contrast between perhaps a\n7 related party transaction that occurred\n8 several years prior to the acquisition of\n9 ATL versus ATL itself.\n10 And this is why I referred\n11 earlier to looking at the firm's\n12 information environment. What was going\n13 on at this time; right? What was going on\n14 at this time that would be relevant for\n15 the underlying economics of the firm? And\n16 how that would translate into ultimately\n17 firm value?\n18 Q So correct. But it's all to\n19 degrees; right? So it's again -- I -- all\n20 possible. It's possible that information\n21 about related party transactions was value\n22 relevant.\n23 Of course, you've just testified\n24 that perhaps it's not as value relevant as\n25 other things that you think are more value\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 287 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 580\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 relevant. But that's not the same as\n3 saying the related party transactions are\n4 not value relevant; isn't that true?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: The -- the related\n7 party transactions could be value\n8 relevant; right?\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q Thank you.\n11 A They could be positively.\n12 Q Thank you.\n13 A They could be negatively value\n14 relevant.\n15 Q Okay. Great. I -- that's\n16 exactly -- so I understand. And that's\n17 what I understood from your report. So\n18 thank you.\n19 Now, did you conduct any\n20 analysis to establish that CleanSpark's\n21 investors did not view the claims about\n22 excessive executive compensation in the\n23 Culper Report as value relevant?\n24 A Once more? Sorry.\n25 Q Have you conducted any analysis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 288 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 581\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 to establish that investors didn't view\n3 the claims about executive compensation in\n4 the Culper Report as value relevant?\n5 A So what I did in my report is, I\n6 looked to see what investors. So with\n7 this particular question, where -- I'm\n8 sorry. Analysts. Where analysts were\n9 focused; right?\n10 And so we see in some analysts'\n11 reports, as I discussed in my report, that\n12 some might have mentioned compensation.\n13 But typically, this was referred to as one\n14 time in nature. And then the -- in a lot\n15 of these reports, the focus was really on\n16 the bitcoin being produced.\n17 And so while this is an expense,\n18 right, then the question becomes, how big\n19 of an expense is this relative to other\n20 prospects, especially revenue-generating\n21 prospects?\n22 So the few reports that I\n23 recall -- and I -- I believe between the\n24 two reports, I -- I talk about these\n25 analysts' reports. The emphasis was on\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 289 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 582\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 prospects, was on bitcoin mining.\n3 Q So then I understand that you\n4 did not conduct any analysis to establish\n5 that investors don't view the claims about\n6 executive compensation in the Culper\n7 Report as value relevant?\n8 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n9 THE WITNESS: So in terms of what\n10 investors thought, I'm looking at the\n11 marketplace and looking at overall what\n12 investors and analysts thought. But I was\n13 pointing to evidence in regards to\n14 analysts there. That's true.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Okay. Is it possible that\n17 investors would've viewed the claims about\n18 excessive executive compensation in the\n19 Culper Report as value relevant?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure exactly\n22 what -- what is considered \"excessive.\"\n23 Because compensation can align interests\n24 with investors. And so for some -- one\n25 could view it as excessive. But then to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 290 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 583\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 what degree?\n3 I guess this goes back to your\n4 question. So I'm not quite sure what is\n5 considered excessive here versus\n6 reasonable with respect to aligning the\n7 interest of investors with that of\n8 management.\n9 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n10 Q But it's possible that, in\n11 certain circumstances, executive --\n12 excessive executive compensation would be\n13 value relevant to investors?\n14 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n15 THE WITNESS: In -- in certain\n16 circumstances. If we establish what is\n17 \"excessive\" relative to some benchmark for\n18 the industry or the firm, perhaps some\n19 might bulk and say, \"This is excessive,\"\n20 whereas others might say -- again, this is\n21 aligning interests.\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q So do you have a view as to\n24 whether or not the compensation stated in\n25 the Culper Report was excessive or not?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 291 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 584\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A I don't have a view on whether\n3 it's excessive. But I can point to\n4 analysts who didn't seem to view it as\n5 excessive.\n6 Q So, in your view, investors\n7 didn't view the claims about excessive\n8 executive compensation in the Culper\n9 Report as value relevant?\n10 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n11 THE WITNESS: Again, what I can point\n12 to are the analysts' reports that I used\n13 in the report with respect to the opinion\n14 that I formed here.\n15 And I'll again point back to other\n16 allegations. Other concerns, such as\n17 Green Dragon, where the Culper Report was\n18 basically saying how CleanSpark was\n19 touting ATL was very similar to Green\n20 Dragon in terms of these promises with\n21 respect to reducing energy.\n22 I think, with Green Dragon, by\n23 83 percent in terms of energy consumption\n24 for their grow facilities. And so, you\n25 know, if true, right, this would be\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 292 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 585\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 potentially damning for the ATL facility\n3 with respect to its promises.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Which analysts stated that the\n6 executive compensation detailed in the\n7 Culper Report was not excessive?\n8 A I -- I didn't say that an\n9 analyst expressly said it was not\n10 excessive. What I said is, analysts did\n11 not seem to point to this as a big deal\n12 for them other than noting that expenses\n13 are higher. In part, because of\n14 compensation.\n15 However, the shift, the focus,\n16 in my view -- we'd have to go back to the\n17 report and see where I -- where I cite\n18 this -- was towards revenue prospects.\n19 So, between one of the two\n20 reports. I can find it if you permit me.\n21 But I don't think that verbiage -- I don't\n22 think an analyst said it was quote \"not\n23 excessive.\"\n24 Q Well, the analysts, those same\n25 analysts, also didn't point to any of the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 293 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 586\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 ATL claims; did they?\n3 A From the Culper Report?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n6 Q Correct.\n7 A That's correct.\n8 Q Okay.\n9 A But then the difference is -- is\n10 this goes back to my discussion in regards\n11 to what analysts have incentives to cite.\n12 But analysts need not cite this report to\n13 look at the financials to understand how\n14 expenses are shifting, and in part,\n15 shifting because of increased\n16 compensation.\n17 Q But you don't have any actual\n18 knowledge of that; correct? You didn't\n19 talk personally to any of these analysts;\n20 did you?\n21 A I'm sorry. Actual knowledge of\n22 what?\n23 Q Actual knowledge of why any\n24 information was or was not included in\n25 these analysts' reports that didn't\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 294 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 587\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 mention ATL and also didn't mention or\n3 rely on the executive compensation?\n4 A Well, I think, in part, we\n5 discussed this at length before the break\n6 in terms of the incentives that analysts\n7 may or may not have. But I did not speak\n8 to analysts.\n9 Q But you don't have --\n10 A That is true.\n11 Q Correct.\n12 A It's true.\n13 Q Correct. That's it. You don't\n14 have any actual knowledge. Okay. So now,\n15 do you have -- is it your opinion -- and\n16 I'm not saying it is. I'm asking.\n17 Is it your opinion that the\n18 claims around Mr. Bradford serving as an\n19 auditor of a cannabis company are not\n20 value relevant to investors?\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 THE WITNESS: So can we point to the\n23 specific paragraph where we talked about\n24 this in my merits reply report?\n25 'Cause I'm going off of memory. And\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 295 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 588\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 I don't think that's a good thing.\n3 Because I don't want to give you an answer\n4 that is incorrect. So can you point to\n5 this, in particular, with my merits reply\n6 report, where I can try to find this in?\n7 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n8 Q Paragraph 46, in which you\n9 state, \"The fact that the Culper Report\n10 alleges that Bradford is moonlighting is\n11 irrelevant because per CleanSpark's\n12 disclosures, BlueChip is 50 percent\n13 beneficially owned by Mr. Bradford.\n14 \"BlueChip performed all services\n15 at discounted rates. And none of the\n16 charges were associated with work\n17 performed by Mr. Bradford.\"\n18 So is that the basis for your\n19 conclusion that Mr. Bradford serving as an\n20 auditor of a cannabis company is not value\n21 relevant to investors?\n22 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n23 THE WITNESS: So here you have to\n24 evaluate the claim. And so I'm evaluating\n25 the claim in terms of, \"What does this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 296 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 589\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 mean to moonlight?\"\n3 So I -- I assume -- perhaps\n4 incorrectly so -- but that maybe Bradford\n5 is asleep at the wheel with respect to\n6 CleanSpark because of his multiple other\n7 ventures. And so he's not dedicating the\n8 time that he needs to dedicate.\n9 And so here, this is just the --\n10 the -- CleanSpark is transparent with\n11 Bradford's relationship with BlueChip;\n12 okay? They're not trying to -- he's not\n13 trying to hide anything. The firm is not\n14 trying to hide anything.\n15 I don't think that there were, you\n16 know, excessive charges of -- of\n17 wrongdoing in terms of, you know,\n18 overcharging for this particular business\n19 and so forth.\n20 And so this particular claim --\n21 again, we go back to revenue generation.\n22 And we go back to building the valuation\n23 of CleanSpark. This didn't seem as\n24 important to me as some of the other\n25 claims.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 297 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 590\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q And is that your expert opinion,\n4 as an economist?\n5 A My opinion is this does not seem\n6 to be an issue for the value relevance of\n7 CleanSpark. With respect to CEOs, CFOs,\n8 they're -- they're often appointed at\n9 different boards. And they have other\n10 ventures. And so I don't -- I don't\n11 believe that this is a concern for the\n12 value of this firm.\n13 Q And the basis for that\n14 conclusion is that CleanSpark disclosed\n15 the relationship?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: The opinion that I'm\n18 giving here is that -- as it's said and\n19 underlined -- none of these charges were\n20 associated with work performance.\n21 So I don't know if there's some\n22 discussion of, you know, some -- some\n23 sense or insinuation that there was some\n24 sort of wrongdoing here. But given on the\n25 basis that there was disclosure, sunlight\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 298 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 591\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 is the best medicine. And there was\n3 sunlight brought to this.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Okay. Is it possible that\n6 investors would be concerned if the CEO of\n7 a company has a second job that could\n8 distract him from the role? His role as\n9 CEO?\n10 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n11 THE WITNESS: The question becomes\n12 how relevant it is. And so here, as it\n13 says here, none --\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q Well, sorry. Sorry. With all\n16 due respect, I don't want you to tell me\n17 what the question is. I want you to\n18 answer my question.\n19 My question is, is it possible\n20 that investors would be concerned if the\n21 CEO of a company has a second job that\n22 might distract him from that role?\n23 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n24 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n25 Q Is that possible?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 299 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 592\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Yes. I -- I was trying to\n3 answer. Ownership of another entity does\n4 not preclude one's efforts in a separate\n5 entity.\n6 This clearly states that none of\n7 the charges were associated with work --\n8 work performed by Mr. Bradford. So\n9 Mr. Bradford, apparently, if we take this\n10 disclosure as true, did not do this work.\n11 Q So with all due respect, my\n12 question is still, is it possible? I'm\n13 not talking about Mr. Bradford. I'm\n14 saying, is it possible that investors\n15 would be concerned if the CEO of their\n16 company had a second job that would\n17 distract him from his role as CEO?\n18 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n19 THE WITNESS: I think your question's\n20 loaded. You -- you're assuming that it's\n21 a distraction. And that's what's\n22 questionable. Is it a distraction? In\n23 this particular instance, with the facts\n24 and circumstances of the case --\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 300 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 593\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q I'm asking if it's possible.\n4 I'm asking if it's possible. If it's\n5 possible. If it's possible that that was\n6 the case. I'll give you an example. Are\n7 you familiar with Elon Musk?\n8 A I am.\n9 Q Are you familiar with the\n10 trillion dollar pay package that's been\n11 proposed for him?\n12 A I have very tangential\n13 knowledge. I have not followed all of\n14 this.\n15 Q Okay. Maybe if you were to go\n16 look, you would find out that the critical\n17 reason that Robyn Denholm, the chairman of\n18 Tesla, has been pushing for investors to\n19 sign that pay package is because, were\n20 Elon Musk not to receive that pay package,\n21 he would be distracted and turn his\n22 efforts to other businesses aside from\n23 Tesla.\n24 And I say that by just way of an\n25 example, where I'm giving you a real-world\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 301 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 594\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 possibility that actually exists now. And\n3 I'm just asking you, is it possible? Is\n4 it possible? That's it.\n5 Is it possible that investors\n6 could be concerned if the CEO of their\n7 company had another role that could\n8 distract him from his role as CEO?\n9 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n10 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n11 Q Is that possible?\n12 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n13 THE WITNESS: So, again, I don't have\n14 an opinion because the question is too\n15 vague.\n16 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n17 Q Okay.\n18 A But the operative word that you\n19 keep using is \"distracted.\" And so that's\n20 the question is, do we agree on\n21 distraction?\n22 And going back to the Elon Musk\n23 anecdote, part of my tangential knowledge\n24 of this particular case is he wants\n25 control over the firm, going forward, with\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 302 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 595\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 the robots he wants to build. And so\n3 there's a control element as well.\n4 I don't think it's just the\n5 distraction. He has certain vested\n6 interests in mind. But this is neither\n7 here nor there with respect to the case.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q My point is -- and I'm taking\n10 from this, it's possible; right? Your\n11 view is that it's possible that investors\n12 could be concerned if the CEO of their\n13 company had a different -- had a second\n14 role that could distract from his role as\n15 CEO?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: I have not formed an\n18 opinion on that today. Nor does my report\n19 offer it.\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q Okay. Perfect. It would've\n22 been useful to get to that five minutes\n23 ago.\n24 What do you understand by\n25 \"moonlight\" in Culper's statement, \"CEO,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 303 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 596\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Zachary Bradford, moonlights as the\n3 auditor of a microcap cannabis company\"?\n4 What do you understand \"moonlights\" to\n5 mean?\n6 A Where are you reading from? I'm\n7 sorry.\n8 Q I said, what do you\n9 understand --\n10 A Oh. The same paragraph. Okay.\n11 I see it.\n12 Q The one we were just going over\n13 before, in paragraph 46, where you in fact\n14 just dissembled for a couple of minutes\n15 about what moonlighting meant. And how\n16 you didn't think he was moonlighting. And\n17 there was disclosure.\n18 So I'm talking about your use of\n19 that word \"moonlighting,\" which was, I\n20 think, copied from Culper's Report. And\n21 my question is, what did you understand\n22 the word \"moonlight\" to mean in Culper's\n23 Report?\n24 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n25 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 304 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 597\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 other than working at night, in the\n3 moonlight.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q Okay. Got it. Now, you pointed\n6 to the disclosure back earlier, in\n7 paragraph 46. And did CleanSpark disclose\n8 in that disclosure that Mr. Bradford\n9 wasn't doing any work for BlueChip?\n10 A Can you point me to where in the\n11 report? I'm sorry. You went back a\n12 paragraph to 46? Or no? You're in the\n13 same paragraph?\n14 Q In paragraph 46.\n15 A Mm-hmm.\n16 Q I was just directing your\n17 attention back there.\n18 A Thank you.\n19 Q In paragraph 46; right? That\n20 disclosure -- you cited disclosure. Per\n21 CleanSpark's disclosures, \"BlueChip is\n22 50 percent beneficially owned by\n23 Mr. Bradford.\n24 \"BlueChip performed all services\n25 at discounted rates. And none of the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 305 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 598\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 charges were associated with work\n3 performed by Mr. Bradford.\" Do you see\n4 that?\n5 A I do.\n6 Q And so my question is, that\n7 disclosure says nothing about whether or\n8 not Mr. Bradford is working for BlueChip;\n9 isn't that correct?\n10 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n11 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I\n12 agree. It says, \"None of\" -- when you say\n13 \"is working for,\" it seems he owns it.\n14 He -- it says right there that it's\n15 50 percent beneficially owned.\n16 But then further, CleanSpark goes on\n17 to say, \"None of the charges were\n18 associated with work performed by\n19 Mr. Bradford.\"\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q That's correct. And doesn't\n22 that mean that none of the charges that\n23 CleanSpark was paying BlueChip was for\n24 work performed by Mr. Bradford? Isn't\n25 that correct?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 306 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 599\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 THE WITNESS: I -- I guess I'm not\n4 following, David. 'Cause we're reading\n5 this the same. But I think we keep\n6 repeating the same phrase. I'm\n7 misunderstanding something.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Yes. Okay. So we're reading it\n10 the same. And I just wanted your simple\n11 agreement that that's what it says. But\n12 my point is, that's not the same as\n13 disclosing he was not doing work for\n14 Mr. -- for BlueChip.\n15 That says he wasn't performing\n16 work in his capacity as an owner of\n17 BlueChip for CleanSpark. It says nothing\n18 about whether he could have been doing\n19 work for numerous other customers of\n20 BlueChip.\n21 It doesn't say what he was\n22 doing. It just says he wasn't doing the\n23 work that CleanSpark was paying for. Do\n24 you see what I'm saying?\n25 So my question is, doesn't this\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 307 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 600\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 disclosure say he didn't do any of the\n3 work that CleanSpark was paying for?\n4 Correct? It doesn't say he wasn't doing\n5 work for BlueChip.\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n8 Q Isn't that true?\n9 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n10 THE WITNESS: I -- I suppose it could\n11 be true that he could be doing other work.\n12 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n13 Q Okay. Now, have you -- are you\n14 aware that Zach Bradford was serving as an\n15 auditor of BlueChip during this period?\n16 A I -- I am not aware of all of\n17 his service responsibilities to BlueChip\n18 throughout the class period. No.\n19 Q Okay. But you at least know\n20 it's possible that he was working there.\n21 And I'm representing to you that he was.\n22 Now, have you conducted any\n23 analysis to establish that investors of\n24 CleanSpark didn't view the claims that\n25 Mr. Bradford was serving in capacities for\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 308 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 601\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BlueChip, in addition to his capacity as\n3 CEO of CleanSpark, as value relevant?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question?\n6 There were several elements there. If you\n7 don't mind.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Have you conducted any analysis\n10 to establish that investors did not view\n11 claims about Mr. Bradford serving as an\n12 auditor of BlueChip, in addition to his\n13 role as CEO of CleanSpark, as not value\n14 relevant?\n15 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n16 THE WITNESS: So I -- I have not\n17 spoken to investors. I'll point to the\n18 evidence that I have. And so with respect\n19 to going through analysts' reports, I\n20 didn't --\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q That's okay. That's okay. I\n23 don't need an answer to a different\n24 question. I just -- you've answered the\n25 question I asked, which was, have you\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 309 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 602\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 conducted any analysis? And I understand\n3 that answer is, you did not speak to\n4 investors.\n5 Okay. Now, is it possible that\n6 investors could be concerned -- sorry. Is\n7 it possible -- strike that. I'm going to\n8 move on to --\n9 Did you conduct any analysis to\n10 establish that claims about fabricated\n11 customers and contracts in the Culper\n12 Report had no negative effect on\n13 investors' perceptions of CleanSpark's\n14 corporate governance and internal\n15 controls?\n16 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n17 THE WITNESS: Repeat that last half?\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q Did you conduct any analysis to\n20 establish that claims about fabricated\n21 customers and contracts in the Culper\n22 Report did not have a negative effect on\n23 investors' perceptions of CleanSpark's\n24 corporate governance and internal\n25 controls?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 310 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 603\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n3 THE WITNESS: So is there a paragraph\n4 where you can reference me to in my reply\n5 report?\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Well, I'm asking, did you\n8 conduct that analysis?\n9 A So the analysis that I've done\n10 is, with respect to fabricated customers\n11 and contracts, I evaluated the Culper\n12 Report. I evaluated the associated\n13 tweets.\n14 And so I am trying to assess and\n15 understand where there could be concerns,\n16 given the multiplicity of allegations that\n17 are made. And especially with respect to\n18 the ATL facility.\n19 And so what -- what I found,\n20 again, that was concerning to me are these\n21 claims with respect to -- to Valle Divino\n22 and Green Dragon. Because the claims with\n23 Green Dragon, as I mentioned before, were\n24 very similar to ATL.\n25 Q And so based on that analysis,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 311 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 604\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you concluded that fabricated customers\n3 and contracts would be value relevant to\n4 investors?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: So on the basis that\n7 customers generate revenue and that\n8 contracts generate revenue, and if these\n9 are fictitious contracts and fictitious\n10 customers, yes.\n11 This goes back to the conversation\n12 that we had earlier. I'm looking at the\n13 direct drivers of revenue with regards to\n14 expectations of future revenues and\n15 whether they'll materialize for the firm,\n16 which has a direct relationship with firm\n17 value.\n18 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n19 Q Now, were there claims about\n20 fake customers in connection with P2K?\n21 A I -- I would have to look to see\n22 what -- you'd have to provide me with the\n23 disclosure in my report. But were there\n24 claims about fake customers with respect\n25 to P2K?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 312 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 605\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Yes. In the Culper Report.\n3 A Can we go to the Culper Report\n4 then?\n5 Q That would be --\n6 A Again, I haven't memorized the\n7 entire report. So I'd have to look\n8 through it.\n9 Q Okay. In your view, is there\n10 agreement in the academic literature that\n11 claims about fraud do not lead to\n12 reputational loss?\n13 A Say that again? I think we just\n14 switched questions; right?\n15 Q Yes.\n16 A Okay.\n17 Q Well, there was no question\n18 pending.\n19 A I'm trying to track with you,\n20 David.\n21 Q No question pending. In your\n22 view, is there agreement in the academic\n23 literature that claims about fraud did not\n24 lead to reputational loss?\n25 A I think that's a broad\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 313 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 606\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 statement. But I think that if there is\n3 fraud present, that could impact\n4 reputation.\n5 Q Okay. Now, did you conduct any\n6 analysis to rule out that the Culper\n7 Report didn't cause reputational harm for\n8 CleanSpark?\n9 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n10 THE WITNESS: So I did a lot of\n11 analysis in terms of the impact of -- of\n12 these statements. But with respect to\n13 reputational loss, I did not attempt to\n14 quantify reputational loss.\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Now, I want you to go to\n17 paragraph 46 of your reply merits report.\n18 A Paragraph -- the same paragraph\n19 we've been on; right?\n20 Q Mm-hmm.\n21 A Okay.\n22 Q And that's where -- because you\n23 had asked about the P2K Labs. So if you\n24 go to -- this is page 22 of the report. I\n25 don't know the internal pagination now.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 314 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 607\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 But it's sentence that begins,\n3 \"Second, re: P2K Labs, a tweet from Culper\n4 in the initial tweet thread, suggests that\n5 P2K Labs 'appears to also fake its\n6 customers.'\" So if you want to\n7 familiarize yourself with the rest of that\n8 paragraph?\n9 A Yeah. Please, let me. Okay. I\n10 have familiarized myself. Thank you.\n11 Q Okay. And so my question is,\n12 what analysis did you perform to quantify\n13 the impact of the claims with respect to\n14 P2K and the fake customers?\n15 A So for P2K Labs, the claim is\n16 that it appears to also fake its\n17 customers. And I believe some of the\n18 allegations were in regard to web\n19 presence; right? So whether or not the\n20 products had or did not have web presence.\n21 And so this doesn't seem to be\n22 terribly relevant to me, in contrast to\n23 some of the other claims in the Culper\n24 Report.\n25 Q Okay. And so what was the basis\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 315 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 608\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 of your conclusion? That conclusion?\n3 A I -- I say it here. I said,\n4 \"This is because the substance upon which\n5 the Culper Report makes this claim is\n6 merely on the basis of some, but not all,\n7 customers listed on P2K's website as case\n8 studies had lacked web presence.\"\n9 Q Anything else?\n10 A No.\n11 Q Now, in paragraph 88 of your\n12 reply merits report -- I'll give you a\n13 chance to get there if you would like.\n14 A I am there. Shall I read it?\n15 Q Sure. I'm scrolling. So you\n16 can take a look.\n17 A Okay. I've read it.\n18 Q Okay. So in that paragraph, you\n19 state that \"I note Defendants have not\n20 challenged my opinion that CleanSpark\n21 traded efficiently.\" Is that correct?\n22 A I'm reading it as the same.\n23 Yes.\n24 Q Okay. Now, forgive me. Did I\n25 previously introduce as an exhibit today\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 316 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 609\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 your class certification expert report?\n3 MR. LINKH: No.\n4 THE WITNESS: I don't think so.\n5 THE REPORTER: Not that I'm aware of.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Now, in that -- so rather than\n8 introducing it, I guess I'll just --\n9 because we're going to get --\n10 What I want to do is ask you, in\n11 the class cert report, which was dated\n12 January 10, 2025, your opinion was stated\n13 that \"The market for CleanSpark's common\n14 stock was efficient throughout the class\n15 period.\"\n16 Now, am I correct that your\n17 opinion regarding market efficiency is\n18 limited to the class period?\n19 A So that report speaks to the\n20 class period. So it would be limited in\n21 that report to the class period. That is\n22 correct.\n23 Q Is it correct that in the merits\n24 report, in paragraph 12 of that report,\n25 that you reiterate your opinion from your\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 317 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 610\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 previous report, the class cert report we\n3 just discussed, that \"The market for\n4 shares of CleanSpark common stock was\n5 efficient through the -- throughout the\n6 class period\"?\n7 A I -- I believe so. I need to\n8 take a look.\n9 Q Okay. I'll represent to you\n10 that it does say that in paragraph 12.\n11 But it sounds like to me, if I'm\n12 understanding correctly, that that is your\n13 opinion still as we sit here today?\n14 A Yes.\n15 Q Okay. And the reason I was\n16 asking these questions is the phrasing was\n17 different in the reports. And I wanted to\n18 understand if it's the same position\n19 throughout. Or there's some significance\n20 in the wording change.\n21 Okay. Now -- so it's correct\n22 that your opinion regarding market\n23 efficiency is limited to the class period?\n24 A So, again, I'd have to go back\n25 to the report. So I'm not sure. I -- I\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 318 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 611\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 have not looked at this report today. Nor\n3 do I have the benefit of having in front\n4 of me.\n5 But I -- I don't recall if I\n6 used an analysis period as well in\n7 discussion of the class period. That's\n8 one thing that is -- is concerning me\n9 right now.\n10 Q Okay. Understood. Understood\n11 with that clarification. Now, is it your\n12 opinion that between August 1, 2017, and\n13 April 5, 2018, CleanSpark's stock price\n14 traded in an efficient market?\n15 A Say those dates again?\n16 Q April -- or sorry. August 1,\n17 2017, and April 5, 2018?\n18 A I -- I have not formed that\n19 opinion in this report. Nor do I offer\n20 it.\n21 Q Okay. Is it possible that,\n22 during that time period, CleanSpark's\n23 stock price did not react or react quickly\n24 to positive value relevant information?\n25 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 319 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 612\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 THE WITNESS: I -- I'm not sure why\n3 we're focused on positive value relevant\n4 information. But what I'm trying to show\n5 here in these paragraphs is that, at this\n6 time period, when we see this raw negative\n7 return of 18.84 percent upon the\n8 announcement of the Green Dragon\n9 initiative, there -- there aren't other\n10 entries in terms of daily stock prices.\n11 And so I was trying to explain the\n12 lack of movement to see if there were\n13 other salient events around this time\n14 whereby the -- the stock price hadn't\n15 moved.\n16 And so I was finding that there\n17 weren't other events. And the stock price\n18 didn't move until we see this Green Dragon\n19 announcement. And then we had this large\n20 negative raw return of 18.84 percent.\n21 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n22 Q Okay. So is it possible then\n23 that between August 1, 2017, and April 5,\n24 2018, CleanSpark's stock price didn't\n25 react at all? Or at least didn't react\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 320 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 613\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 quickly to positive value relevant\n3 information?\n4 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n5 THE WITNESS: Again, this notion of\n6 positive versus negative. I'm trying to\n7 show, in -- in my opening report, that\n8 information is -- is reacted to whether\n9 it's positive or negative in a timely\n10 basis.\n11 And whether or not it's accurate is\n12 another question. But at this point in\n13 time, there are not a lot of disclosures\n14 in regards to this firm until we see this\n15 Green Dragon disclosure. And then we see\n16 this -- this negative return.\n17 And I look for other events around\n18 this date that would potentially explain\n19 it. And so I'm trying to triangulate the\n20 price movement with respect to this\n21 disclosure. And -- and distinguish it\n22 between other disclosures that might have\n23 given a -- a price movement but did not.\n24 And so I think I talked about this\n25 in -- in the surrounding paragraphs.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 321 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 614\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n3 Q But you don't have an opinion as\n4 to whether or not, between August 1, 2017,\n5 and April 5, 2018, CleanSpark's stock\n6 traded in an efficient market?\n7 A So I have not formed an overall\n8 opinion in regards to the efficiency\n9 with -- with this period.\n10 Q Okay.\n11 A Again, I'd have to go back\n12 and -- and double-check with that opening\n13 report with respect to the analysis period\n14 versus the class period.\n15 But here, what I'm trying to do\n16 is, I -- I fully realize that the entries\n17 for share prices are sparse in this time\n18 period. And this is why I wanted to go\n19 look at the different types of\n20 disclosures.\n21 And so what I didn't see around\n22 this time is -- is some major material\n23 disclosure where there was lack of price\n24 movement. In fact, what I found here,\n25 with respect to Green Dragon, is we had\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 322 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 615\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this large disclosure about this\n3 initiative. And there was a negative\n4 price movement.\n5 Q Okay. And so then can you\n6 explain to me how -- well, strike that.\n7 In paragraph 104 of your initial\n8 merits report, if you want to go back to\n9 that, which was --\n10 A Yeah. Please. One -- one\n11 second.\n12 Q Which was exhibit -- what number\n13 was that again; 97, 98?\n14 A I think so.\n15 MR. LINKH: Yes, 97.\n16 THE REPORTER: The initial?\n17 MR. LINKH: The initial was 97.\n18 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Thank you very\n19 much. When my computer decided to end its\n20 own life, it took away everything I had\n21 open; so --\n22 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n23 Q Okay. So if you'd go to\n24 paragraph 88 of that report?\n25 A I'm sorry. Paragraph 88?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 323 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 616\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Q Sorry. Sorry. 104.\n3 A There we go. That's what I\n4 thought you said. Shall I take a read?\n5 Q Yes. And I'll point you to a\n6 specific sentence.\n7 A Okay.\n8 Q Just let me get --\n9 A I have read it. Thank you.\n10 Q Okay. And this is discussing\n11 the Valle Divino project; correct?\n12 A It is.\n13 Q Okay. And when discussing the\n14 claims about that project, you state, \"If\n15 investors initially reacted negatively to\n16 that specific allegation, I would expect\n17 subsequent disclosures affirming housing\n18 construction and microgrid development\n19 activity at the Valle Divino site to lead\n20 to a partial stock price reversal.\n21 \"Which would indicate that the\n22 Culper Report's claims regarding the Valle\n23 Divino site were value relevant for\n24 investors.\" Correct?\n25 A That's correct. I read the\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 324 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 617\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 same.\n3 Q What is the basis for your\n4 expectation of a subsequent reversal?\n5 A Well, I -- I think I stated\n6 there pretty clearly, if -- if we believe\n7 that part of the negative reaction of the\n8 Culper Report is partially premised upon\n9 the activities at Valle Divino, then\n10 updates in the future regarding this\n11 initiative, right, could show that there\n12 is a positive reaction if there's initial\n13 negative reaction on the basis of\n14 reversal.\n15 So this reversal on future dates\n16 could indicate the value relevance of this\n17 particular disclosure at the time of the\n18 Culper Report. And so this is part of the\n19 approach that I've taken for\n20 disaggregation of compounds.\n21 Q And you state that subsequent\n22 disclosures affirming the Valle Divino\n23 project are expected to lead to a partial\n24 stock price reversal. What do you mean by\n25 \"partial\" in this sentence?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 325 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 618\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Well, so in -- in terms of\n3 assessing the -- I'm trying to quantify\n4 the differences in terms of the reaction.\n5 So first of all, attempting to quantify or\n6 allege that there could be a negative\n7 component to that return on the basis of\n8 the claims with respect to Valle Divino.\n9 And then future development --\n10 future disclosures about that development\n11 that are positive, talking about how\n12 this -- how this particular initiative is\n13 proceeding forward, if investors find this\n14 particular initiative value relevant,\n15 should partially reverse.\n16 In terms of fully reverse,\n17 that's a different question. It's\n18 difficult to disentangle that.\n19 But at least here, what I'm\n20 trying to show is that one, there's\n21 potentially this negative reaction. And\n22 two, if investors found this particular\n23 issue to be negative value -- negatively\n24 value relevant, that partial reversal\n25 would indicate that they found this --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 326 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 619\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 this partially value relevant.\n3 In terms of full, that's --\n4 that's difficult to quantify. But in\n5 terms of showing that there is an element\n6 here that could be disaggregated is what\n7 I'm trying to do if we see this reversal.\n8 Q Okay. Now, is it possible that\n9 the claims about Valle Divino in the\n10 Culper Report impacted CleanSpark's stock\n11 price on January 14th and 15th, 2021?\n12 Not just because of the value\n13 that this project represented to\n14 CleanSpark. But also due to the\n15 reputational impact of CleanSpark\n16 potentially lying about it?\n17 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n18 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question\n19 once more?\n20 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n21 Q Is it possible that the claims\n22 about Valle Divino in the Culper Report\n23 could have impacted CleanSpark's stock\n24 price on January 15th and 14th?\n25 Not only because of the value\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 327 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 620\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that this project represented to\n3 CleanSpark. But also due to the\n4 reputational impact of CleanSpark\n5 potentially lying about it?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n8 Q Couldn't both of those have\n9 impacted it?\n10 MR. LINKH: Same objection.\n11 THE WITNESS: They could have both\n12 potentially impacted, you're saying, the\n13 initial negative reaction on January 14th\n14 and 15th?\n15 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n16 Q Correct. Correct. Isn't it\n17 possible that investors responded to the\n18 information in -- about Valle Divino in\n19 the Culper Report both because of the\n20 value of the project itself, but also\n21 because of the reputational impact of\n22 CleanSpark potentially lying about the\n23 project?\n24 I'll put it in lay terms. Is it\n25 your opinion that an investor would have\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 328 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 621\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 been concerned both about the potential\n3 loss of the Valle Divino project itself\n4 and also have reputational concerns about\n5 CleanSpark lying about that project?\n6 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n7 THE WITNESS: So here, what I'm\n8 trying to quantify is this reversal in\n9 regards to the value relevance of updates\n10 on this initiative that could be\n11 positively value relevant. This is all\n12 I'm trying to opine on here for\n13 disaggregation purposes.\n14 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n15 Q Is it your opinion that\n16 investors do not -- price announcements\n17 about potential projects until they're\n18 fully confirmed or contract is fully\n19 executed? Yes or no?\n20 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n21 THE WITNESS: So I think that there\n22 are various levels of degrees of certainty\n23 with respect to projects that can be\n24 undertaken.\n25 And so a plan to do something versus\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 329 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 622\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 \"We have signed a contract where we intend\n3 to do this. And we're going to proceed\n4 with it,\" I think that it carries a bit\n5 more weight in the letter.\n6 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n7 Q Okay. In paragraph 71 of your\n8 reply merits report --\n9 A Mm-hmm. We're jumping reports\n10 again?\n11 Q Yes. We are.\n12 A And then, David, whenever we're\n13 done with this line of questioning, a\n14 quick break would be -- would be\n15 appreciated.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: Why don't we go ahead\n17 and -- since I haven't asked a question\n18 yet, why don't we go ahead and take that\n19 break now?\n20 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n21 MR. PARTIDA: Is five minutes\n22 sufficient?\n23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Five to\n24 seven minutes would be wonderful.\n25 MR. PARTIDA: Great.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 330 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 623\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Andrew or Lindsey, do you\n3 have a time thus far?\n4 THE REPORTER: Yes. I've got\n5 five hours and 29 minutes until Baker\n6 takes us off.\n7 MR. LINKH: Great. Thank you.\n8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of\n9 media unit number 5. We are off the\n10 record at 5:28 p.m.\n11 (Off the record.)\n12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the\n13 beginning of media unit number 6. We are\n14 on the record at 5:40 p.m.\n15 MR. PARTIDA: Okay. Thank you.\n16 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n17 Q And thank you, Dr. Bozanic.\n18 What I'm going to try and do here in the\n19 last few minutes is cover -- I'm just\n20 trying to establish and understand clearly\n21 what your opinions are. So hopefully, we\n22 can do that. And then I have a couple of\n23 miscellaneous questions.\n24 Is it your opinion that the miss\n25 in revenue and earnings on February 12th\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 331 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 624\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 was attributable to the alleged\n3 misrepresentations about ATL?\n4 A So I think I talk in my reports\n5 about how expectations were formed in\n6 December with regards to what was stated\n7 pertaining to ATL. And so analysts\n8 ratcheted up their expectations.\n9 And so, therefore, when the hash\n10 rate and -- the energy capacity expansion\n11 and the hash rate expansion didn't occur\n12 as planned, this would definitely affect\n13 how those expectations, right, were viewed\n14 in relation to the realizations of -- of,\n15 say, revenue.\n16 Q So it is your opinion that the\n17 miss in revenue and earnings on\n18 February 12th was attributable to the\n19 alleged misrepresentations about ATL;\n20 correct?\n21 A Yes.\n22 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n23 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n24 Q Okay. And it's also your\n25 opinion -- well, let me ask it this way.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 332 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 625\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Is it your opinion that the miss in\n3 revenue and earnings on August 17th was\n4 attributable to the alleged\n5 misrepresentations about ATL? Same\n6 question. Different date.\n7 A Again, I'd have the same answer\n8 in terms of expectations were formed on\n9 the basis of disclosures made with regards\n10 to the ATL facility.\n11 Q And is it your opinion that the\n12 lower revenue guidance CleanSpark\n13 announced on August 17th was attributable\n14 to the alleged misrepresentations about\n15 ATL?\n16 A Can you point me to a specific\n17 paragraph in my report? I think I know\n18 the one you're referring to. This is in\n19 my merits reply report? I don't have\n20 everything memorized. I apologize, David.\n21 So some basis would be helpful.\n22 Q No. No. I'm not -- I'm asking.\n23 I'm not thinking about a specific line in\n24 your report, to be frank. I'm asking, you\n25 know, do I -- if you want to look to a\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 333 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 626\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 paragraph, feel free to look. But\n3 truthfully, I don't have a specific\n4 paragraph.\n5 I just want to know if it's your\n6 opinion that the lower revenue guidance\n7 announced on August 17th was attributable\n8 to the alleged misrepresentations about\n9 ATL?\n10 A The date again was what?\n11 Q August 17.\n12 A Yeah. Okay. So I think here,\n13 this is where there was some offsetting\n14 nature of the guidance in terms of\n15 guidance changing.\n16 This is paragraph 105 of my\n17 merits reply report where there were some\n18 changes in expectations with regards to\n19 the Bitcoin segment and the legacy\n20 statement -- segment.\n21 At the end of the day, it was a\n22 very negligible decline in guidance. With\n23 respect to overall revenue expected, less\n24 than 2 percent. And I think I state here\n25 that the revised consensus was -- was\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 334 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 627\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 still 4 million or seven to 8 percent\n3 above the consensus of 52 million.\n4 Q Okay. And was bitcoin guidance\n5 also increased?\n6 A I -- I'd have to go back and\n7 look. My -- my memory's not serving me\n8 this -- so late in the day, unless I say\n9 something here. Let me look. One second.\n10 Sorry.\n11 So yeah. So here, I say it.\n12 \"Eight million dollar increase in Bitcoin\n13 revenue expectations, which were nearly\n14 offset by a $7.5 million decrease in the\n15 energy segment.\" So there were offsetting\n16 and color -- countervailing changes in\n17 projections.\n18 Q Okay. And was guidance for any\n19 other segments lowered?\n20 A I mean --\n21 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n22 THE WITNESS: I guess I'm a little\n23 confused when you say \"other segments.\"\n24 We've got the Bitcoin segment. The energy\n25 segment.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 335 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 628\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 At this point in time, I was\n3 classifying these as -- as so-called\n4 legacy versus nascent, where Bitcoin would\n5 be the nascent. And legacy would -- would\n6 be what they had in place before the\n7 acquisition of ATL.\n8 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n9 Q Okay. Now, the increase in\n10 bitcoin guidance is good news; right?\n11 A I would say so.\n12 Q Okay. Do you think that the\n13 date range corresponding to the late\n14 spring/early July that -- let me point you\n15 to a paragraph.\n16 A Thank you. I appreciate that,\n17 David.\n18 Q And you're -- yeah. Some of\n19 these, I don't actually have a specific\n20 paragraph. I'm really honestly trying\n21 to --\n22 A Ah. Okay. I understand.\n23 Q I'm trying to literally\n24 understand, is this the opinion or not?\n25 It's not a trick. I'm not trying to say\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 336 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 629\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 it should or shouldn't be your opinion.\n3 I'm really just trying to -- so\n4 that I understand, \"Okay. This is my\n5 opinion.\" And that's -- really, that's\n6 all it is. But I think I can point you\n7 to --\n8 A Please.\n9 Q Paragraph 76 of your reply\n10 merits report.\n11 A I'm -- I am there.\n12 Q Okay. And so this is, you know,\n13 just to help you orient yourself. Some of\n14 the disclosures; right?\n15 Critical in the language of the\n16 disclosures, at least as alleged in the\n17 complaint, are references to things like,\n18 \"This fall. \"This summer.\" \"Early/late\n19 summer.\" \"Mid-year.\" Are you familiar\n20 with what I'm referring to in terms of\n21 what the complaint is alleging?\n22 A I am, sir.\n23 Q Okay. Now, in paragraph 76,\n24 right there, it says that -- my question\n25 with that, do you think that the date\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 337 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 630\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 range is corresponding.\n3 So if you think -- when you\n4 think \"late spring/early July,\" do you\n5 think that that date range, when you think\n6 of that, overlaps with the date range\n7 corresponding to \"mid-year\" or\n8 \"mid-summer\"? Which, in paragraph 76, you\n9 stated was July 1st through August 5th.\n10 A That was a lot, David. Repeat\n11 that once more for me. I'm sorry.\n12 Q Yeah. Yeah.\n13 A I mean, that's --\n14 Q So what I'm trying to understand\n15 is, do you think that late spring/early\n16 July -- when somebody says \"late\n17 spring/early July,\" do you think that date\n18 also overlaps with \"mid-year\" or\n19 \"mid-summer\"?\n20 And the reason I'm asking that\n21 is because in paragraph 76 of your reply\n22 merits report, you state that July 1st\n23 through August 5th is mid-year or\n24 mid-summer.\n25 And what I'm trying to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 338 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 631\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 understand is, so then would you say that\n3 there's overlap with late spring/early\n4 July?\n5 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n6 THE WITNESS: So, again, I think I\n7 have all of this detailed, in terms of\n8 what the actual calendar says, somewhere\n9 else in the report. This is -- this is\n10 part of it.\n11 But when we start to say \"late\n12 spring,\" I'd have to go back. Let me just\n13 see here. Summer '21. Do I see the date\n14 for spring?\n15 So late spring does not really align\n16 with this mid-year to mid-summer if that's\n17 what we're referring to. I'm looking back\n18 at my page -- my paragraph 76 in this\n19 report. And so, you know, if I say here,\n20 it says summer 2021, the date starts on\n21 June 20th; right?\n22 And then furthermore, mid-year to\n23 mid-summer, if you agree with my logic in\n24 these paragraphs, starts at July 1. So\n25 late spring does not seem to align with\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 339 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 632\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 that date range. I think that's what\n3 you're going for.\n4 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n5 Q So all of that makes sense, with\n6 one caveat. It says \"late spring/early\n7 July.\" And so my thought is, I get -- I\n8 totally understand different time periods.\n9 I understand that you laid them out. And\n10 I get that.\n11 But one says \"late spring/early\n12 July.\" And I get that there's a\n13 difference. But my understanding is that\n14 late spring/early July would overlap with\n15 mid-summer.\n16 A Yeah. I would say -- so --\n17 Q Which begins July 1st and ends\n18 August 5th.\n19 A Yeah. Mid-summer, though, is\n20 August 5th. And so -- and this is -- this\n21 is nuanced, right, with regards to\n22 mid-year versus mid-summer. And so here,\n23 I say mid-summer would roughly be\n24 August 5th.\n25 So, again, now it goes back to\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 340 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 633\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you asked if -- if July would be\n3 considered to be -- where'd it go --\n4 mid-summer. And so if mid-summer is\n5 August 5th, that doesn't seem to align\n6 with July. Am I -- am I following you? I\n7 apologize if not.\n8 Q You are. And I'm trying to find\n9 a way to clearly ask this question without\n10 me testifying. And I'm trying to find an\n11 easy way of asking it.\n12 But one of the announcements,\n13 one of the guidances in terms of the\n14 timeline for completion of the project,\n15 said late spring/early July. A subsequent\n16 report said mid-year/mid-summer. And then\n17 a later report said a different date.\n18 And all I was trying to clarify\n19 is that, you know, I understand what the\n20 calendars say and the dates say. But\n21 doesn't late spring/early July overlap\n22 with mid-year?\n23 And I was literally thinking\n24 that because it says, \"Early July.\" And\n25 as I've understood, laid out in\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 341 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 634\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 paragraph 76 of your report, mid-year\n3 starts July 1st.\n4 So in my simple mind, I'm\n5 thinking late spring/early July, that\n6 overlaps with mid-year, which starts\n7 July 1st. Because obviously, early July\n8 is part of -- is -- July 1st is early\n9 July.\n10 So with all of that said, my\n11 understanding and the question I have to\n12 you is that. Do you agree that the date\n13 range late spring/early July has at least\n14 some overlap with the date range mid-year,\n15 which begins July 1st?\n16 A So given what I've outlined\n17 here -- I thought earlier -- I apologize.\n18 I thought you asked \"mid-summer.\" Right?\n19 And so I said, \"Well, hey. Mid-summer is\n20 August 5th. So July does not align with\n21 that consistently.\"\n22 Mid-year/early July; right?\n23 Here, we would say July 1st is mid-year.\n24 Q Yep.\n25 A Yeah. So there, now, I'm with\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 342 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 635\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you.\n3 Q Understood. And I appreciate\n4 that clarification because I did use both\n5 words.\n6 A Thank you.\n7 Q And so my understanding is that\n8 you would say there's late spring/early\n9 July, which has some overlap with\n10 mid-year. But doesn't have overlap\n11 necessarily with mid-summer, which starts\n12 later than mid-year?\n13 A Correct. Early July could align\n14 with mid-year. But not mid-summer.\n15 Q Thank you. I appreciate that\n16 answer. I appreciate that we got through\n17 that. So now, do you think --\n18 Just a couple more questions\n19 from me. And then I'll take a minute to\n20 see if there's anything else. But in\n21 paragraph 60 of your reply report, you\n22 cite to a Reuters article.\n23 A Catching up. I'm there. Shall\n24 I read it, David?\n25 Q I just want you -- so I just --\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 343 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 636\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 you're there? And you're with me?\n3 A I -- I'm there. I haven't read\n4 it. But yes. I'm there.\n5 Q Okay. Yeah. So yeah. So go\n6 ahead. Take a look at paragraph 60.\n7 A Thank you.\n8 Q But I'm actually going to ask\n9 you about the Reuters article; so --\n10 A I have read the -- the paragraph\n11 referenced. Thank you.\n12 Q Do you remember if that article\n13 talks about expansion delays?\n14 A I -- I don't recall, off the top\n15 of my head, without having the benefit of\n16 the article in front of me.\n17 Q Okay. I would like to turn you\n18 to paragraph 73 of your reply report.\n19 A I'm also there. Shall I read\n20 it?\n21 Q Sure. Take a look. And I'm\n22 going to ask you the same question about\n23 this article.\n24 A I have read this paragraph 73.\n25 Q Okay. So same question as\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 344 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 637\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 before. Does the BTIG report that you\n3 cite in paragraph 73 there -- does that\n4 report talk about expansion delays?\n5 A So, implicitly, I would say yes;\n6 right? So it's set to ramp up. So at\n7 this point in time, August 16th, the\n8 expectation was that the firm would be, by\n9 April 2021, at 0.9 to 1.4 EH; right?\n10 And so when they say it's set to\n11 ramp up, this means that they have failed.\n12 And the promise made by -- that was\n13 supposed to be made by April 2021. Here,\n14 we're sitting at August 16th.\n15 And so we don't know where\n16 they're at in actual hash rate capacity\n17 other than they're going to ramp up\n18 somewhere to 820, which is still falling\n19 short of what the promise was upon the ATL\n20 acquisition announcement.\n21 Q Okay. And so that's implicitly.\n22 But did they explicitly talk about it?\n23 That's my question. Do you recall if they\n24 explicitly discussed that?\n25 A Yeah. I -- I apologize, Dave.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 345 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 638\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Without the benefit of the report, I don't\n3 have that in front of me. But this is the\n4 implication that I'm making from this\n5 particular utterance in this report.\n6 Q Okay. But you don't recall, as\n7 you sit here today, whether they discussed\n8 that explicitly?\n9 A I apologize, sir. I do not\n10 recall.\n11 Q Okay. No problem. Now, is it\n12 then your opinion that the reason for the\n13 price target reduction were the expansion\n14 delays?\n15 A I -- I would say that here, what\n16 I'm saying is that -- yeah. This -- this\n17 missing of the hash rate could be\n18 contributing to that -- that price\n19 decline.\n20 So that's quite a big change in\n21 terms of -- I think -- again, if my memory\n22 serves me, I think it was BTIG -- I'd have\n23 to go back and look at my report -- that\n24 reaffirmed one of their price targets.\n25 And then it was this report.\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 346 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 639\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 So I think one of the\n3 previous -- one of the previous reports\n4 reaffirmed. And then this one is the one\n5 that I think started to ratchet down the\n6 price target here. But again, that's --\n7 that's assuming my memory serves me\n8 correctly.\n9 Q It does. And my -- so my\n10 question is, in this report that reduced\n11 it down, you know, did the BTIG report\n12 reduce its price target due to expansion\n13 delays?\n14 But I take it, you don't\n15 remember the full content of the article,\n16 as you sit here today, which I understand.\n17 A Thank you.\n18 Q I guess maybe I'll ask a\n19 different thing that you might remember,\n20 which is that -- did you analyze -- when\n21 you did review that report, did you\n22 analyze the financial model that BTIG used\n23 to set the price target?\n24 A So I would say for several\n25 reports, I -- I look at some of the models\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 347 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 640\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 and some of the assumptions to look at the\n3 estimates. With respect to this\n4 particular report, I'd have to go back to\n5 this report and look closer at the model\n6 to see what I was thinking at this point\n7 in time.\n8 Q Let me think if I have much --\n9 now, do you -- just as you sit here today,\n10 without having to point me to something\n11 specific, do you recall reviewing any\n12 analysts' reports?\n13 Any reports setting price\n14 targets for CleanSpark, where they were\n15 discussing the delays? The expansion\n16 delays in terms of setting their price\n17 targets?\n18 A Yeah. Apologies. Given how\n19 late it is in the day and how much\n20 information we've covered, my memory is\n21 not going to serve me well without having\n22 some additional documentation in front of\n23 me.\n24 That said, what I will say is,\n25 I -- I do believe there were reports that\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 348 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 641\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 indicated that there could be delays in\n3 terms of acquisition of materials. And I\n4 think, implicitly, there's discussion of\n5 delays because the hash rate achieved at\n6 that point in time was not what was\n7 expected by April 2021.\n8 So that's the best I can say, to\n9 my recollection at present, David.\n10 Q Okay. Now, I just have one --\n11 last two questions. You're familiar with\n12 the Freshworks case?\n13 A I'm sorry. Say again?\n14 Q You're familiar with the\n15 Freshworks case?\n16 A I am familiar with Freshworks.\n17 Yes.\n18 Q You were an expert in that case?\n19 A I -- I was retained as an expert\n20 in that case. Yes.\n21 Q Are you aware that, in that\n22 case, summary judgment was granted against\n23 your client? And that your opinion was\n24 heavily criticized for being too\n25 speculative?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 349 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 642\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 MR. LINKH: Object to form.\n3 THE WITNESS: I would disagree with\n4 that assessment. I don't believe that it\n5 was heavily criticized.\n6 I think that the judge had said that\n7 the analysis that counsel had requested of\n8 me, which was to look at the academic\n9 literature and take an academic\n10 perspective, and not -- I was explicitly\n11 not asked to do analysis.\n12 The judge said that the report\n13 submitted did not have sufficient detail\n14 in terms of the analysis that -- I -- I\n15 don't know if it was a he or she -- would\n16 appreciate. But I was following counsel's\n17 instructions in terms of what they\n18 requested of me.\n19 BY MR. PARTIDA:\n20 Q But the opinion says, \"Too\n21 speculative.\" Those words; correct?\n22 A I don't recall the exact\n23 verbiage.\n24 Q That's what the judge in that\n25 case stated?\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 350 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 643\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 A Yeah. I apologize. I don't\n3 recall the exact verbiage. I assume\n4 you're representing it as such.\n5 But the fact of the matter is, I\n6 was not asked to do detailed analysis. I\n7 was asked to provide an academic\n8 perspective in that case.\n9 Q Have you ever been excluded as\n10 an expert in any other case?\n11 A I have -- I have not.\n12 Q Did you form any opinions for\n13 this matter which are not included in your\n14 reports?\n15 A No.\n16 MR. PARTIDA: I have no further\n17 questions.\n18 MR. LINKH: I have no further\n19 questions.\n20 MR. PARTIDA: Thank you, everyone.\n21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.\n22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Is there a read or\n23 waive?\n24 THE REPORTER: Oh. I always include\n25 the read and sign. I think with federal,\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 351 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 644\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 it's defaulted.\n3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh. Okay.\n4 THE REPORTER: The errata comes like\n5 automatically in New York.\n6 MR. LINKH: Right.\n7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I will take us off\n8 the video record then.\n9 This is the end of media unit\n10 number 6. We are off the record at\n11 5:59 p.m. And this concludes today's\n12 testimony, given by Dr. Zahn Bozanic.\n13 (Off the record.)\n14 THE REPORTER: The time is now\n15 6:00 p.m. We are resuming the record.\n16 All right. So I'm sending the\n17 original to Counsel Partida.\n18 Counsel Linkh, will you be ordering a\n19 copy of today's transcript?\n20 MR. LINKH: I will be. Yes.\n21 THE REPORTER: Okay. And you said\n22 you wanted a rush. Is there an expected\n23 date you want it by?\n24 MR. LINKH: By Monday, if possible.\n25 THE REPORTER: Okay. And, Counsel\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 352 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 645\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 Partida, do you want yours rushed as well?\n3 Or do you want your normal delivery date?\n4 MR. PARTIDA: When would normal\n5 delivery be?\n6 THE REPORTER: Your normal delivery\n7 is November 13th; so --\n8 MR. PARTIDA: We'll go ahead and take\n9 rushed.\n10 THE REPORTER: So you want it on the\n11 3rd as well?\n12 MR. PARTIDA: Yes.\n13 THE REPORTER: Okay. The time is --\n14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Were there orders\n15 for the video at this time?\n16 MR. LINKH: At this time, I think we\n17 have a standard. I forget exactly what\n18 the standard is. But I would default to\n19 that.\n20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay.\n21 THE REPORTER: All right. The time\n22 is now 6:01 p.m. We are going off the\n23 record.\n24\n25 //\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 353 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 646\n\n1 Z. BOZANIC, PH.D.\n2 (Whereupon, at 6:01 p.m., the\n3 proceeding was concluded.)\n4\n5 __________________________________\n ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n6\n7\n8\n Subscribed and sworn to before me\n9\n10\n this ___ day of ___________, 2025.\n11\n12\n ____________________________________\n13 Notary public\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 354 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 647\n\n1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER\n2 I, LINDSEY DIEGO, the officer before whom the\n3 foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify that\n4 any witness(es) in the foregoing proceedings, prior to\n5 testifying, were duly sworn; that the proceedings were\n6 recorded by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by a\n7 qualified transcriptionist; that said digital audio\n8 recording of said proceedings are a true and accurate\n9 record to the best of my knowledge, skills, and ability;\n10 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by\n11 any of the parties to the action in which this was taken;\n12 and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any\n13 counsel or attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor\n14 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this\n15 action.\n16\n17\n18\n19\n <%25538,Signature%>\n20 LINDSEY DIEGO\n Notary Public in and for the\n21 State of New York\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 355 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 648\n\n1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER\n2 I, SHANNA NANCE, do hereby certify that this\n3 transcript was prepared from the digital audio recording of\n4 the foregoing proceeding, that said transcript is a true\n5 and accurate record of the proceedings to the best of my\n6 knowledge, skills, and ability; that I am neither counsel\n7 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the\n8 action in which this was taken; and, further, that I am not\n9 a relative or employee of any counsel or attorney employed\n10 by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise\n11 interested in the outcome of this action.\n12\n13\n14\n15 <%33723,Signature%>\n SHANNA NANCE\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\f Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 356 of 448\n\n\n\n\n Page 649\n\n1 ERRATA SHEET\n VERITEXT/NEW YORK REPORTING, LLC\n2\n CASE NAME: Hasthantra, Darshan v. Cleanspark, Inc. Et Al.\n3 DATE OF DEPOSITION: 10/30/2025\n WITNESSES\u2019 NAME: Zahn Bozanic , Ph.D.\n4\n5 PAGE LINE (S) CHANGE REASON\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n6\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n7\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n8\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n9\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n10\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n11\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n12\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n13\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n14\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n15\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n16\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n17\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n18\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n19\n ____|________|__________________________|________________________\n20\n21 ______________________________\n Zahn Bozanic , Ph.D.\n22 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME\n THIS ____ DAY OF ____________, 20__.\n23\n24\n _____________________ _______________________\n25 (NOTARY PUBLIC) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 357 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[& - 15] Page 1\n\n & 380:5 386:24 558:16,16 610:10\n & 296:4,12 387:17 388:14 104 615:7 126 551:9,18\n 398:10 389:3,9 417:15 616:2 12:11 405:11\n 420:3 429:4 105 626:16 12:40 404:17\n 0\n 445:14,23,25 109 393:21 12:48 405:14\n 0.05 406:21 446:2,3 466:12 394:2 401:11 12th 390:6,7\n 0.1 556:20 484:20,23 401:20 391:15 623:25\n 0.268 476:23 485:10,16 10:00 304:6 624:18\n 0.4. 424:3 486:25 487:18 10:20 295:13 13 387:22\n 0.9 637:9 488:5 489:6,10 300:3 389:3,9 391:5\n 00511 295:7 489:16 609:12 10b 373:7,15 13th 388:15\n 300:12 10.6 365:16,21 374:7,19 645:7\n 1 366:6,9 10th 376:15 14 391:6\n 1 300:5 355:3 10/30/2025 11.69 490:8,12 490:20 499:3\n 362:16 364:13 649:3 490:15 517:15 529:9\n 364:18,22 100 299:6 110 317:12 530:11 538:13\n 384:14,17,25 353:9 367:2,9 318:2,7,10,13 556:17\n 385:18 417:14 367:14,22 333:12 394:2 142 556:13,14\n 420:2 429:5 380:14 386:7 396:6,11,16 558:18\n 445:13 481:25 413:11 445:15 398:9 401:17 147 556:12\n 484:24 487:2,3 477:21 478:10 111 317:12 14th 517:12\n 487:14 556:23 10019 296:23 318:8,10 619:11,24\n 611:12,16 101 299:9 341:14 396:13 620:13\n 612:23 614:4 483:22 484:2 115 360:17 15 350:8\n 631:24 10169 296:6 11:17 362:17 355:15,18,23\n 1,000 445:18,19 102 299:13 11:25 362:8,9 356:18 359:2\n 1.4 637:9 520:5,7 362:12 361:3 386:24\n 1.96 490:13,16 103 299:19 11:28 362:21 387:18 388:17\n 1.96. 490:5 343:2,3 350:8 11:30 362:3,7 391:2 402:16\n 1/9/21 387:25 352:3,15,17 12 328:11 403:4 459:19\n 10 343:12 353:14 355:15 364:4,5,9 465:5,9 488:13\n 345:24 346:9 356:4 360:9,10 389:15 391:9 489:19 499:10\n 356:10 357:12 360:18,22 499:24 500:10 499:22 500:8\n 551:3,4 558:13 506:16 609:24 556:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 358 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[15.39 - 26.3.] Page 2\n\n 15.39 343:13 362:25 363:3,6 478:4 500:8 538:14\n 15th 493:13 363:10 2015 421:3 619:11 631:20\n 495:9 497:17 1925 296:13 2017 299:9 637:9,13 641:7\n 499:2 556:21 1:21 295:7 483:14 484:8 2025 295:12\n 619:11,24 300:12 611:12,17 298:10,19\n 620:14 1:26 441:18 612:23 614:4 300:4 304:6\n 16 390:24 1:31 507:4 2018 549:11 306:17,19,22\n 391:10 398:10 1:33 506:22,25 611:13,17 316:9 328:11\n 458:20 459:2,8 1:34 441:22 612:24 614:5 430:5 458:25\n 468:22 469:2 1st 630:9,22 2020 299:13 471:8 609:12\n 471:4 472:23 632:17 634:3,7 343:12 345:24 646:10\n 472:25 475:9 634:8,15,23 346:9 356:11 205 346:21\n 476:18,21 1x6 354:23 357:12 375:5 348:25 355:25\n 16th 637:7,14 2 375:24 376:4 357:10\n 17 375:6 376:5 377:18 378:2 20th 631:21\n 2 306:17\n 377:19 378:2 378:17 380:5 21 631:13\n 337:14,18,23\n 378:18 626:11 388:14 487:18 2100 296:13\n 337:24 362:20\n 17,500 398:14 489:6,10,16 212 296:8,25\n 441:17 485:4\n 400:15 499:24 500:10 22 606:24\n 486:14 490:19\n 179 357:23 506:16 516:23 23 345:25\n 551:17 558:19\n 17th 339:22,25 557:21 492:3 493:7\n 558:20 626:24\n 379:2 625:3,13 2021 299:6 230 296:5\n 2.85 509:11\n 626:7 372:18 375:6 25 469:6\n 20 445:14\n 18 298:19 376:6 377:19 25538 647:19\n 572:10 649:22\n 306:19 420:21 378:2,18 26 352:19\n 2003 547:23\n 430:5 479:9,17 387:22 389:3,9 473:10\n 549:7\n 480:3 389:9,16 26.3 345:25\n 2006 546:24\n 18.84 612:7,20 390:24 391:9 349:2 350:5\n 201-9150\n 186 349:21 391:10 398:10 351:13 355:20\n 296:16\n 350:8,14 351:3 402:16 403:4 356:12 357:13\n 2010 298:20\n 351:20 352:9 477:5,10 358:6 359:5\n 469:4\n 352:16,17,20 479:17 480:4 360:24\n 2013 298:11\n 187 349:13,25 482:5,19 26.3. 356:15\n 299:3 473:9\n 351:10 358:12 490:20 499:22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 359 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[261 - 5:56] Page 3\n\n 261 478:17 33723 648:15 568:10 428:19 431:4\n 26th 352:5 35 388:18 43 544:23 431:17 432:7\n 28 390:2,20 389:25,25 430 298:19 432:13,24\n 29 376:4 484:21 485:15 44 491:7,8,10 433:21,23\n 492:12 623:5 485:20 45 542:16,20 434:20,22\n 2900 296:22 353 484:14,16 543:3 435:11,12,14\n 2:32 492:21 485:11,13,20 46 588:8 437:18 438:10\n 2:37 492:18 355 485:23 596:13 597:7 439:15 442:5,7\n 2:39 492:25 36 544:8,17 597:12,14,19 443:7,19,20,23\n 2:57 507:11,21 363 298:16 606:17 447:12,16\n 2nd 482:24 39 388:6 47 405:23 448:18,20\n 3 3:02 507:11 573:12,21,24 450:9,15\n 3:04 507:21 574:5 451:15,16,17\n 3 441:21 482:5\n 3:42 550:18 470 298:25 451:23,24\n 482:18 483:8\n 3:45 550:3 474 299:5 452:23,25\n 492:20\n 3:47 550:12,13 477 299:8 456:19,24\n 3.70 343:13\n 3:53 550:22 484 299:12 468:19 588:12\n 3/1 483:4\n 3rd 482:23 49 393:21 597:22 598:15\n 3/2 483:5\n 645:11 4:07 563:20 50th 457:21\n 30 295:12\n 4 4:31 563:23 51 432:13\n 300:4 304:6\n 5 52 393:22\n 404:13,14,16 4 330:8 431:10\n 501:19 502:4\n 404:25 405:3 431:19,25 5 343:22 373:7\n 508:24 510:25\n 30,000 398:13 432:22 440:22 373:15 374:7\n 511:18 627:3\n 400:15 492:24 550:17 374:19 406:20\n 520 299:18\n 303 298:3,7 627:2 406:21 417:15\n 538 296:5\n 30s 388:3,12 40 386:25 420:2 550:21\n 551 299:19\n 31 528:7,9,11 388:6,18 611:13,17\n 57 432:2\n 528:13 423:23 449:11 612:23 614:5\n 58 385:2\n 310 296:16 449:13 450:11 623:9\n 481:25\n 315 298:10 454:14 544:8 50 398:8\n 5:28 623:10\n 32317 295:15 544:17 546:21 415:10,12\n 5:40 623:14\n 302:8,13 41 564:6,21 426:20 427:6\n 5:56 508:9,10\n 565:3 567:3 427:23 428:7\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 360 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[5:57 - 99] Page 4\n\n 5:57 512:9,21 7 9 94 298:7\n 513:15,22 7.5 627:14 9 298:10 303:17,18\n 514:14,17 70th 457:20 306:22 316:9 95 298:8\n 5:59 644:11 71 355:24 343:24 375:5 315:14,15\n 5th 486:25 622:7 375:23 376:16 316:7 341:2,3\n 630:9,23 71.7 343:23 377:18,25 349:11 363:2\n 632:18,20,24 344:15 345:10 378:17 458:25 385:13,17\n 633:5 634:20 357:5 9.39 343:23 406:19 420:18\n 6 73 636:18,24 90 326:19 429:4,9 439:24\n 637:3 328:6 330:4 458:19,24\n 6 330:9,13,16\n 759 365:6,7 337:11 342:25 461:14,23\n 330:20 331:12\n 76 629:9,23 349:20 384:12 466:23 472:18\n 336:22 337:16\n 630:8,21 384:18,20 472:25 489:7\n 338:10 354:16\n 631:18 634:2 385:12 393:19 492:2,12,13\n 355:3 623:13\n 78 479:12,14 405:21 415:5,5 493:6 501:18\n 644:10\n 7th 482:24 415:7 417:5 528:9,11,12\n 60 423:18,24\n 419:24 439:25 542:21 564:5\n 635:21 636:6 8\n 455:13 460:19 573:25\n 67.23 482:19 8 354:14,25\n 461:5 463:7 96 298:11\n 68 502:6 556:23 627:2\n 464:8 468:4,11 363:18,21\n 682-5340 296:8 820 637:18\n 469:11 473:14 97 298:17\n 69 429:7 825 296:22\n 474:9 476:24 384:5,6 385:21\n 430:21 437:7 83 584:23\n 481:19 487:10 385:23 430:3,6\n 437:15 438:6 88 364:14,23\n 488:7 489:11 479:8 615:13\n 444:15 556:11 608:11 615:24\n 519:17 551:17 615:15,17\n 6:00 644:15 615:25\n 551:17,18 98 298:20\n 6:01 645:22 89 419:21,21,25\n 90.00 488:17 470:10,12\n 646:2 450:2 455:16\n 90067 296:14 474:9 615:13\n 6:10 512:9,21 455:23 488:20\n 90th 419:3 981-2300\n 513:15,22 89.63 488:16\n 421:25 296:25\n 6:12 508:9 89.9 419:7\n 93 505:15 99 299:3\n 6b 339:9 89th 419:20\n 506:12 337:22 385:2\n 422:2 457:19 439:16,24\n 474:15,16,19\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 361 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[99 - acquisition] Page 5\n\n 475:5 478:5,6 413:23 423:16 427:19,24 364:20 371:21\n 99.3 432:2 423:19,22,25 429:3 456:15 391:16 401:4\n 9th 341:5 447:16 482:10 459:9,14 448:25 482:16\n 376:14 379:2 482:18 487:18 461:17 465:11 552:18,20\n a 488:13 489:5,9 466:17,25 555:23 613:11\n 489:15,18 467:23,25 647:8 648:5\n a.m. 295:13\n 490:4 468:8,16 accurately\n 300:3 304:6\n above 484:22 486:22 495:25 401:6\n 362:17,21\n 485:23,24 496:3,10 497:4 accustomed\n abandon\n 627:3 497:21 498:20 340:10\n 382:18,20\n absence 416:13 534:21 535:15 achieve 503:16\n 383:9,19,24\n 416:14 422:3 536:13 537:9 503:17\n abandoned\n 497:11 537:23 544:7 achieved\n 383:18\n absent 301:10 545:22 549:10 368:20 641:5\n abilities 379:14\n 343:10 346:18 571:2 605:10 acquire 515:14\n ability 381:12\n 357:3,23 433:7 605:22 642:8,9 516:24 521:12\n 447:7 449:7\n 561:15 643:7 521:18,24,25\n 502:12 509:4\n absolute academics 530:19\n 510:19 516:17\n 455:25 488:21 419:25 455:10 acquired\n 521:12,23\n absolutely 546:7 547:21 380:12 508:17\n 552:16 647:9\n 319:9 325:12 accept 458:14 acquires\n 648:6\n 348:18 369:5 access 495:13 524:20\n able 321:4\n 388:22 395:7 497:9 566:2 acquiring\n 389:17 408:19\n 395:18 430:15 567:6,11 298:15 364:8\n 416:6 425:7,25\n 438:15 513:24 568:13 520:25 522:20\n 448:18 452:14\n 560:25 accommodate 523:11 525:9\n 456:12 465:22\n abstract 364:7 307:20 525:15 529:23\n 497:6 529:21\n academia accounting 530:9 531:19\n 529:22\n 427:13,15 417:11 acquisition\n abnormal\n 461:22 487:23 accumulation 344:9 345:9,12\n 365:15 366:5\n 488:11 527:19 345:19 346:6\n 406:13,15,24\n academic accurate 346:12,13,17\n 407:10 411:14\n 358:14 417:2,9 329:14 350:9 357:6 358:17\n 411:21 413:18\n 417:10 426:25 350:10 351:17 359:13,13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 362 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[acquisition - ahead] Page 6\n\n 363:14,16 505:19 508:17 affect 624:12 422:16 434:2\n 364:5,10 567:17,20 affiliated 482:4,9,13,17\n 380:19 399:16 594:2 628:19 302:10 515:6 517:11\n 502:9 503:2 636:8 affiliations 517:14 543:11\n 508:7 518:2 add 354:5 300:18 543:14 575:5\n 521:21 526:3,4 added 353:15 affirm 513:18 575:11 594:20\n 529:20 532:14 addition affirmative 598:12 631:23\n 577:12,13 578:10 601:2 314:13 634:12\n 579:8 628:7 601:12 affirming agreed 394:25\n 637:20 641:3 additional 616:17 617:22 agreement\n act 530:21 353:16 388:9 aftermarket 503:6 509:24\n acting 528:24 464:20,21 483:4 510:15 517:10\n 529:7 555:5 559:4 agency 357:20 518:9 571:2,16\n action 558:17 640:22 aggregate 599:11 605:10\n 647:11,15 additionally 409:6 605:22\n 648:8,11 301:10 ago 572:10 ah 351:24\n activities 378:9 address 302:7 577:8,17,21 376:18 377:11\n 617:9 302:10 321:11 595:23 390:8 519:15\n activity 616:19 321:11 agree 301:13 562:22 628:22\n actual 305:8 adequately 345:23 348:25 ahead 307:23\n 316:12 505:19 344:8 345:8 359:8 364:3 308:14 314:8,8\n 538:18 552:6 adhere 461:24 366:24 367:7 315:13,19\n 556:8 568:2,22 adjacent 367:11,16 324:24 325:13\n 586:17,21,23 463:15 368:4,8,25 331:12,13\n 587:14 631:8 adjective 369:11 371:8 367:6 384:8\n 637:16 370:17 382:10 372:16 379:19 420:17,19,20\n actually 301:9 adjectives 380:3,23 458:16 472:19\n 340:10 349:8 381:4 382:3 381:15 382:12 474:2 476:7\n 368:11 384:7,9 admit 378:5 383:4 388:13 483:19 504:21\n 390:14 406:15 admitted 462:4 388:20,23 510:21 511:24\n 407:10 410:10 advantage 389:2,8 391:8 537:7 542:19\n 419:5 422:13 390:14 402:7 407:3 563:15 564:19\n 478:3,15 advice 561:23 417:23 418:7 622:16,18\n 483:18 504:23 421:13,16 636:6 645:8\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 363 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[al - anecdote] Page 7\n\n al 295:4,7 629:16 amounts 562:25 564:10\n 300:9 363:11 alleges 344:12 375:13 565:6,12,24\n 496:5 535:16 588:10 ample 460:12 566:6,9,19,23\n 549:17 649:2 alleging 629:21 amply 339:19 567:6 568:3\n alejandro allow 450:16 analyses 569:3 570:17\n 297:3 456:25 497:9 314:13 581:8,8,10,25\n align 582:23 allows 359:17 analysis 314:12 582:12,14\n 631:15,25 allude 516:6 320:12,19 584:4,12 585:5\n 633:5 634:20 alluded 535:6 321:6 323:17 585:10,24,25\n 635:13 573:2 323:21 329:13 586:11,12,19\n aligning 583:6 alluding 314:9 346:12 363:13 586:25 587:6,8\n 583:21 517:22 554:14 377:6 442:25 601:19 624:7\n allegation aloud 319:9 470:3 498:14 640:12\n 616:16 altered 439:9 530:7 569:8,12 analyze 494:14\n allegations alternate 569:21 570:2 494:17 495:8\n 357:22 367:23 393:12 461:8 570:12,24 495:16 521:13\n 527:9,21 464:16 466:25 580:20,25 521:25 540:21\n 531:14 561:16 alternative 582:4 600:23 639:20,22\n 569:14 574:22 309:16 310:22 601:9 602:2,9 analyzed\n 584:16 603:16 311:7 313:18 602:19 603:8,9 460:17 461:2\n 607:18 314:11 406:9 603:25 606:6 462:12 463:4\n allege 618:6 406:23 409:12 606:11 607:12 463:24 496:22\n alleged 311:9 410:2 411:12 611:6 614:13 529:8 546:18\n 313:20 317:15 411:19 412:12 642:7,11,14 546:19\n 318:16 319:19 alternatives 643:6 analyzing\n 338:14 339:6 314:25 analyst 377:2 409:21 432:5\n 339:17,24 amended 485:2 524:18 520:25 523:12\n 342:17 343:10 299:19 551:20 565:8 577:20 525:9 530:9\n 346:18 357:3 558:17 585:9,22 531:19 546:9\n 357:23 479:17 amount 366:24 analysts 369:23 andrew 297:5\n 480:4,11 481:6 367:8 368:2,8 394:9,17 395:2 300:13 440:25\n 482:5,8 624:2 368:20 369:2 395:6,12 398:5 623:2\n 624:19 625:4 527:14 530:23 401:25 561:25 anecdote\n 625:14 626:8 562:11,17,24 594:23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 364 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[anew - appreciated] Page 8\n\n anew 492:6 348:11,16 anticipate 387:18 410:7\n angeles 296:14 360:8,25 361:2 347:15 413:6 434:9\n animated 361:6 368:3 anticipated 440:3 443:3\n 514:10 395:4 398:25 399:16 453:16 607:5\n announced 420:8 422:14 apologies 607:16\n 380:5 473:13 426:13 427:11 385:14 386:3 appendix\n 558:25 625:13 427:17,21 390:12 640:18 384:22 467:10\n 626:7 433:20 452:20 apologize applicable\n announcement 457:12 509:6 321:24 326:25 301:17\n 345:12 346:13 512:2,16 513:7 347:11 348:3 application\n 346:17 357:6 513:11 514:21 355:12 385:6 383:14\n 376:17 380:10 515:4 532:4 390:11 420:10 applied 393:16\n 380:19 517:9 564:16 576:8 435:6 447:7 568:3\n 577:14 612:8 588:3 591:18 471:23 519:21 applying\n 612:19 637:20 592:3 601:23 547:20 562:13 393:15\n announcements 602:3 625:7 625:20 633:7 appointed\n 364:10 621:16 635:16 634:17 637:25 590:8\n 633:12 answered 638:9 643:2 appreciate\n announces 323:18 442:10 apparently 308:13,15\n 559:13 560:22 444:8 447:6 592:9 314:4 316:22\n announcing 452:7 454:25 appear 379:15 321:21 324:21\n 516:23 463:9 531:23 380:8 388:25 324:25 326:4\n answer 305:7,7 575:20 601:24 391:2 407:17 329:24 332:4\n 305:12,24 answering 409:20 411:9 333:2 386:8\n 306:2 308:13 325:3 426:14 412:25 449:23 404:8 414:24\n 308:15 310:13 answers 305:2 478:15 489:2 420:12,15\n 311:12 313:13 305:5 321:16 527:2 426:12 458:10\n 314:16 315:11 347:15 379:17 appearance 473:25 476:3\n 319:14 321:12 426:13 471:18 300:18 544:4 628:16\n 321:21 322:7 ante 322:16 appearing 635:3,15,16\n 323:6 324:14 324:2,15 300:23 642:16\n 324:17,22 523:10 524:15 appears 316:19 appreciated\n 326:4 334:21 525:8 342:10 350:10 492:9 622:15\n 337:5 347:2,19 352:23 353:11\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 365 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[approach - assessing] Page 9\n\n approach argument 391:20 392:5 336:23 350:23\n 373:8 374:2,4 363:9 428:16 393:2 490:7,10 371:10 375:18\n 381:11 535:14 498:13 ascertain 377:20,23\n 617:19 arguments 390:10 391:4 433:19 435:25\n approached 330:8 400:4 410:4 453:19 460:23\n 324:2 arrival 416:8 422:8 514:23 473:22 474:3\n approaches 433:7 440:7,9 570:15 476:17 499:7\n 391:25 arrived 412:19 ascribe 574:10 518:20 523:19\n appropriate 433:15 446:17 asia 572:8 525:5 534:12\n 374:7,13,18 446:25 450:7 aside 306:11 547:16 587:16\n 393:6 451:5 374:17 381:4 593:3,4 594:3\n appropriately arriving 416:14 393:2 593:22 603:7 610:16\n 340:21 425:10,12,14 asked 307:23 625:22,24\n approximate 431:14 436:12 308:13 309:24 630:20 633:11\n 389:20 436:17 443:14 310:6 312:19 asleep 589:5\n approximately art 535:18 314:19 323:6 assert 416:6\n 346:21 349:4 article 363:11 325:10,20 425:7\n 357:10 387:14 363:12 468:2,9 327:12 335:7 asserted 408:7\n 387:20,23 468:17 471:3 336:18 342:22 asserting\n 389:14 390:18 478:15 547:24 346:11 424:17 486:15\n 390:19,25 549:10 635:22 426:6 438:4 assertion 360:5\n 398:13 400:14 636:9,12,16,23 444:5 452:5 394:8,16\n 460:3 639:15 472:13 475:21 assess 372:2\n april 611:13,16 articles 459:10 501:25 511:17 422:7 426:22\n 611:17 612:23 459:14,16,21 513:13 542:18 427:8 428:8\n 614:5 637:9,13 466:4,8 468:24 542:22 548:8 446:5 453:7\n 641:7 469:16,18 601:25 606:23 469:24 480:9\n area 536:25 artificial 622:17 633:2 481:5 486:6\n 537:24 342:16 350:4 634:18 642:11 527:10 539:20\n areas 531:11 351:12 355:19 643:6,7 540:15 603:14\n 536:14,23 357:16 358:5,8 asking 309:4,5 assessing\n 537:10,11 359:4 360:23 310:14,16 374:25 465:10\n arguing 521:6 379:6 387:9 312:5 318:11 618:3\n 389:4,10 334:4,10,13,23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 366 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[assessment - automatically] Page 10\n\n assessment 391:14 401:3,6 585:2 586:2 624:2,18 625:4\n 339:2 414:6 406:14,16 587:2 603:18 625:13 626:7\n 642:4 482:15 592:20 603:24 624:3,7 attribute 477:3\n assigned 490:4 639:7 624:19 625:5 477:8\n associate assumption 625:10,15 audio 647:7\n 434:14 322:21 324:3 626:9 628:7 648:3\n associated 329:6 335:18 637:19 auditor 587:19\n 413:7 434:10 359:15,18 attached 588:20 596:3\n 440:15 450:6 424:23 525:17 600:15 601:12\n 497:8 523:4,6 assumptions attempt 326:4 augmented\n 540:17 570:20 346:5 398:12 329:7 606:13 543:23\n 588:16 590:20 400:14 434:9 attempted august 339:22\n 592:7 598:2,18 640:2 380:8 339:25 375:6\n 603:12 asterisk 487:6 attempting 376:5 377:19\n association asterisks 470:8 308:10 618:5 378:2,18 379:2\n 433:6,9 486:23 attention 390:24 391:10\n assume 319:4 atl 344:9 345:9 323:10 343:2 508:16 611:12\n 320:3 322:2,17 345:12,23 365:12 384:14 611:16 612:23\n 322:23 324:9 346:8,18 350:6 385:16 393:20 614:4 625:3,13\n 324:15 329:12 351:14 356:10 396:3 401:10 626:7,11 630:9\n 398:12 424:2 357:7,11 430:22 458:20 630:23 632:18\n 427:12 449:10 358:16 359:12 484:14 495:25 632:20,24\n 455:15 471:10 380:10,18 508:9 509:10 633:5 634:20\n 480:19 589:3 395:16 399:16 539:21 548:20 637:7,14\n 643:3 490:22 502:9 548:22 556:11 auslander\n assumed 322:3 502:24 506:17 561:14 597:17 296:21 300:23\n 322:5,6,11,25 507:5,13,22 attest 302:23 author 478:3,7\n 326:2 329:15 508:13 517:16 attorney 521:9\n 335:19 531:3 526:12,21 300:20 647:13 authored\n assumes 323:11 533:2,18 648:9 483:15\n assuming 321:3 557:21 558:2,9 attractions authors 520:3\n 322:13 323:22 573:9 577:11 299:4 475:6 automatically\n 344:4 358:7 578:10,11,13 attributable 644:5\n 359:9,23 579:9,9 584:19 311:9 313:20\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 367 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[available - bear] Page 11\n\n available 349:10,20 535:6 548:2 498:9\n 392:11 526:13 360:13 361:12 550:12,24 basically\n 526:22 362:2,6,6,23,24 554:15 556:6 364:16 584:18\n avenue 296:5 365:22 373:23 563:12,17,22 basics 409:14\n 296:22 375:13 376:7 563:25 564:3 basis 359:12\n average 365:15 378:22 382:9 564:17 565:18 379:12 395:13\n 365:20 366:5,8 384:10,12 568:9 574:14 397:19 436:10\n 366:13,19,20 393:18 397:11 583:3 584:15 437:24 439:10\n 408:15 404:16 405:13 585:16 586:10 443:6 444:10\n averages 405:16,19 589:21,22 453:15 456:22\n 373:24 412:22 413:4 594:22 597:6 457:16,17,22\n aware 370:25 418:20 419:14 597:11,17 457:24 460:15\n 374:3 392:16 421:23 426:17 604:11 610:24 460:24 461:6\n 465:13 495:6 428:15 429:3 614:11 615:8 464:9,10 489:2\n 532:16 533:17 432:8 433:5 627:6 631:12 497:16,22\n 533:23 600:14 434:6 441:9,24 631:17 632:25 502:3,7 504:3\n 600:16 609:5 442:20 448:5 638:23 640:4 504:4 509:23\n 641:21 454:25 455:6 background 517:19 524:10\n awfully 367:5 455:20 457:9 376:20 474:10 525:15 527:5\n 522:13 457:14 458:18 498:7 529:23 544:5\n awkward 465:8,9 475:8 baker 297:5 574:21 588:18\n 414:15 476:10 477:25 300:13 623:5 590:13,25\n axel 565:5 479:8 480:12 bare 309:22 604:6 607:25\n axelson 565:11 480:17 487:9 312:12 608:6 613:10\n b 487:14,20,22 barely 550:6 617:3,13 618:7\n 488:23 490:24 based 328:24 625:9,21\n b 298:5 299:1\n 492:15 493:3,6 350:5 351:13 bear 315:20\n 338:22\n 501:17 504:3 387:10 389:5 384:6 429:25\n back 314:15\n 506:21 508:16 389:11 398:17 440:24 450:21\n 321:20 326:18\n 511:13 512:25 451:21 487:17 455:3 456:13\n 329:22 331:22\n 513:17,20 489:14 490:2 469:14 488:2\n 333:11 335:17\n 514:15,17,20 497:18 603:25 519:7,20 520:4\n 341:2,11,15\n 515:2,15 basic 383:5 526:6 527:9\n 342:24 349:6\n 519:21 524:2 409:22 428:6 528:2 549:19\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 368 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[bear - bozanic] Page 12\n\n 574:17 552:20 553:22 beyond 315:3 628:4,10\n bearing 524:10 556:13 564:5,8 380:4,18 499:3 bitcoins 395:23\n 527:5 564:16 581:23 499:11 503:20 397:17\n beat 472:9 590:11 607:17 509:25 black 386:17\n beginning 610:7 617:6 bias 566:10 387:5\n 300:19 362:20 640:25 642:4 big 441:9 blankespoor\n 375:22 420:24 benchmark 581:18 585:11 299:13 496:5\n 441:21 492:24 366:14 583:17 638:20 520:3 535:16\n 550:21 623:13 beneath 487:5 biggest 508:19 block 551:23\n begins 552:10 beneficially bit 331:18 552:4\n 552:15 607:2 588:13 597:22 374:14 375:17 blue 386:14\n 632:17 634:15 598:15 375:18 390:13 bluechip\n behalf 296:2,10 benefit 304:16 412:6 416:24 588:12,14\n 296:18 300:24 319:12 338:2 419:17 423:13 589:11 597:9\n behavior 349:3 374:24 428:6 436:19 597:21,24\n 333:24 388:9 397:21 446:9 512:4 598:8,23\n belabor 323:5 438:17 480:21 537:2 563:13 599:14,17,20\n belief 529:20 481:12 486:10 622:4 600:5,15,17\n 552:16 493:16 499:12 bitcoin 368:12 601:2,12\n beliefs 567:10 518:4 529:7,16 368:15,16 boards 590:9\n believe 304:2 533:6 611:3 369:4,7,12,20 borne 521:17\n 324:9 356:12 636:15 638:2 371:16 379:21 524:9 526:5\n 357:25 365:4 benefits 528:24 380:18,25 530:14 532:13\n 392:18 400:5 best 305:2,3,6,8 381:8,17,22 borrowing\n 427:2 463:11 361:20 404:20 382:6,14 383:3 469:9\n 468:13 482:7 447:7,9 449:7 394:10,18 bottom 365:13\n 482:25 483:12 466:4 552:16 395:6,18 398:8 485:20\n 490:17 495:13 591:2 641:8 396:21 398:11 bozanic 295:10\n 501:10 502:19 647:9 648:5 400:14,21,22 299:9 300:1,6\n 517:3 518:7 better 378:20 403:6,7,10,12 301:1,23,25\n 531:22 536:4 412:7 431:4 508:19 516:17 302:1,4,8,12,12\n 546:17,19 432:7 437:18 581:16 582:2 302:17 303:1,9\n 547:9,14 549:4 438:10 439:14 626:19 627:4 304:1 305:1\n 549:7 550:25 509:20 627:12,24 306:1 307:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 369 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[bozanic - bozanic] Page 13\n\n 308:1 309:1 375:1 376:1 442:1,3 443:1 510:1 511:1\n 310:1 311:1 377:1 378:1 444:1 445:1 512:1 513:1\n 312:1 313:1 379:1 380:1 446:1 447:1 514:1,6 515:1\n 314:1 315:1 381:1 382:1 448:1 449:1 516:1 517:1\n 316:1 317:1,8 383:1 384:1 450:1 451:1 518:1 519:1\n 318:1 319:1 385:1 386:1 452:1 453:1 520:1 521:1\n 320:1 321:1 387:1 388:1 454:1 455:1 522:1 523:1\n 322:1 323:1 389:1 390:1 456:1 457:1 524:1 525:1\n 324:1 325:1 391:1 392:1 458:1 459:1 526:1 527:1\n 326:1,23 327:1 393:1 394:1 460:1 461:1 528:1 529:1\n 327:18 328:1 395:1 396:1 462:1 463:1 530:1 531:1\n 329:1 330:1 397:1 398:1 464:1 465:1 532:1 533:1\n 331:1 332:1 399:1 400:1 466:1 467:1 534:1 535:1\n 333:1 334:1 401:1 402:1 468:1 469:1,19 536:1 537:1\n 335:1,21 336:1 403:1 404:1,24 470:1 471:1 538:1 539:1\n 337:1 338:1,12 405:1,20 406:1 472:1 473:1 540:1 541:1\n 339:1 340:1 407:1 408:1 474:1 475:1 542:1 543:1\n 341:1 342:1 409:1 410:1 476:1 477:1 544:1 545:1\n 343:1 344:1 411:1 412:1 478:1 479:1 546:1 547:1\n 345:1 346:1 413:1 414:1 480:1 481:1 548:1 549:1\n 347:1 348:1 415:1 416:1 482:1 483:1 550:1,24 551:1\n 349:1 350:1 417:1 418:1 484:1 485:1 552:1 553:1\n 351:1 352:1 419:1 420:1 486:1 487:1 554:1 555:1\n 353:1 354:1 421:1 422:1 488:1 489:1 556:1 557:1\n 355:1 356:1 423:1 424:1 490:1 491:1 558:1 559:1\n 357:1,14 358:1 425:1 426:1 492:1 493:1,5 560:1 561:1\n 359:1 360:1 427:1 428:1 494:1 495:1 562:1 563:1\n 361:1 362:1,24 429:1 430:1,4 496:1 497:1 564:1 565:1\n 363:1 364:1 430:11 431:1 498:1 499:1 566:1 567:1\n 365:1 366:1 432:1 433:1 500:1 501:1 568:1 569:1\n 367:1 368:1 434:1 435:1 502:1 503:1 570:1 571:1\n 369:1 370:1 436:1 437:1 504:1 505:1 572:1 573:1\n 371:1 372:1 438:1 439:1 506:1 507:1 574:1 575:1\n 373:1 374:1 440:1 441:1 508:1 509:1 576:1 577:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 370 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[bozanic - butcher] Page 14\n\n 578:1 579:1 646:1,5 649:3 bright 419:13 bulk 583:19\n 580:1 581:1 649:21 419:24 421:24 bullet 469:5\n 582:1 583:1 bozanic's 298:8 455:10 456:10 472:18 473:5\n 584:1 585:1 298:17 343:9 461:13 488:10 477:25 557:4,8\n 586:1 587:1 357:2 384:20 bring 456:13 bullets 339:8\n 588:1 589:1 bracket 436:19 495:24 499:5 340:15 556:23\n 590:1 591:1 513:10 530:4 577:17 bump 519:4\n 592:1 593:1 bracketed bringing bunch 557:18\n 594:1 595:1 438:18 419:12 420:7 burden 308:6\n 596:1 597:1 bracketing 450:21 453:6 308:18,23\n 598:1 599:1 366:18 455:3 488:2 309:8,10,15,19\n 600:1 601:1 bradford 527:20 549:18 309:23 310:5\n 602:1 603:1 296:19 301:2 brings 307:15 310:21 311:6\n 604:1 605:1 490:21 587:18 578:10 311:19,22\n 606:1 607:1 588:10,13,17 broad 334:23 312:8,16,19\n 608:1 609:1 588:19 589:4 335:7 340:11 313:2,7,17\n 610:1 611:1 592:8,9,13 340:18 576:10 314:17 315:2\n 612:1 613:1 596:2 597:8,23 605:25 320:21 335:15\n 614:1 615:1 598:3,8,19,24 broader 374:15 341:13,18,19\n 616:1 617:1 600:14,25 499:19 515:24 342:6,8\n 618:1 619:1 601:11 535:8 burdens 312:14\n 620:1 621:1 bradford's broadly 549:24 business 375:4\n 622:1 623:1,17 589:11 brought 493:13 375:6,20,21\n 624:1 625:1 brav 420:25 494:2 527:8,8 376:2,3,5,12\n 626:1 627:1 421:3 423:9 528:2 531:12 377:2,17,19,25\n 628:1 629:1 break 307:14 531:13 539:21 378:6,7,12\n 630:1 631:1 307:17,17 574:17 591:3 381:24 382:4\n 632:1 633:1 333:21 361:15 btig 402:8,16 567:12 589:18\n 634:1 635:1 361:17 403:23 403:4 637:2 businesses\n 636:1 637:1 404:2,12 638:22 639:11 357:19 381:24\n 638:1 639:1 405:17 441:10 639:22 593:22\n 640:1 641:1 452:6,7 492:8 build 595:2 butcher 547:20\n 642:1 643:1 550:3 587:5 building\n 644:1,12 645:1 622:14,19 589:22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 371 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[c - certainty] Page 15\n\n c 536:18 548:4 608:7 641:12 causing 339:18\n c 296:1 297:1 599:16 601:2 641:15,18,20 562:14 563:12\n 338:22 339:15 624:10 637:16 641:22 642:25 caveat 368:3\n ca 296:14 capital 552:11 643:8,10 649:2 632:6\n calculate 553:23 cases 373:7,10 cell 307:9 490:3\n 406:11 capitalization 373:16,23,25 centers 507:5\n calculation 346:20 357:9 374:8,19 507:13,23\n 541:10,13 capped 350:5 cash 573:16 558:9\n calculations 351:12 355:19 catch 485:8 cents 364:4,5,9\n 346:3,4 347:4 358:5 359:5 573:19 364:14,23\n 356:14 360:23 catching 509:11\n calculator career 459:17 635:23 century 296:13\n 349:4 careful 354:2 causal 442:12 ceo 490:21\n calendar 631:8 carries 622:4 causation 591:6,9,21\n calendars case 295:6 308:7,10,18 592:15,17\n 633:20 300:11 309:8 309:9 319:5 594:6,8 595:12\n call 527:13 310:18 312:25 320:4 322:2,6 595:15,25\n 560:14 320:7,12,23,25 322:11,13,21 601:3,13\n called 302:18 323:20,22 323:14,23 ceos 590:7\n 628:3 324:3 335:15 324:4,5,10,15 cert 609:11\n calling 308:20 339:22 341:13 326:2 329:3,7 610:2\n cannabis 341:20 342:12 330:6,17 certain 305:10\n 587:19 588:20 367:20 368:17 338:18 342:4,7 305:14 308:25\n 596:3 374:11,12,17 cause 331:23 314:12 337:7\n cap 358:10 374:22 375:2 356:9 434:2 406:13 410:6\n 359:11 375:11 397:23 408:14 485:9 587:25 479:3 485:9\n 378:24 429:23 463:2 599:4 606:7 572:17 583:11\n capacities 486:7 505:3 caused 317:16 583:15 595:5\n 600:25 510:7 517:14 318:16 319:20 certainly\n capacity 537:16,19 338:14,15 361:25 401:14\n 305:11 312:24 538:5,8 572:20 339:6,20,24 486:13 550:11\n 314:18 315:3 574:25 576:23 342:17 431:2 certainty\n 379:22 399:15 592:24 593:6 437:16 438:8 380:11 621:22\n 594:24 595:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 372 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[certificate - claims] Page 16\n\n certificate changes 311:8 chosen 398:24 cited 350:24\n 647:1 648:1 313:19 394:11 chris 296:11 351:22 352:9\n certification 394:19 395:11 301:5 316:25 353:22 355:8\n 609:2 402:9 626:18 circulate 505:7 464:11 465:23\n certified 627:16 518:22 466:6,8 467:8\n 301:13 changing circulated 469:18 471:3\n certify 647:3 398:19,21 430:3 470:10 478:14 496:4\n 648:2 400:16,21 circumstances 496:10 500:21\n cfallon 296:15 626:15 320:16 374:12 534:23 536:4\n cfos 590:7 channel 532:17 374:22 571:19 544:7 545:5,23\n chain 326:15 533:11,12 574:15 583:11 546:13 548:6\n chairman channels 583:16 592:24 555:14 597:20\n 593:17 494:14,18 citation 353:16 citing 351:5\n challenged 495:19 496:16 471:25 472:3 355:22,24\n 608:20 charges 588:16 476:6,8 547:6 522:24 545:11\n chance 349:17 589:16 590:19 citations cl 485:5\n 406:3,14 592:7 598:2,17 472:16 475:17 claim 358:8,15\n 408:12,14,17 598:22 475:19 478:19 381:21 467:4\n 409:2 428:13 chart 371:18 478:24 510:4 515:11\n 432:17 443:11 check 316:3 cite 350:7 540:4,4 588:24\n 446:11,19 353:6,7 614:12 351:15 353:6 588:25 589:20\n 449:18 450:25 checked 472:13 353:13 363:10 607:15 608:5\n 471:15,17 checking 398:24 459:9 claimed 516:17\n 488:25 489:4 440:25 547:3 466:10 467:13 claiming\n 608:13 checks 456:5 469:5,7 472:13 503:25\n chances 412:23 cheng 549:17 473:8 475:18 claims 314:22\n change 370:4 chief 557:14 518:5 520:2,19 340:2 341:21\n 397:24 398:3,4 chime 348:3 528:15 535:5 341:22 503:19\n 610:20 638:20 china's 397:5 544:18 546:22 509:23 521:9\n 649:5 choice 299:17 548:3 549:11 531:14 538:20\n changed chose 468:24 549:15 565:4 539:9,17,24,25\n 372:14 395:22 554:4 565:24 585:17 586:11 554:4 555:19\n 397:17 566:24 586:12 635:22 562:4,20\n 637:3 564:13 569:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 373 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[claims - color] Page 17\n\n 569:23 570:9 397:16 398:2 600:3,24 601:3 482:22 507:20\n 573:6,8 574:10 479:16 480:3 601:13 606:8 559:9 567:25\n 574:25 575:3 488:12 490:8 608:20 610:4 clearer 391:3\n 577:5,7,17 490:11 600:18 619:14,15 clearly 376:13\n 578:5,7,8,12,25 609:2,11,14,18 620:3,4,22 448:14,22\n 580:21 581:3 609:20,21 621:5 625:12 524:9 592:6\n 582:5,17 584:7 610:2,6,23 640:14 649:2 617:6 623:20\n 586:2 587:18 611:7 614:14 cleanspark's 633:9\n 589:25 600:24 classifying 343:11 344:14 client 641:23\n 601:11 602:10 628:3 345:9 346:19 close 404:15\n 602:20 603:21 clause 345:15 357:4,19 375:4 519:17 570:13\n 603:22 604:19 clean 306:11,15 375:20 376:2 570:14\n 604:24 605:11 306:16,17,20 377:17 387:4 closely 323:2\n 605:23 607:13 cleanspark 387:15,21 469:22\n 607:23 616:14 295:7 296:18 389:15 394:10 closer 371:18\n 616:22 618:8 300:9,25 394:18 502:9 640:5\n 619:9,21 303:12 344:8 502:11 503:19 closing 343:24\n clarification 345:7 377:24 509:4 521:4 344:18 345:11\n 611:11 635:4 378:17 379:20 526:14,24 coauthor 478:7\n clarify 305:9 380:23 381:16 559:6 580:20 coauthored\n 558:21 633:18 382:12 383:2 588:11 597:21 484:8\n clarity 420:15 395:15 490:21 602:13,23 code 302:6\n 558:13 503:16 509:19 609:13 611:13 coefficient\n class 342:17 509:22 528:4 611:22 612:24 476:22 484:24\n 369:7,10,13,20 538:14 553:20 614:5 619:10 485:5,18\n 370:4 372:11 554:13,24 619:23 486:17\n 372:15 375:10 559:3 562:2,17 clear 306:2,4 coffee 361:22\n 375:12,14,22 564:11 565:24 312:18 319:16 coin 407:22\n 379:4,5,9,22 566:7,20,23 329:23,25 collapse 402:18\n 380:13,15,15 568:4 584:18 348:8 349:24 colloquial\n 381:2,18 589:6,10,23 351:10 355:6 371:24\n 382:15 383:4 590:7,14 597:7 373:13 383:9 color 386:15\n 387:10,16 598:16,23 386:6 400:18 534:2 627:16\n 395:21 397:15 599:17,23 451:20 469:17\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 374 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[column - conducted] Page 18\n\ncolumn 484:24 commitments competence concern 590:11\n 485:4 486:14 380:19 427:18 concerned\ncome 327:22 common 448:7 competitor 573:13 575:6\n 360:12 362:2,5 609:13 610:4 503:13,14,21 575:12,14\n 362:6 404:16 commonly 509:20 591:6,20\n 434:4 492:15 374:4 460:19 competitors 592:15 594:6\n 506:5 509:15 461:4 463:6 516:12,14 595:12 602:6\n 520:9,11 464:7 complaint 621:2\n 550:12 commonplace 299:19 320:17 concerning\ncomes 305:14 461:4 321:2 323:12 603:20 611:8\n 398:5 478:11 community 341:21 367:23 concerns\n 644:4 561:9,14,21 551:20 556:8 584:16 603:15\ncomfort 307:17 companies 558:17,21 621:4\n 361:15 454:5 508:12,20 629:17,21 conclude\n 492:8 company complete 443:21 448:19\ncoming 474:24 375:21 376:24 347:17 450:16 451:21\n 505:24 376:25 377:10 completely 457:2 460:15\ncommencing 381:18 382:14 353:8 511:8 concluded\n 304:5 510:5 566:13 completion 604:2 646:3\ncomment 573:16 587:19 491:19 633:14 concludes\n 299:11 483:16 588:20 591:7 component 644:11\n 484:10 565:13 591:21 592:16 618:7 conclusion\n 568:5 594:7 595:13 compounds 460:24 464:6,9\ncommentary 596:3 416:15 436:18 498:9 588:19\n 401:25 company's 617:20 590:14 608:2,2\ncommented 357:8 560:24 comprehend conclusions\n 402:8 562:4,20 compensation 406:8 340:4\ncommenting 566:12 567:4 computer conduct 321:5\n 564:13 568:11 580:22 473:19 474:7 580:19 582:4\ncomments 581:3,12 582:6 474:11 507:17 602:9,19 603:8\n 403:5 495:15 582:18,23 519:8 615:19 606:5\n 497:8 583:12,24 computer's conducted\ncommission 584:8 585:6,14 484:17 569:21 580:25\n 649:25 586:16 587:3 600:22 601:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 375 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[conducted - contrast] Page 19\n\n 602:2 confound 393:14 395:2 contains 551:9\n confidence 425:15 467:11 497:25 content 325:13\n 406:19 413:9 confounding 547:7 582:22 545:6 639:15\n 413:17,22 311:10 583:5 633:3 contents\n 415:4,6,10,17 confused 378:5 consistent 330:12,19\n 416:4 417:4 385:7 409:25 312:5 341:24 331:7,16\n 419:7 423:17 414:2 485:21 484:23 485:17 332:14,15\n 423:23 426:18 627:23 525:13 548:17 335:10 337:20\n 426:21 427:7 confusing consistently 338:11 340:16\n 428:7 432:23 409:13 420:10 461:20 634:21 517:4\n 433:11,21 confusion constant 369:7 context 422:22\n 434:21 435:12 386:4 483:4 372:11 373:6 522:3 523:9\n 442:4 443:19 connected 373:14 374:6 576:7\n 443:20 448:15 552:22 374:17 387:10 contexts 312:13\n 448:17 450:15 connection 389:4,10 314:12\n 451:14,22 310:19 342:11 391:21,22 contextualize\n 452:24 456:18 395:10 400:16 393:7,11 524:5\n 456:23 460:20 465:16 547:24 constitute continue\n 461:5 463:7 563:9 604:20 301:21 321:15 516:4\n 464:8 468:3,10 consensus constraints continuum\n 468:18 480:9 571:23,24 394:24 432:19\n 481:5 482:14 626:25 627:3 construction contract\n 482:17 488:6 consequences 616:18 621:18 622:2\n 489:3 367:13 consultant contracts\n confident consequent 297:4 554:17,25\n 413:14 393:8 536:6 consumption 555:4,7,17\n confidentiality consider 381:12 584:23 556:19 602:11\n 552:25 392:24 423:15 cont'd 297:1 602:21 603:11\n confirm 316:11 494:20 543:4 299:1 604:3,8,9\n 316:14,21 543:15 contained contrary\n 424:10 430:13 consideration 384:17 499:15 567:10\n 472:5 478:2,13 412:18 502:22 521:2 contrast 579:6\n confirmed considered 530:10 552:17 607:22\n 532:4 621:18 392:14 393:4 570:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 376 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[contribute - counsel] Page 20\n\n contribute copy 306:16,17 537:16,19 610:12 639:8\n 367:18 403:11 306:21 326:22 544:6,23,24 corresponding\n contributing 327:9,18 545:21,22 628:13 630:2,7\n 368:19 638:18 384:10 386:17 551:10,23 corresponds\n control 594:25 430:12 505:19 556:4,18,20,23 343:22\n 595:3 518:23 644:19 557:8,9,11,16 cost 298:22\n controls 602:15 cornerstone 557:22 558:10 299:8 470:23\n 602:25 297:3 558:11,15 477:14 502:12\n convention corporate 564:20 565:9 503:20 509:13\n 418:24 419:4 536:14 537:2 565:10 566:20 510:6,19\n 427:12,13,15 602:14,24 568:23 573:18 516:18 526:5,6\n 427:23 428:25 corporations 575:8,13 529:11,17\n 442:14 461:18 554:11 576:23 579:18 530:8,14\n conventional correct 304:7,8 586:6,7,18 531:18 532:9\n 417:12 421:22 324:18 329:3 587:11,13 costless 521:21\n 422:5,6 426:21 343:4 344:4 598:9,21,25 521:22\n 427:7,18 349:5,25 360:4 600:4 608:21 costly 525:15\n 435:24 456:14 363:5 365:9 609:16,22,23 529:19\n 480:20 481:17 382:25 384:19 610:21 616:11 costs 299:15\n 483:13 485:6 387:11,12 616:24,25 496:6 503:15\n 486:5,19,20 424:6 429:9 620:16,16 509:5,11,25\n 487:23 488:11 459:11 464:3 624:20 635:13 520:25 521:16\n 488:15 489:13 469:12,13,19 642:21 521:17,19\n conventions 471:11 472:20 corrected 522:4,7,19\n 417:8 429:3 476:9 477:5,11 478:25 523:4,6 524:9\n 460:8 487:5 479:20 480:2,8 corrective 524:10 525:14\n conversation 483:11,12,24 311:9 313:21 525:20 527:6\n 543:24 604:11 484:11,12 342:13 379:8 529:2 530:23\n converse 542:9 490:6,11,18 431:2 437:16 531:4 532:12\n convey 321:9 493:15 494:3,6 438:8 493:23 534:22 540:11\n conveyed 499:3 506:18 508:2,8 498:25 499:9 coulds 567:15\n copied 596:20 518:12,16 correctly 568:21\n copies 306:12 520:21,22 328:24 366:11 counsel 300:7\n 307:7 524:12 529:2 546:12 555:12 300:17 302:22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 377 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[counsel - cv] Page 21\n\n 308:24 310:6 crackdown 494:25 495:6 606:6 607:3,23\n 341:19 472:5 397:5 495:10,19 608:5 616:22\n 642:7 644:17 create 308:25 496:16 497:7 617:8,18\n 644:18,25 346:11 451:6 499:4,10,22 619:10,22\n 647:10,13 572:2 500:8 518:15 620:19\n 648:6,9 creating 524:18 520:24 521:10 culper's 595:25\n counsel's creation 568:15 523:10 525:5,7 596:20,22\n 642:16 credibility 525:7,8 526:12 currently\n countervailing 561:19 526:21 527:3,8 301:24\n 572:12 627:16 credit 298:22 528:2 529:6,9 curry 563:2\n country 572:13 470:23 530:8 531:18 cursorily 460:7\n counts 466:18 criteria 473:12 532:9,13,18,24 customer\n couple 304:15 568:3,7,9 533:6,10,17,23 557:15\n 472:15 596:14 569:4 533:24 538:11 customers\n 623:22 635:18 critical 593:16 538:17,19,21 554:16,19,20\n course 307:20 629:15 539:9,10,17 554:24 555:4,8\n 319:10 328:21 criticisms 540:17 543:7 555:17 599:19\n 328:21 401:5 393:10 543:18 551:19 602:11,21\n 477:24 543:11 criticized 551:24 554:4 603:10 604:2,7\n 579:23 319:18 641:24 558:24 559:13 604:10,20,24\n court 295:1 642:5 560:21 562:4,5 607:6,14,17\n 300:10,15 criticizes 562:19 564:13 608:7\n 304:16 314:20 317:14 318:14 564:14 565:25 cut 435:5\n 314:21 321:5 critique 330:5 566:24 568:5 509:11 510:21\n 321:19 348:7 330:16 331:20 569:10,24 547:4\n 358:21 382:21 332:19 360:16 573:6 577:6,15 cutoff 419:24\n 404:5 452:18 crosstalk 577:16 578:9 426:18 464:16\n 513:2,19 348:16 578:16 580:23 466:24 488:9\n cover 304:14 crucial 421:3 581:4 582:6,19 cutoffs 417:12\n 623:19 culled 527:4 583:25 584:8 419:13 420:2\n covered 435:17 culper 431:20 584:17 585:7 422:5,7 466:25\n 552:23 640:20 491:23 493:13 586:3 588:9 488:10\n covering 493:14 494:15 602:11,21 cv 295:7 300:12\n 377:10 494:18,21,24 603:11 605:2,3 459:23 464:23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 378 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[d - decisions] Page 22\n\n d 482:6,8,10 363:4 367:6 445:25 449:23\n d 298:1 491:20 506:25 384:2 385:5,8 450:7,22 454:7\n daily 612:10 510:16 517:7,8 388:11 390:3 577:10 626:21\n damages 308:7 613:18 625:6 393:24 409:24 627:8 640:19\n 308:11,19 626:10 628:13 416:17 426:15 646:10 649:22\n 309:9,16 629:25 630:5,6 435:6 441:7 day's 411:25\n 310:22 323:15 630:17 631:13 447:9 475:16 days 390:15\n 342:4 358:9 631:20 632:2 478:17 482:23 409:8 493:22\n 359:11 536:10 633:17 634:12 483:22 500:5 deal 585:11\n 537:15 634:14 644:23 506:3 512:15 deals 365:14,19\n damning 585:2 645:3 649:3 513:5,17 365:25 366:3\n darshan 295:4 dated 298:9,18 518:25 551:6 december\n 296:2,10 300:8 306:17,18,22 552:13 560:6 343:12,24\n 301:4 649:2 316:9 328:11 563:5,5 576:7 345:24 346:9\n dash 386:19 341:4 430:4 599:4 605:20 356:10 357:12\n 387:6,8 458:24 609:11 622:12 625:20 375:5,23 376:4\n data 388:10 dates 339:22 628:17 630:10 376:14,15,16\n 410:5,8 460:17 340:6 379:16 635:24 641:9 377:18,25\n 461:2 462:13 431:7 437:21 day 321:14 378:17 379:2\n 463:5,25 507:5 438:13 440:6 329:23 332:14 380:5 387:17\n 507:13,22 440:21 480:11 342:16 343:25 388:14 389:3,9\n 508:13 558:9 481:7,14 387:9,16 390:5 487:18\n date 295:12 490:20 611:15 395:24 397:18 489:6,10,16\n 339:16 376:4 617:15 633:20 407:10 409:19 499:24 500:10\n 377:8 412:16 dave 513:3 409:19 410:3 506:16 624:6\n 412:18,20 514:9 637:25 410:18 411:15 decide 404:3\n 423:17,22 david 296:20 411:16,21,23 decided 385:24\n 424:12 427:10 300:21 303:11 412:3,8,14 467:12 578:23\n 434:11,15 312:3 315:7,21 413:8 414:13 615:19\n 436:9 439:9 321:24 324:18 414:23 416:7,7 deciding\n 440:3 443:4 325:5 333:6 419:14 424:13 538:20 568:4\n 446:21 450:14 334:22 337:18 425:17 433:12 decision 517:2\n 454:2 456:5 340:10 354:9 435:21 436:13 decisions\n 359:7 361:13 440:16 443:15 578:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 379 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[decline - different] Page 23\n\n decline 343:23 degree 372:5 deposition development\n 347:5 372:17 583:2 295:10 298:7 616:18 618:9\n 424:12 626:22 degrees 575:25 300:6 301:19 618:10\n 638:19 576:6 579:19 304:5,14 307:6 deviation\n declined 621:22 314:14 328:7 370:22 372:4\n 344:15 345:10 dehaan 299:14 462:2,5 505:2 deviations\n 346:20 357:5,9 520:3 506:13 513:21 370:21\n declines 431:6 delay 563:12 514:8 563:16 died 547:3\n 437:20 438:12 delays 399:20 647:1 649:3 diego 295:16\n decrease 431:22 636:13 describing 300:15 647:2\n 627:14 637:4 638:14 421:5 423:4 647:20\n dedicate 589:8 639:13 640:15 description dietrich 299:10\n dedicating 640:16 641:2,5 298:6 299:2 483:15 484:9\n 589:7 delivery 645:3 407:4,7 409:23 differ 410:16\n deep 518:19 645:5,6 448:9 410:19\n deeper 331:18 demand 368:21 design 485:4 difference\n 332:16 403:14 despite 466:21 537:22 586:9\n default 645:18 demonstrate 521:9 527:17 632:13\n defaulted 644:2 324:5 329:2,8 destroy 571:25 differences\n defendants 381:9 destroying 618:4\n 295:8 296:18 denholm 571:13,17 different\n 300:7,24 593:17 572:25 339:16 354:4\n 303:12 317:20 denoted 486:21 destruction 366:23 367:20\n 318:22 319:24 denotes 486:24 298:13 373:19 375:19\n 329:10 608:19 depend 369:4 detail 356:13 385:25 391:25\n defense 297:4 dependent 642:13 394:22 407:20\n defer 404:24 572:13 detailed 585:6 407:23 408:11\n defined 366:4 depends 365:24 631:7 643:6 408:17,22\n definitely 413:3 367:3,10 determine 409:3,7,8,9,20\n 624:12 368:10 418:24 371:18 406:10 410:7,15\n definition 571:18 459:20 462:15 411:10 412:14\n 378:15 528:21 deponent 400:8 530:8 412:20,25\n deflated 375:12 deposed 304:13 develop 347:23 413:15 414:7\n 414:11 415:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 380 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[different - discuss] Page 24\n\n 418:22 419:10 619:4 disaggregation 540:12,14\n 419:17,21 difficulty 313:4 617:20 621:13 541:15 546:5\n 428:18,21 368:13,18,22 disagree 336:9 549:16,19\n 432:11,13 372:11,14,18 338:16 339:2,5 590:25 592:10\n 433:15 436:13 397:7 402:9,18 339:11,23 596:17 597:6,8\n 439:21,23 402:21 403:13 340:4,15 597:20,20\n 440:4,20,24 dig 332:16 346:23 395:5 598:7 600:2\n 442:24 443:4 518:19 399:9 565:7 604:23 613:15\n 445:2,6,11,19 digital 357:20 642:3 613:21 614:23\n 446:3,9,21 647:7 648:3 disclaimer 615:2 617:17\n 447:2,11,15,19 direct 342:25 551:25 552:2 disclosures\n 447:22 448:4 349:13 365:11 disclose 597:7 342:14 345:17\n 449:12,17,24 384:13 385:15 disclosed 344:8 379:8 497:23\n 450:2,5,13,23 393:20,25 345:8,18 526:4 535:21\n 451:10 453:14 396:2 405:22 517:25 539:6 541:5,22 544:9\n 453:15 454:4 430:22 458:19 590:14 545:24 555:25\n 455:4,18,22 475:13 484:13 disclosing 588:12 597:21\n 461:18 480:18 493:5,20 599:13 613:13,22\n 501:17 511:3,8 506:22 507:10 disclosure 614:20 616:17\n 512:11 519:25 508:8 551:16 299:12,15 617:22 618:10\n 523:9 531:11 556:10 573:16 431:2 437:16 625:9 629:14\n 534:18 535:24 577:23 604:13 438:8 483:17 629:16\n 536:23 554:11 604:16 484:10,25 discomfort\n 575:23,25 directed 494:11 496:6 497:22 437:10 438:22\n 576:4,6 590:9 574:4 497:23,24 disconnect\n 595:13 601:23 directing 498:2,23 424:18\n 610:17 614:19 597:16 521:19 522:3 discount\n 618:17 625:6 directly 336:10 525:14 526:3 364:17\n 632:8 633:17 402:11 527:6,23 discounted\n 639:19 disaggregate 534:22 535:14 588:15 597:25\n difficult 315:7 311:8 313:19 535:15,19 discuss 405:5\n 334:19 340:22 disaggregated 536:9,15,17,23 521:23 522:3\n 368:11 453:10 619:6 537:2,14,18,24 546:14 549:24\n 497:12 618:18 538:4 540:11 557:7,10,13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 381 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[discussed - domain] Page 25\n\n discussed disincentivized 594:8 595:14 385:18 430:14\n 339:13 394:21 566:11 distracted 470:17 471:21\n 400:21,24 dispute 343:16 593:21 594:19 475:4 514:17\n 417:7 439:19 343:19 344:3 distraction 541:20\n 504:18 515:12 346:15 394:7 592:21,22 documentation\n 517:13,16 394:15 395:20 594:21 595:5 640:22\n 518:10 533:2 395:21 397:14 distributed documents\n 533:18 555:18 397:15 400:20 495:3,7 306:13,24,25\n 555:19 557:16 400:23 distribution 332:23 381:21\n 581:11 587:5 dissembled 409:3 410:7 480:21 547:6\n 610:3 637:24 596:14 411:8,11 413:2 547:10\n 638:7 disseminated 418:22 428:22 doing 310:12\n discusses 494:15,19,21 432:15 443:5 334:12 335:23\n 314:11 502:8 494:24 495:20 445:3,8 446:4 355:21 386:8\n 511:7 548:12 496:8,17 499:2 447:4 449:8,14 389:24 393:25\n 548:25 556:19 499:9 529:8 454:5 455:5,24 403:14 431:12\n 557:5,6 disseminating 488:22 568:16 469:15 473:19\n discussing 532:24 distributions 473:22 481:16\n 320:22 356:5 dissemination 410:5 526:8 597:9\n 361:9 400:22 496:20 499:19 district 295:1,2 599:13,18,22\n 502:17 616:10 528:5 531:9 300:10,11 599:22 600:4\n 616:13 640:15 577:14 divino 557:7,20 600:11\n discussion dissipated 558:4 575:4 dollar 364:4,5\n 333:22 488:4 379:7 603:21 616:11 364:10 373:6\n 512:10 516:20 dissipation 616:19,23 373:14 374:6\n 540:10 558:3 379:9 617:9,22 618:8 374:17 387:11\n 579:2 586:10 distinction 619:9,22 391:21 393:7\n 590:22 611:7 537:22 620:18 621:3 530:23 593:10\n 641:4 distinguish doctor 302:23 627:12\n disentangle 613:21 347:14 385:20 dollars 489:16\n 618:18 distinguishable document 489:17\n dishonest 406:25 303:25 315:18 domain 380:18\n 313:12 distract 591:8 316:11,14 527:19\n 591:22 592:17 328:9 332:25\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 382 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[dots - efficiently] Page 26\n\n dots 387:6,7 571:9 572:6 duty 552:24,24 economic\n dotted 387:5 623:17 644:12 e 312:22 323:14\n double 316:3 dragon 556:19 341:24 342:10\n e 296:1,1 297:1\n 391:13 418:5 557:5,19 558:4 394:12,20\n 297:1 298:1,5\n 418:17 420:9 575:4 584:17 395:11 417:17\n 299:1\n 614:12 584:20,22 488:8\n earlier 394:21\n dovetails 603:22,23 economically\n 394:25 438:4\n 540:10 612:8,18 528:20\n 439:19 472:13\n dpartida 613:15 614:25 economics\n 488:4 519:12\n 296:24 draw 401:10 417:3,11 578:3\n 573:3 579:11\n dr 298:8,17 drawing 579:6 579:15\n 597:6 604:12\n 300:6 301:23 drive 570:5,7,8 economist\n 634:17\n 301:25 302:4,8 drivers 577:2 314:18 408:3\n early 556:3\n 302:12 303:9 604:13 458:5 498:8\n 628:14 629:18\n 317:8 326:23 drives 578:25 536:22 538:8\n 630:4,15,17\n 327:18 335:21 drop 379:10 578:24 590:4\n 631:3 632:6,11\n 336:22 338:12 dropped economists\n 632:14 633:15\n 343:9 346:4 402:17,18 446:6 447:21\n 633:21,24\n 347:6 350:3 drops 431:18 education\n 634:5,7,8,13,22\n 351:11 352:18 431:24 432:4,4 535:12\n 635:8,13\n 354:25 357:2 440:20 effect 573:8\n earn 568:18\n 357:14 362:24 due 336:2 602:12,22\n earned 403:6\n 384:20 385:9 432:17 511:16 effectively\n earnings\n 393:9 397:3,20 514:9 591:16 553:22\n 546:20 623:25\n 398:23 402:13 592:11 619:14 efficiency\n 624:17 625:3\n 404:24 405:20 620:3 639:12 298:23 470:24\n easier 307:8\n 430:4,11 442:3 duly 302:19 528:21 572:3\n easiest 470:2\n 469:19 470:19 647:5 609:17 610:23\n easily 478:25\n 475:6 478:6 duplicated 614:8\n 519:2\n 482:20 493:5 356:3 efficient 609:14\n east 296:13\n 502:17 503:8 duplicative 610:5 611:14\n easy 512:24\n 503:25 511:14 361:6 614:6\n 633:11\n 511:14 514:6 duration efficiently\n 521:11 550:24 307:11 608:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 383 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[effort - establishing] Page 27\n\n effort 521:16 embeds 524:20 624:10 627:15 415:18\n efforts 592:4 emphasis 627:24 errata 644:4\n 593:22 541:17 581:25 enforcement 649:1\n eh 637:9 emphasize 537:3 error 354:14\n eight 333:23 538:21 english 448:8 526:8 551:8,11\n 336:16 482:3 emphasized enhancing es 647:4\n 552:8 627:12 541:23 543:6 571:12,16 especially\n eighth 296:22 543:17 572:24 509:16 510:2\n either 313:23 empirical enter 368:23 547:21 555:14\n 313:24 321:18 298:24 460:16 entering 561:15 575:3\n 322:5 337:4 460:25 462:12 493:23 581:20 603:17\n 476:6 505:9 462:25 463:4 entire 356:23 espouses 461:9\n elective 313:20 463:24 470:3 356:24 438:17 esquire 296:3\n element 322:20 470:24 605:7 296:11,20\n 335:11 399:10 employed entirety 334:24 essential\n 399:21,25 647:10,13 335:8 399:6 527:22\n 449:19 595:3 648:7,9 entitled 305:24 establish 308:6\n 619:5 employee 475:6 308:10,18\n elements 395:2 647:12 648:9 entity 561:9,22 309:9 317:15\n 399:12 527:18 employs 460:19 592:3,5 318:15 319:19\n 601:6 461:4 463:6 entries 612:10 330:6,17\n eligibility 464:2,7 614:16 338:13 339:5\n 473:12 encountered enumerated 339:24 342:7\n elon 593:7,20 448:9 556:22 436:16 569:8\n 594:22 ended 354:15 environment 569:21 580:20\n email 327:14 ends 355:3 394:12,20 581:2 582:4\n 505:6 632:17 395:11 425:5 583:16 600:23\n emailing energy 357:20 542:12 579:12 601:10 602:10\n 306:25 380:24 381:6 equal 406:21 602:20 623:20\n embed 530:5 381:12,17 529:10 541:25 established\n embedded 382:13 383:3 equity 299:17 503:14 571:7\n 378:25 528:3 502:12 503:15 equivalent establishing\n 529:15 503:20 509:5 406:10 413:18 320:8\n 584:21,23 413:24 414:3\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 384 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[estimate - exhibit] Page 28\n\n estimate 612:17 613:17 exactly 316:4 excited 503:18\n 356:14 486:18 everybody 333:14 336:19 509:17,21\n 490:7,9 491:19 326:15 385:11 387:3 510:9 516:9,11\n 577:21 evidence 402:25 423:18 516:16\n estimated 320:24 335:19 423:23 424:9 excluded 643:9\n 356:11 357:13 339:19 341:24 449:4 542:17 excuse 556:14\n 476:22 416:21 418:19 542:22 580:16 executed\n estimates 419:11 420:6 582:21 645:17 621:19\n 577:19 640:3 421:18 426:2 examination executive\n et 295:4,7 432:16 440:2 298:2 303:6 580:22 581:3\n 300:9 363:11 442:16 443:13 examined 582:6,18\n 496:5 535:16 444:11 445:4,5 302:21 583:11,12\n 549:17 649:2 450:21 453:6 example 584:8 585:6\n evaluate 453:16,25 344:10 410:18 587:3\n 531:15 588:24 455:2 456:4,19 415:9 455:8 exercise 355:6\n evaluated 456:25 464:10 470:8 496:12 390:23\n 473:15 603:11 464:12 467:6 499:23 502:21 exhaustive\n 603:12 487:25 502:20 506:23 549:23 466:16 467:3,4\n evaluating 515:21 541:20 576:14,16 exhibit 298:7,8\n 588:24 555:6 560:25 593:6,25 298:11,17,20\n event 407:9 561:15 572:12 examples 299:3,6,9,13,19\n 408:5 410:21 574:16 578:9 459:18 464:15 303:17,18\n 411:3,13,20 582:13 601:18 466:15 467:21 315:14,15\n 412:8,16,18,19 evidentiary exceed 363:15 316:7,12 326:9\n 433:17 436:24 301:18 456:13 529:2 326:17,19\n 442:17 446:6,7 ex 322:16 324:2 529:16 328:6 330:4\n 448:10 453:6 324:15 523:10 excerpts 515:3 337:11 341:2,3\n 453:13 480:13 524:15 525:8 excessive 371:3 342:25 343:22\n 480:18 487:17 exact 340:13 580:22 582:18 349:11,20\n 489:14 490:2 359:8 389:17 582:22,25 363:2,18,21\n 493:23 390:15 437:9 583:5,12,17,19 384:6,12,14,17\n events 431:2 517:8 642:22 583:25 584:3,5 384:18,20,25\n 437:16 438:8 643:3 584:7 585:7,10 385:12,13,17\n 481:13 612:13 585:23 589:16 385:18 386:14\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 385 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[exhibit - expressly] Page 29\n\n 387:14,20 505:20 369:2 577:3 641:18,19\n 389:13 390:17 exist 352:25 617:23 626:23 643:10\n 390:23 393:19 353:2,23 641:7 644:22 expertise\n 405:21 420:18 355:15 479:2 expense 577:25 498:19 536:7\n 429:9,15,22 555:7,8 581:17,19 536:14,23\n 430:3,6 431:10 existed 531:10 expenses 570:9 537:4,10,24\n 431:19,25 existence 570:11 573:15 experts 392:20\n 432:22 440:22 521:24 530:16 585:12 586:14 expiration\n 458:19,24 existent 355:8 experience 503:5 510:16\n 470:10,10,12 exists 323:23 342:2 458:6 expires 649:25\n 471:20 472:25 530:18,19 498:7,19 explain 326:3\n 474:9,9,14,15 594:2 535:13 536:7 351:21 376:21\n 474:16,19 expansion expert 298:8,17 428:5 430:24\n 475:5 477:18 399:20 431:21 305:12 306:16 438:21 440:19\n 477:21 478:5,6 490:22 491:18 306:18,21 449:6 564:21\n 479:8 481:19 624:10,11 309:18 310:17 612:11 613:18\n 481:25 483:19 636:13 637:4 312:9,16,21,21 615:6\n 483:23 484:2 638:13 639:12 312:22,25 explained\n 487:10,14 640:15 317:6 324:11 420:14\n 489:20 491:11 expect 368:9 324:12 326:12 explains 397:3\n 492:2,12,13 397:25 412:24 328:10 330:3 explanation\n 493:6 501:16 461:19 559:5 368:15 384:21 409:15 420:13\n 505:10,12,13 561:2 616:16 403:10 430:4 explicit 530:14\n 505:15 506:12 expectation 458:22 465:17 explicitly 408:7\n 519:14 520:5,7 408:24 617:4 468:23 473:2 532:12 535:4\n 528:9,11,12 637:8 493:6 495:18 637:22,24\n 542:21 551:3,4 expectations 496:14,24 638:8 642:10\n 551:16,17 378:25 379:13 497:16 498:10 exposure\n 556:7 558:13 398:6 414:12 498:11,14 496:25\n 558:16,16,19 604:14 624:5,8 528:13 535:14 express 513:6\n 558:20 564:5 624:13 625:8 536:10,10,17 expressed\n 608:25 615:12 626:18 627:13 537:16,18 329:24 344:22\n exhibits 307:4 expected 538:4 549:12 expressly 585:9\n 384:23 478:22 366:25 367:8 590:3 609:2\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 386 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[extent - financial] Page 30\n\n extent 307:2 factors 367:3 500:23 518:15 398:10 479:17\n 496:21 540:2 367:10,18 535:9 537:13 480:3 623:25\n extreme 370:12 368:5 395:14 545:10 593:7,9 624:18\n extremely 403:5,11 629:19 641:11 federal 643:25\n 321:16 370:16 facts 309:24 641:14,16 feel 307:6\n 399:22 519:9 320:16 342:12 familiarity 330:10,11,12\n 577:25 374:11,21 368:16 334:25 348:2\n eyes 541:18 574:14 592:23 familiarize 394:2 401:17\n f factual 305:14 401:18 459:3 402:3 420:22\n fail 422:6 544:20 553:16 444:20 452:4\n f 377:4\n failed 330:6,16 607:7 568:12 626:2\n f2q21 398:13\n 339:5,23 503:2 familiarized feels 426:5\n fabricated\n 508:6 637:11 459:6 607:10 fell 510:13\n 602:10,20\n failing 317:14 family 572:8 felt 515:24\n 603:10 604:2\n 318:15 319:18 fantastic 362:4 fewer 450:12\n face 320:18\n fails 338:13 far 337:3 400:9 fictitious 604:9\n 341:23 397:22\n fair 307:25 450:12 465:8 604:9\n facilities\n 308:3 324:10 488:17 559:15 fiduciary\n 380:13 584:24\n 325:24 334:20 623:3 552:24\n facility 345:24\n 336:8 360:14 fastblock fifty 432:23\n 346:9,18 357:7\n 361:11 388:6 502:24,25,25 482:3\n 358:16 380:9\n 465:21 506:18 507:6 figure 340:12\n 395:16 399:17\n fairly 549:20 507:14,16,24 340:20,23\n 502:9 585:2\n faith 517:5 508:6,13 file 316:3\n 603:18 625:10\n fake 604:20,24 515:18 516:25 filed 300:9\n fact 305:18\n 607:5,14,16 517:17,25 final 385:17\n 372:25 429:2\n fall 629:18 533:2,18 finance 417:3\n 521:9 527:17\n falling 637:18 favor 406:23 417:11 461:12\n 555:16 588:9\n fallon 296:11 563:2 financial 299:7\n 596:13 614:24\n 301:6 305:23 fear 335:11 314:18 446:6\n 643:5\n fama 528:16,17 features 541:4 447:20 477:13\n factor 368:19\n 528:19 february 536:22 538:8\n factoring\n familiar 303:24 389:15 390:6,7 578:24 639:22\n 399:10\n 328:13 394:3 391:9,15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 387 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[financially - footnote] Page 31\n\n financially 300:22 364:8 554:6 555:18 focuses 502:11\n 647:14 648:10 377:3 378:8 557:4 558:8 509:3 511:19\n financials 381:19 399:14 618:5 512:11\n 586:13 469:8 483:17 fit 354:23 focusing 323:9\n find 332:12,19 484:10 498:23 five 404:8,20 338:9,10\n 333:25 334:7 516:13 561:12 405:2 490:13 396:14 401:23\n 334:17 337:2 567:13 570:5 490:15,16 follow 313:10\n 430:18 467:25 571:11,19 492:10,14 followed\n 468:8,16 519:2 574:15 575:8 501:21,22 479:18 480:5\n 530:17 550:10 575:13,15 550:5 558:8 516:19 538:12\n 552:5,6 553:20 577:3,4 578:2 595:22 622:21 593:13\n 577:22 585:20 578:3 579:4,15 622:23 623:5 following 310:5\n 588:6 593:16 579:17 583:18 fix 560:13 402:8 422:16\n 618:13 633:8 589:13 590:12 fl 295:15 485:2 517:12\n 633:10 594:25 604:15 flexibility 562:19 564:12\n finding 329:9 604:16 613:14 299:8 477:13 565:24 566:7\n 454:19 461:6,7 637:8 flexible 299:5 566:19,23\n 612:16 firm's 572:4 475:7 567:13 568:3\n findings 431:17 577:24 579:11 florida 302:4 599:4 633:6\n 432:22 firms 544:10 302:13 642:16\n finds 364:4 545:24 546:4,5 flows 573:17 follows 302:21\n fine 305:19 572:8,8 fluctuate footnote 349:13\n 324:16 345:21 first 302:18 369:10 349:25 351:23\n 358:20,24 304:18 310:9 focus 318:8 358:12,18\n 362:9 441:11 331:16,23 333:3,7 399:4 363:3,6,10\n 455:11 476:5 341:14 343:7 399:5,8 400:2 405:23 406:3\n 519:5 352:17 355:17 400:5,7,11 469:6 473:10\n finish 305:2,3 356:25 387:16 401:15 510:10 477:13 479:12\n 347:21 492:7 402:9 435:25 555:3 581:15 479:14 480:24\n 537:8 438:19 468:6 585:15 483:8 484:21\n finished 494:7 469:4 475:12 focused 398:20 485:15,20,23\n finishing 492:5 493:24 544:21 485:9 511:10 501:19,20,23\n firm 298:15 547:17 551:21 581:9 612:3 501:24 502:4,6\n 299:12 300:14 553:5,6,18 502:15 508:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 388 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[footnote - full] Page 32\n\n 510:25 511:18 517:18 521:5 formally 507:6 framework\n 512:12 522:10 523:14 formed 310:24 535:13\n footnoted 524:16 525:11 311:3 344:20 frank 625:24\n 471:7 525:23 526:16 394:23 584:14 frankly 333:25\n footnotes 526:25 529:13 595:17 611:18 335:23 336:2,7\n 356:13 530:12 531:5 614:7 624:5 336:11\n forecasts 565:9 531:21,24 625:8 fraud 574:11\n foregoing 533:4,20 535:2 former 314:16 605:11,23\n 647:3,4 648:4 536:11 537:20 367:13 606:3\n forget 360:19 538:6 539:12 formerly fray 368:23\n 645:17 540:6 541:11 506:18 507:14 free 307:6\n forgive 608:24 543:20 544:11 507:23 316:16 330:10\n form 314:3,6 545:25 554:7 forth 321:2 330:11,12\n 344:16,19 555:21 557:23 329:22 342:5 348:2 382:10\n 345:13 346:24 561:4 562:7 403:15 416:15 394:2 401:17\n 352:11 353:19 566:4 571:5 417:16 436:18 402:3 626:2\n 354:7 359:6,19 576:24 580:5 441:9 503:3 freeze 559:17\n 361:4 369:14 582:8,20 537:3 558:4 559:20,21\n 377:21 378:3 583:14 584:10 563:13 589:19 freezing 484:18\n 379:23 380:6 586:4 587:21 forward 347:7 freshworks\n 381:3 383:6 588:22 590:16 419:12 594:25 641:12,15,16\n 388:16 415:20 591:10,23 618:13 friend 389:24\n 418:3 422:20 592:18 594:9 found 317:20 friends 547:22\n 424:15 426:23 594:12 595:16 318:23 319:24 front 307:7\n 433:3 434:24 596:24 598:10 340:5 353:11 326:23 337:11\n 435:4,15 442:8 599:2 600:6 383:13 419:5 397:21 400:3\n 443:24 448:23 601:4 602:16 485:4 554:10 446:14 480:22\n 450:19 452:3 604:5 606:9 603:19 614:24 481:13 501:2\n 454:23 456:22 611:25 613:4 618:22,25 611:3 636:16\n 457:4 465:19 619:17 620:6 founded 574:22 638:3 640:22\n 465:24 467:14 621:6,20 four 432:4 froze 559:18,25\n 497:2,19 624:22 627:21 550:3,4 556:14 full 302:9\n 498:16 500:3 631:5 642:2 fractalgrid 347:17 365:12\n 511:22 512:14 643:12 508:14 413:22 421:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 389 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[full - glitching] Page 33\n\n 438:17 439:3 349:22 350:15 487:10 502:5 534:2,17 567:9\n 460:5 493:17 352:18 355:18 502:17 505:2 588:3 593:6\n 502:15 619:3 358:4 359:3 511:14 608:12\n 639:15 360:22 397:3 garner 495:22 given 335:6\n fully 325:17 397:20 398:23 general 376:23 374:11 407:10\n 576:9 614:16 459:10 468:2,9 377:15 407:15 409:19,19\n 618:16 621:18 468:17 469:3 412:11 523:23 410:18 411:14\n 621:18 473:9 475:6 566:8 411:21,25\n fund 473:13 477:4,9,10 generally 373:7 412:3 413:8\n further 350:2 478:6 499:25 373:15,20,21 414:8 423:17\n 351:10 373:3,4 500:11,21 432:10 545:4 423:22 427:10\n 401:25 495:2 503:8,25 generate 436:3 455:4\n 507:11 509:8 506:13 515:11 378:10 604:7,8 461:19 464:14\n 598:16 643:16 521:11 571:9 generated 480:14 498:23\n 643:18 647:12 572:6 501:12 540:16 549:6,6\n 648:8 garmaise's generating 590:24 603:16\n furthermore 309:15 310:21 379:14 581:20 613:23 634:16\n 631:22 311:6,21 generation 640:18 644:12\n future 379:12 313:17 326:11 589:21 gives 377:2\n 604:14 617:10 330:5,15 gentlemen 454:5 456:3\n 617:15 618:9 331:20 332:9 492:17 giving 439:25\n 618:10 332:11,19,25 getting 329:25 466:14 496:18\n g 334:5,15 348:15 385:20 543:9 590:18\n 336:22 346:4 414:17 416:11 593:25\n gain 367:17\n 350:3,7 351:4 418:16 470:14 glancy 296:4\n 529:21\n 351:11,16,20 514:10 523:3 296:12\n game 336:8\n 354:25 356:18 give 305:6,6,7 glancylaw.com\n 356:17\n 359:3 360:15 307:24 321:15 296:7,15\n garmaise\n 385:9 393:9,19 324:13 352:13 glinkh 296:7\n 298:20 299:3,6\n 394:8,16 376:19 389:17 glitched 560:6\n 312:20 317:13\n 402:13 405:21 403:22 406:7 glitching\n 318:14 319:17\n 407:4 429:24 432:15 461:11 519:12 562:14\n 327:2,4 328:7\n 459:14 470:19 471:14,17,18 563:6,11\n 328:11 347:6\n 481:22 482:20 496:12 505:17\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 390 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[glitchy - good] Page 34\n\n glitchy 564:24 479:8,11 386:25 412:22 457:8,13\n 564:25 480:12,17 419:14 428:15 458:11,15\n global 402:17 481:19,25 432:8 433:4 472:22 474:6\n 402:22 403:13 483:18 487:9 454:25 483:21 474:13,14\n go 307:5,23,25 487:13 490:24 487:20,22 476:7,8 477:15\n 308:14 314:8,8 491:24 501:14 488:23 511:13 477:24 484:18\n 315:13,19 501:18 504:21 568:9 574:13 489:20,22\n 317:10,11 506:11,21 583:3 586:10 504:20,22\n 320:10 324:23 510:21 511:24 598:16 604:11 505:12 507:12\n 325:13 327:20 512:25 513:17 632:25 507:22 508:14\n 330:10 331:12 514:15,16 going 300:3 509:7 510:21\n 331:13,22 515:2 518:14 303:15,16 513:17 519:10\n 332:20 334:23 521:7 524:2 315:13,14,19 519:21 520:5\n 335:10 338:25 530:3 535:6 316:6,8 321:13 542:15 550:9,9\n 341:2 342:24 537:7 542:19 321:14 324:16 552:3 553:17\n 349:6,10,19 542:24 548:2 326:21 333:4 554:15 556:5\n 352:16,19 552:14 553:5 333:11 335:21 560:16 563:12\n 354:22 356:17 556:8 561:18 340:20 349:8 564:3 568:13\n 360:8 365:5,22 563:15 564:3,5 361:12 363:17 573:4 575:17\n 367:6 369:17 564:19 565:18 364:18 370:18 577:20 579:12\n 369:17 384:7 565:23 585:16 373:23 375:13 579:13 587:25\n 384:10,12 589:21,22 378:10 384:4,5 594:22,25\n 392:20 404:3 593:15 605:3 384:7 385:24 596:12 601:19\n 405:5 420:17 606:16,24 387:25 389:16 602:7 609:9\n 420:18,19,20 610:24 614:11 393:18,25 622:3 623:18\n 421:23 441:5 614:18 615:8 401:15 403:21 632:3 636:8,22\n 441:13 445:9 615:23 616:3 403:21,25 637:17 640:21\n 445:17 450:8 622:16,18 406:6 409:11 645:22\n 455:20 458:16 627:6 631:12 413:4 418:20 gold 461:15\n 458:18,22 633:3 636:5 421:25 424:3 good 300:2\n 469:23 472:17 638:23 640:4 426:17 429:3 303:8 317:2\n 472:19 473:4 645:8 440:23 441:8 506:7 535:22\n 473:25 475:8 goes 335:17 442:20 443:8 535:23 560:13\n 476:7,8,10 338:19 339:21 448:5 455:6 588:2 628:10\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 391 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[governance - heart] Page 35\n\n governance 613:15 614:25 h hardware\n 602:14,24 greg 301:3 h 298:5 299:1 381:6\n grabbed 316:23 326:9 h.c. 395:22 harm 606:7\n 460:12 326:12 333:21 396:6,14 hash 367:2,9,25\n grading 378:6 404:23 429:22 397:16 398:10 368:6,10 369:3\n granted 641:22 504:23 506:9 398:19 400:20 395:24 397:18\n graph 371:6 518:18 h4 484:23 399:15 402:17\n 373:2 gregory 296:3 485:17 402:22 403:13\n graphic 390:10 grow 584:24 half 388:24 624:9,11\n great 347:25 guess 324:7 391:12,17 637:16 638:17\n 354:3 378:15 326:24 355:15 413:20 428:21 641:5\n 441:15 455:14 360:24 376:20 434:2 441:6 hasthantra\n 494:13 545:20 377:20 382:8 468:7 602:17 295:4 296:2,10\n 549:8 564:23 391:13 404:23 halfway 388:23 300:8 301:4\n 580:15 622:25 422:13 427:5 hand 302:15 649:2\n 623:7 519:11 520:10 552:9 head 460:11\n greater 406:14 536:2 541:7 happen 302:5 472:10 489:18\n 442:4,6 447:11 583:3 599:3 415:13 451:17 504:19 532:21\n 447:16 448:17 609:8 627:22 520:9 539:5 636:15\n 448:20 451:14 639:18 happened heading 551:25\n 451:17,23,24 guidance 417:21 headline\n 452:23,25 625:12 626:6 happening 540:24\n 455:14,25 626:14,15,22 488:24 heads 568:8\n 456:18,24 627:4,18 happens 415:8 headset 547:3\n 461:23 488:20 628:10 happy 338:11 hear 304:20\n 493:14 494:2 guidances 352:16 400:4 477:7 501:12\n 495:22 499:23 633:13 403:21,25 509:15 559:24\n 500:9 guys 317:2 404:19 438:20 heard 458:9\n green 556:19 404:17,24 509:6 513:11 562:8 564:17\n 557:5,19 558:3 430:9 474:19 521:7 524:2 568:20\n 575:4 584:17 508:18 hard 313:10 hearing 301:7\n 584:19,22 336:11 347:21\n 603:22,23 heart 325:21\n 612:8,18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 392 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[heart's - impact] Page 36\n\n heart's 325:13 highly 540:20 hundred 470:13 474:17\n heaton 420:25 hirshleifer 477:20 477:22 484:3\n 421:3 423:9 547:19,23 hung 400:6 520:8 551:5\n heavily 579:3 548:11 hypotheses identified\n 641:24 642:5 historical 409:25 410:2 396:15 417:14\n help 322:12 495:12 hypothesis 465:15 483:9\n 376:8,11 hmm 341:8,16 406:16,22,23 identify 306:12\n 379:16 396:3 360:11 370:19 407:8,13,14 459:22 475:3\n 496:12 504:21 396:19 431:9 408:4,7,23 562:2,18\n 519:18 629:13 472:14 473:3 409:12,13 564:11\n helpful 355:16 501:18 597:15 410:12,13,21 identifying\n 491:6 501:3 606:20 622:9 411:2,5,13,19 336:25\n 514:11 563:14 hold 312:15 412:7,13 ignore 565:6,17\n 625:21 350:17 461:15 528:22 565:25 566:24\n helps 396:10 542:10 hypothetical ii 295:11\n 545:3 558:21 holding 389:22 423:12 454:13 imagine 481:16\n henry 546:23 hole 336:12 558:23 561:6 518:21\n hereto 647:13 honest 312:3 hypothetically immune 353:9\n 648:10 honestly 437:3 559:11 impact 413:19\n hey 419:2 628:20 i 413:25 414:4\n 429:16 445:10 hopefully 331:3 415:19,23\n i.e. 357:20\n 510:13 514:25 405:16 425:13 416:4,11,13,21\n 378:25 406:16\n 634:19 436:3 444:8 418:2,10 421:7\n 431:5 437:19\n hide 589:13,14 623:21 421:12,19,23\n 438:11 460:16\n high 340:8 hoping 340:17 422:10,19,25\n 460:25 461:22\n 388:3,12 hour 404:13 423:6 425:20\n 462:12 463:4\n 440:14,14 441:5 509:12 428:10 432:25\n 463:24 497:7\n higher 366:20 hours 333:23 433:23 434:5\n idea 432:9\n 391:10 396:21 336:16 623:5 434:22 435:13\n 539:20 569:6\n 443:7 445:17 housing 616:17 435:19 436:7\n 578:17\n 585:13 hoyos 297:3 436:22 438:23\n identification\n highlight 554:4 huang 549:10 442:6,15,17\n 303:19 315:16\n 555:25 huge 507:7 443:13,22\n 363:22 430:7\n 551:23 448:21 450:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 393 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[impact - inflation] Page 37\n\n 451:25 452:10 357:11 407:12 include 643:24 increasing\n 453:2,8,9,17,20 410:25 412:9 included 379:21\n 453:23 454:12 implies 343:10 475:14 586:24 incurred\n 454:18,22 346:16 357:2 643:13 520:24 522:19\n 456:20,25 391:16 457:21 includes 504:12 indicate 407:22\n 457:6 521:3 529:18 including 470:6 616:21\n 522:9 540:22 imply 359:22 357:17 395:14 617:16 618:25\n 571:11 573:16 396:20 422:24 income 568:17 indicated\n 606:3,11 446:8 inconsequent... 329:16 482:20\n 607:13 619:15 implying 320:13 641:2\n 620:4,21 370:15 inconsistent indicative\n impacted 403:5 important 358:14 380:9 416:13\n 427:10 619:10 304:18 307:16 incorporated individual\n 619:23 620:9 347:16 488:19 300:9 526:14 374:25 399:13\n 620:12 508:2 578:2 526:23 431:18,24\n impacts 523:7 589:24 incorrect 432:4 440:20\n 540:25 importantly 359:21,24 industry 510:2\n implication 356:2 422:4 471:25 588:4 510:20 583:18\n 349:22 350:15 impounded incorrectly inference 360:5\n 350:18,20 530:2 589:4 414:8 424:21\n 352:2 357:15 impression increase 366:25 425:15,25\n 357:17 359:10 461:12 367:9,25 368:6 426:3 440:2,12\n 359:23 364:15 improvements 369:3 397:6 444:11 446:23\n 364:25 365:4 484:25 485:2 489:15 inferences\n 397:4 638:4 incentive 566:2 490:4 498:3,22 434:8 460:18\n implicit 410:12 567:22 542:4 627:12 461:3 462:13\n 410:13,20 incentives 628:9 463:5,25\n implicitly 567:4 568:11 increased 521:15 522:2\n 637:5,21 641:4 571:20 586:11 368:10 496:19 539:7\n implied 345:24 587:6 496:20 497:13 inferred 523:3\n 346:9 350:3,6 incentivized 497:18 586:15 inferring\n 350:19 351:11 562:24,25 627:5 359:20 436:10\n 351:13,25 inception increases inflation\n 356:6,7,8,10 473:16 496:25 342:16 343:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 394 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[inflation - internal] Page 38\n\n 346:16 350:4 436:17 437:21 540:16,21,22 install 508:14\n 351:12 355:19 438:13 439:8 540:25 542:12 instance 592:23\n 357:2,16 358:5 439:10 440:7 546:14 548:13 instances\n 358:9 359:4 440:10,16 549:2 552:17 314:25\n 360:23 379:7 443:14 446:14 566:15 570:4 instruct 305:25\n 387:9 389:4,10 446:15,17,24 570:18 573:4 instructed\n 391:21 392:5 450:6 451:5 575:7,13,15,23 308:24\n 393:2,7 490:7 454:3,7 458:11 576:5,13,16,21 instructions\n 490:10 470:23 480:16 579:12,20 642:17\n influence 579:3 480:25 481:3 586:24 611:24 intend 568:18\n influencer 491:4,20 496:7 612:4 613:3,8 622:2\n 502:10 503:12 496:13 497:7 620:18 640:20 intended\n 503:18 509:2 497:10 498:25 initial 328:25 301:16 400:10\n 509:17 510:9 499:9,15 343:8 607:4 510:16\n 510:17 511:2 500:16 502:21 615:7,16,17 intending\n 511:18 503:7,9,24 617:12 620:13 354:13\n influencer's 515:22 521:2,3 initially 380:5 intent 313:9\n 515:25 516:3 521:10,13,13 616:15 415:24\n information 521:14,15,18 initiative 382:7 intentionally\n 298:21 299:16 521:20 522:8,8 612:9 615:3 374:15 568:20\n 311:10,10 522:20 523:4,6 617:11 618:12 interest 583:7\n 313:21 340:3,6 523:7,13 524:6 618:14 621:10 interested\n 344:9,11 345:8 524:11,13,19 initiatives 329:23 647:14\n 397:12 398:4 524:24 525:4 381:10 383:23 648:11\n 411:15,22 525:10,16,16 injected 400:9 interesting\n 412:19 413:5,7 525:20,25 input 393:12 461:16 472:12\n 414:9,13,19,22 526:5,12,21 inputs 391:23 interests\n 416:6,9,14 527:3,15,18,25 392:22 395:16 582:23 583:21\n 424:13,24 528:23,25 insiders 552:21 595:6\n 425:5,6,10,12 529:8,12,15,19 553:24 interject\n 425:14,16 529:24 530:2,4 insinuation 361:14\n 427:9 431:7,14 530:10 531:9 590:23 internal 393:22\n 433:8,14 531:20 532:14 insofar 488:19 602:14,24\n 434:13 436:12 539:21,23 495:21 606:25\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 395 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[interpret - johnson] Page 39\n\n interpret 339:4 introduced 543:19 569:8 issued 303:14\n 416:18 425:2,4 303:16 307:3 569:22,22 562:3,18\n 432:10 435:20 384:11 429:15 570:15 571:4 564:12\n 435:24 436:2 429:22 458:24 572:19 573:12 issuer 552:25\n 444:6 455:21 504:25 574:10 575:6 issues 402:8\n 456:9 487:24 introducing 575:11,14 517:14 542:11\n 530:20 316:13 349:8 576:15 580:21 563:12 578:11\n interpretable 609:8 581:2,6 582:5 issuing 544:10\n 527:15 inversion 582:10,12,17 545:24 546:3\n interpretation 478:23 582:24 583:7 it'll 396:3\n 442:18 444:2,4 inverted 583:13 584:6 items 517:12\n 457:23 475:16,19 587:20 588:21 577:23\n interpreting 478:19 591:6,20 j\n 416:2 422:10 invest 364:17 592:14 593:18\n j 296:20\n 422:22 424:4 364:18 594:5 595:11\n january 387:22\n 434:6 436:8 invested 364:13 600:23 601:10\n 388:15 389:3,9\n 440:11 442:14 364:22 601:17 602:4,6\n 493:13 495:9\n 447:21 457:17 investment 602:13,23\n 497:17 499:2,3\n interprets 364:19 561:13 604:4 616:15\n 499:10,22\n 428:17 561:21,23 616:24 618:13\n 500:8 517:12\n interrupted investments 618:22 620:17\n 517:15 529:9\n 564:9 379:21,25 621:16\n 530:11 538:13\n interval 387:24 380:4,17 irrelevant\n 556:17,18,21\n 388:9 391:17 investor 317:16 323:17,21\n 609:12 619:11\n 413:13 419:8 318:16 319:20 480:14 588:11\n 619:24 620:13\n 488:6 338:15 339:7 isolation 425:3\n job 342:15,20\n intonation 339:18,20,25 issue 339:22\n 342:21 386:8\n 509:15 577:20 620:25 345:18 355:23\n 535:22,23\n introduce investor's 383:8 407:6\n 591:7,21\n 307:3 315:13 541:18 426:17 439:13\n 592:16\n 316:7 326:11 investors 456:7 516:22\n johnson 299:10\n 363:18 385:24 299:16 338:15 554:18 590:6\n 483:15 484:9\n 429:18 483:19 357:17 521:18 618:23\n 608:25 531:14 543:8\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 396 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[judge - lack] Page 40\n\n judge 642:6,12 keep 310:12 370:2 371:20 569:7 570:22\n 642:24 403:21,25 372:7,24 578:15,21\n judgements 436:5 447:23 373:23 375:19 584:25 589:16\n 539:7 448:5 452:19 376:25 377:4,5 589:17 590:21\n judgment 457:15 505:11 377:8,8,9,12 590:22 596:25\n 342:2 641:22 509:7,25 513:8 379:3,25 380:7 600:19 606:25\n july 298:19 560:15 594:19 384:7 385:10 625:17,25\n 306:19 402:16 599:5 385:19 390:14 626:5 629:12\n 403:4 430:5 keeping 408:2 390:17,18,20 631:19 633:19\n 479:9 490:20 kept 438:22 390:23 400:12 637:15 639:11\n 628:14 630:4,9 514:18 402:25,25 642:15\n 630:16,17,22 keystroke 404:18 405:3,4 knowing 454:6\n 631:4,24 632:7 354:20 408:25 417:20 knowingly\n 632:12,14,17 kilowatt 509:12 430:8,11 317:21 318:23\n 633:2,6,15,21 kind 313:10 433:10 436:24 319:25 329:10\n 633:24 634:3,5 375:11 377:15 445:11,13,16 knowledge\n 634:7,7,8,9,13 378:11 420:8 449:9 450:12 305:8 369:9\n 634:15,20,22 423:13 426:3 453:24 455:12 370:5 510:12\n 634:23 635:9 435:5 438:18 465:8 470:11 530:16 538:19\n 635:13 535:20 471:8 474:20 568:2,22\n jump 347:12 knew 532:25 474:21 477:16 586:18,21,23\n 352:16 403:20 know 301:23 478:9 481:10 587:14 593:13\n 415:21 416:16 301:25 303:22 483:20 503:3 594:23 647:9\n 443:12 563:16 304:19 305:17 505:13 508:18 648:6\n 563:17 305:18 307:18 512:2 515:21 known 506:18\n jumping 622:9 307:19,21 518:25 519:3 507:6,14,23\n june 372:18 311:20 317:24 521:22,24 l\n 631:21 322:3,7 326:12 525:2 536:6\n labs 557:10\n justification 331:9 333:20 538:15 540:8\n 606:23 607:3,5\n 357:15 338:6,23 340:9 541:12 544:17\n 607:15\n k 348:13 351:6 548:3,24 549:3\n lack 417:24\n 355:11 366:2 553:17 554:8\n kane 565:5,12 418:7,12,23\n 366:12 367:12 554:15 555:2\n 421:9,17,18,20\n 367:24 369:19 557:7 568:19\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 397 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[lack - likely] Page 41\n\n 422:9,17,23,24 633:15,21 341:19 342:9 456:18,24\n 454:9,15 634:5,13 635:8 legitimate 460:20 461:5\n 510:14 612:12 640:19 554:19 461:14,23\n 614:23 law 461:12 legitimize 463:7 464:8\n lacked 608:8 538:3 566:14 468:3,10,18\n laid 632:9 lawclerk lending 299:5 469:11 473:14\n 633:25 557:15,20 475:7 476:24 482:18\n language laws 301:18 length 439:19 487:3,7 488:6\n 359:16 398:17 lawsuit 303:13 587:5 489:3,7,11\n 398:20 400:12 lawyer 408:2 letter 389:22 levels 421:22\n 401:7 403:4 lay 403:9 622:5 426:18,19\n 421:8 435:19 620:24 letters 299:11 429:5 470:6\n 436:22,25 layman's 483:16 484:10 481:15,17\n 438:25 447:18 376:23 415:2 letting 316:20 485:7 486:5,19\n 448:8 455:7 layup 543:10 level 340:9 486:20 487:23\n 462:17 471:10 lead 605:11,24 371:20 406:19 488:11,15\n 478:14 479:2 616:19 617:23 413:9,17,22 621:22\n 507:9 508:3 leap 425:20 415:4,6,10,17 lies 309:24\n 565:15,16,19 437:11,12 417:4,15,15,16 310:5 312:8,17\n 565:21 629:15 leapt 426:4 418:25 419:20 life 615:20\n lap 295:7 leave 307:11 423:17,23 light 453:6\n 300:12 355:11 426:21 427:7 531:13 578:10\n large 365:14,19 leaving 374:16 427:19,23 liked 495:9\n 365:24 366:3 left 364:13,23 428:7 431:5 likelihood\n 370:22 503:14 552:9 564:7 432:7,24 433:9 414:7 418:20\n 612:19 615:2 legacy 333:11 433:21 434:21 likely 369:17\n largely 361:6 334:11 382:5 437:19 438:11 415:12 418:21\n 396:23 397:9 382:18 383:19 439:15,17 427:9 428:9,12\n larger 574:25 383:20,25 442:4 443:19 431:5 437:19\n late 627:8 626:19 628:4,5 443:20 448:15 438:11 443:9\n 628:13 629:18 legal 308:21,22 448:17 449:11 444:16,18,20\n 630:4,15,16 309:4,18 310:4 450:16 451:14 444:21,22,24\n 631:3,11,15,25 310:14,19 451:22 452:24 446:20 448:7\n 632:6,11,14 312:9,13,15 455:13,16 449:16 450:4,5\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 398 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[likely - literature] Page 42\n\n 450:10,17 327:4,7,13 518:24 519:4 615:17 619:17\n 455:6 456:20 344:16,19 520:13 521:5 620:6,10 621:6\n 457:2 462:19 345:13 346:24 522:10 523:14 621:20 623:2,7\n 473:15 573:13 347:18 348:14 524:16 525:11 624:22 627:21\n limited 548:20 352:11 353:19 525:23 526:16 631:5 642:2\n 548:22 609:18 354:7 359:6,19 526:25 529:13 643:18 644:6\n 609:20 610:23 361:4 362:8,11 530:12 531:5 644:18,20,24\n lindsey 295:16 363:3,23 531:21,24 645:16\n 300:15 348:2 369:14 377:21 532:7,10 533:4 list 459:24\n 623:2 647:2,20 378:3 379:23 533:20 534:6 464:17,19\n line 335:10,10 380:6 381:3 535:2 536:11 465:14,21\n 336:15,15 383:6 385:5,8 536:20 537:20 467:9,12,13\n 386:14,16,18 388:16 405:4,9 538:6 539:12 547:7,12\n 386:19,20,23 415:20 418:3 540:6 541:11 listed 387:24\n 386:25 387:5,6 418:11 422:20 541:14 543:20 466:17 547:5\n 387:8 398:8 424:15 426:23 544:11 545:25 548:7 608:7\n 419:13,24 429:16,19,24 554:7 555:21 listen 474:2\n 421:24 455:10 433:3 434:24 557:23 561:4 509:14\n 456:10 461:13 435:4,15 562:7 566:4 listened 501:9\n 484:22 485:23 440:25 441:7 571:5 576:24 516:2\n 485:24 488:10 441:12,15 580:5 582:8,20 listening\n 492:5,7 622:13 442:8 443:24 583:14 584:10 473:21\n 625:23 649:5 448:23 450:19 586:4 587:21 lists 557:18\n lines 552:8 452:3 453:4 588:22 590:16 literal 337:21\n link 414:20 454:23 457:4,7 591:10,23 literally 513:21\n 416:10 436:4 457:10 465:19 592:18 594:9 628:23 633:23\n 437:8 442:12 465:24 467:14 594:12 595:16 literature\n linked 502:24 482:22 483:22 596:24 598:10 417:2 426:25\n 517:16 533:3 483:25 497:2 599:2 600:6,9 427:19,24\n linkh 296:3 497:19 498:16 601:4,15 456:15 524:8\n 301:3,3 302:22 500:3,13 505:4 602:16 603:2 526:2 535:5,10\n 302:25 305:22 505:16,22 604:5 606:9 535:10,22\n 314:3,6 317:3 511:22 512:5 609:3 611:25 540:18 541:3\n 326:14,19 512:14 517:18 613:4 615:15 541:16 542:3\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 399 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[literature - loss] Page 43\n\n 542:25 543:4 long 321:14,16 491:24 508:12 387:23 392:22\n 543:15 545:4 459:16 560:16 514:19 515:15 396:4 402:24\n 545:11 549:16 longer 321:14 516:11 522:19 409:18 410:5\n 549:20,24 look 316:13 532:20 533:24 411:8 412:2,15\n 555:13,24 330:10,11,12 548:3,5 551:22 417:10 430:13\n 566:8 571:2,8 330:18,24 552:7 561:19 434:6 446:6\n 605:10,23 332:20,23 561:20 570:13 460:6 464:22\n 642:9 334:5,15 335:9 570:14 577:20 467:21 471:5\n little 331:18 335:10 336:23 586:13 593:16 473:6 476:17\n 332:16 370:23 338:20 341:2 604:21 605:7 477:12 485:22\n 374:14 375:17 371:17 372:21 608:16 610:8 486:11 508:24\n 375:18 376:19 374:21 375:25 613:17 614:19 533:14 541:21\n 378:5 387:6 376:25 396:5,8 625:25 626:2 551:19 577:2\n 390:13 391:3 398:7 401:13 627:7,9 636:6 578:24,25\n 412:6 414:15 402:10 403:3 636:21 638:23 579:2,11\n 416:16,17,24 408:11,11 639:25 640:2,5 582:10,11\n 419:17 423:13 409:7,17 642:8 604:12 631:17\n 425:21 428:5 413:12 418:18 looked 369:18 looks 388:2,4\n 436:5,19 420:3,19,21 371:6 372:20 390:8 408:17\n 512:20 514:10 425:9 429:6 374:2 393:10 411:10 455:4\n 563:13 564:24 430:18 431:10 395:6 445:7 473:18\n 627:22 432:3 435:22 459:17,25 los 296:14\n llc 649:1 436:24 451:10 460:11 464:21 lose 567:11,12\n llp 296:4,12 459:3,21 465:3,4,7 loss 308:7,10\n loaded 370:23 463:15 464:20 467:5 486:9 308:18 309:9\n 592:20 464:23,23 504:8 518:11 319:4 320:4\n local 469:9 465:10,15,22 570:9 581:6 322:2,6,11,13\n located 302:2 467:17 468:14 611:2 322:21 323:14\n location 295:14 468:20,25 looking 316:12 323:23 324:4,5\n locked 568:13 469:22,24 331:6,17 333:8 324:9,15 326:2\n logic 631:23 470:2 471:12 336:10 337:25 329:2,7 330:6\n logical 498:9 471:19 472:19 339:15 352:17 330:17 338:15\n 498:12,17 474:4 480:18 364:7 369:22 338:18 342:4,7\n 484:18 491:2 376:24 386:17 364:4 365:14\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 400 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[loss - marked] Page 44\n\n 365:19,20,24 397:4 462:3 make 321:6 management\n 366:3,8 605:12 502:12 509:4 325:16 327:17 380:25 381:7\n 605:24 606:13 625:12 626:6 329:21 333:15 381:17 382:14\n 606:14 621:3 lowered 357:18 348:15,22 383:3 563:2\n losses 317:17 627:19 349:24 351:9 566:3,9 567:5\n 318:17 319:21 lunch 404:4,12 359:17 360:5 567:6,9,11\n 338:15 339:7 lying 619:16 361:25 378:21 568:14 583:8\n 339:18,20,25 620:5,22 621:5 379:25 383:8 manner 301:19\n 358:17 363:14 m 384:10 386:6 marathon\n 363:15 394:3 410:8 502:10,13\n made 314:22\n lost 364:9 414:8 425:25 503:2,13 508:7\n 317:21 318:24\n lot 321:13 426:3,4 427:16 508:17 509:2,5\n 319:25 329:6\n 325:18,19 434:8,18 436:5 509:10 511:2,9\n 329:11 331:25\n 329:22 364:6 439:4 440:2,17 512:10 515:14\n 374:9 379:20\n 382:3 392:18 441:9 443:12 516:22 518:2,8\n 380:17 395:15\n 394:22 397:12 444:11 446:23 marathon's\n 396:15 437:13\n 398:22 409:23 521:14 522:2 515:12\n 439:2 460:17\n 449:2,3 451:2 522:17 524:14 march 482:5,18\n 461:2 462:13\n 491:4 503:7 524:19,22 482:23,24,24\n 463:5,25 494:5\n 512:17 513:9 539:7 564:25 490:19\n 515:24 525:8\n 514:22 531:13 567:25 marginal\n 528:25 578:12\n 536:22 553:10 makes 339:9 528:24 529:2,7\n 578:18 603:17\n 567:14 568:20 340:2 349:22 529:11,16,17\n 625:9 637:12\n 570:2 573:3 350:15 361:12 marginally\n 637:13\n 577:5,6 578:5 410:10 608:5 476:23\n magnitude\n 581:14 606:10 632:5 marinovic\n 406:13 456:2\n 613:13 630:10 making 318:2 299:14 520:4\n 488:8\n lots 504:12 358:8 359:16 mark 328:7,10\n main 480:23\n low 435:7 424:21,23 341:3 385:21\n 510:10 577:2\n 509:25 510:19 428:16 437:11 447:8 514:14\n maintain 566:2\n 516:18 437:12 498:13 marked 303:18\n major 503:20\n lower 366:21 498:18 638:4 315:15 326:10\n 509:20 510:3\n 388:15,18,21 man 552:8 328:6 330:4\n 516:12 614:22\n 388:24 396:21 349:11 363:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 401 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[marked - mentioned] Page 45\n\n 430:6 470:12 materiality 444:14,17,21 meant 351:25\n 474:16 477:21 323:14 419:9 444:23 448:2 365:24 400:11\n 484:2 505:13 420:6 455:2 455:17 462:7,9 425:23 487:8\n 505:19 506:12 488:18 463:8 482:15 578:11 596:15\n 506:25 518:20 materialize 487:21,24 measure 343:9\n 520:7 551:2,4 604:15 494:17 512:7 346:16 357:2\nmarkers 388:9 materials 641:3 517:20 522:12 357:16 359:11\nmarket 299:17 math 344:4 523:23 525:2 371:25 391:20\n 346:19 357:8 424:4 529:5 533:24 392:4 413:10\n 365:20 366:9 matter 300:8 535:4,12 measuring\n 375:11 378:24 308:7,19,22 538:15 541:13 393:2\n 379:10 425:16 311:18 315:9 546:3 553:12 media 300:5\n 431:15 446:13 317:8 343:8 557:25 562:10 362:16,20\n 451:3 493:23 344:25 357:22 572:5 575:14 441:17,21\n 496:13 527:9 372:5 374:13 576:10 589:2 492:20,24\n 527:16 530:5 393:6 525:13 596:5,22 503:18 550:17\n 540:25 541:21 643:5,13 598:22 617:24 550:21 570:16\n 542:5 609:13 matters 305:15 627:20 630:13 623:9,13 644:9\n 609:17 610:3 matthew meaning medicine 591:2\n 610:22 611:14 296:18 300:25 350:18 364:21 memorized\n 614:6 max 441:3 370:8,17 371:9 330:20 365:23\nmarket's mean 312:3 400:9 491:5 515:16\n 493:22 322:12 324:7 meaningless 605:6 625:20\nmarketplace 328:19 331:23 455:17 memory 500:25\n 499:20 539:22 341:12 350:16 means 301:20 548:17 587:25\n 546:6 582:11 350:19 353:8 364:22 366:11 638:21 639:7\nmarks 509:8 353:13 354:4 370:21 410:5 640:20\nmass 373:22 364:12 366:2 416:19 419:20 memory's\nmassive 298:14 366:12 369:16 429:2 444:8 627:7\nmatched 485:4 370:12 376:12 452:24 453:22 mention 404:7\nmaterial 388:17 409:5 457:19 527:25 587:2,2\n 317:21 318:24 410:17,25 529:15 555:18 mentioned\n 320:2 329:11 422:9 430:25 567:12 572:9 395:17 402:23\n 573:8 614:22 438:2,5 442:5 637:11 462:25 507:25\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 402 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[mentioned - minutes] Page 46\n\n 558:8,10 562:23 564:4 microfinance minds 566:6\n 581:12 603:23 565:4 570:3,3 298:25 470:25 mine 327:25\n mercifully 570:22,23 microgrid 341:3 363:23\n 360:7 573:11,24,25 616:18 368:11 510:19\n mere 467:2 574:5 587:24 mid 629:19 516:17\n merely 432:21 588:5 606:17 630:7,8,18,19 mined 395:23\n 608:6 608:12 609:23 630:23,24 397:18\n merger 298:16 615:8 622:8 631:16,16,22 miner 381:22\n merit's 384:13 625:19 626:17 631:23 632:15 miners 368:23\n merits 298:18 629:10 630:22 632:19,22,22 403:6\n 306:18,21 message 551:8 632:23 633:4,4 minimum\n 314:10 316:9 551:12 633:16,16,22 309:22 312:12\n 329:2 331:22 met 473:12 634:2,6,14,18 464:15 517:20\n 333:12 339:13 method 387:11 634:19,22,23 mining 379:22\n 341:4 349:12 391:21,22 635:10,11,12 380:8,18,25\n 358:13 384:21 393:5,11 498:7 635:14,14 381:17 382:6\n 385:16 389:5 methodologies might've 382:14 383:3\n 389:11 393:14 309:16 310:22 380:12 394:10,18\n 429:8,11,12 311:7 313:18 million 345:25 397:7 400:22\n 430:3 437:7 391:20 392:4,6 346:21 348:25 403:6,15\n 438:6 444:16 392:19,25 349:2 350:5 469:10 507:6,7\n 458:18 471:4 451:9 351:13 352:19 507:16,24\n 473:2 475:9 methodology 355:20,25 508:13,19\n 476:11,12,13 373:6,15 374:6 356:12 357:10 509:13 510:6\n 479:9,15 374:18 391:24 357:13,23 582:2\n 490:19 491:25 392:2,23 358:6 359:5 minute 332:3,3\n 493:7 508:25 methods 360:24 627:2,3 384:4,6 430:18\n 520:2,20 528:8 392:17 393:15 627:12,14 509:8 550:3\n 528:13 534:19 metric 372:22 mincing 384:2 635:19\n 534:23,25 391:14 mind 377:13 minutes 361:18\n 542:17 544:8 mfis 472:21 408:2 448:12 404:8,13,14,16\n 546:22 547:17 473:11 550:2 554:9 404:21 441:3\n 547:25 548:9 microcap 596:3 569:4 595:6 492:14 595:22\n 548:16 549:13 601:7 634:4 596:14 622:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 403 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[minutes - name] Page 47\n\n 622:24 623:5 missing 399:21 469:14 479:21 425:8 431:13\n 623:19 638:17 491:15 502:14 433:16 434:11\nmiscellaneous misstatements 520:4 534:17 434:14 436:13\n 623:23 342:18 monday 644:24 440:13 612:12\nmisguided mistake 355:7 money 525:20 613:20,23\n 317:19 318:21 524:14,19,23 monitors 614:24 615:4\n 319:23 331:11 525:8 417:21 movements\n 331:21 332:19 misunderstan... moonlight 412:24,25\n 334:17 335:2 426:7,10,11 589:2 595:25 424:14 431:3,8\n 335:12,13 599:7 596:22 597:3 433:11 437:17\n 337:2,8 338:24 misunderstood moonlighting 437:22 438:9\nmisread 350:2 375:17 588:10 596:15 438:14 439:13\nmisrepresent... mix 439:9 596:16,19 446:15\n 479:18 480:4 mm 341:8,16 moonlights moving 331:17\n 480:11 481:7 360:11 370:19 596:2,4 446:20 519:24\n 482:6,8 396:19 431:9 morning 300:2 multi 469:8\nmisrepresent... 472:14 473:3 303:8 multiple\n 317:16,22 501:18 597:15 mortgage 338:20 367:3\n 318:16,25 606:20 622:9 299:5 475:7 367:10 497:22\n 319:20 320:2,9 model 408:5 mosaic 527:13 589:6\n 329:11 338:14 410:22 487:17 motivated multiplicity\n 339:6 343:11 489:14 490:2 529:25 531:7 603:16\n 346:19 357:4 639:22 640:5 mouth 449:3 multitude\n 357:24 624:3 models 639:25 mouthful 407:2 367:18 395:14\n 624:19 625:5 moeller 298:11 move 324:24 murray 296:4\n 625:14 626:8 363:11 326:7 348:9 296:12\nmisrepresented moment 303:20 384:8 385:25 musk 593:7,20\n 344:11 315:20 316:5 446:13 458:16 594:22\nmisreps 339:18 328:19 332:22 602:8 612:18 n\n 339:20,24 337:15 396:18 moved 433:14\n n 296:1 297:1\n 342:13 401:20 406:4 446:18,19\n 298:1\nmissed 376:13 407:6 423:15 612:15\n name 300:13\n 447:8 430:2 439:3 movement\n 300:21 301:3\n 459:5 463:11 412:3 414:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 404 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[name - numbers] Page 48\n\n 302:10 649:2,3 366:5,6 423:16 489:20 491:20 notion 333:12\nnames 547:21 423:21 476:23 498:25 499:8 383:18 412:23\nnance 648:2,15 566:15 574:20 505:10 518:22 487:23 488:24\nnascent 382:6 602:12,22 530:4 644:5 522:11 554:23\n 628:4,5 612:6,20 613:6 647:21 649:1 613:5\nnasdaq 509:9 613:9,16 615:3 newer 578:7 novel 416:7\nnatividad 617:7,13 618:6 news 628:10 november\n 298:21 299:7 618:21,23 nice 303:10 645:7\n 469:4 470:19 620:13 405:17 nuanced\n 473:9 477:4,10 negatively night 597:2 632:21\n 478:3 559:7 561:3 ninety 481:20 nuances 368:16\nnature 534:11 580:13 616:15 491:12,13 null 406:16,22\n 581:14 626:14 618:23 non 355:8 407:8,13,14\nnearly 627:13 negatives 418:5 440:13 408:4,7,23\nnecessarily 418:17 420:9 nonresponsive 409:12,25\n 414:18 545:6 negligible 321:16 333:24 410:12,13,20\n 635:11 626:22 510:23 411:2,4 412:7\nnecessary neither 595:6 normal 370:17 number 300:11\n 325:2 390:12 647:10 648:6 645:3,4,6 326:17 347:6\nneed 307:17,19 nekrasov normally 362:16,20\n 319:8 333:21 549:10 404:12 389:17 395:23\n 333:22 348:7 network notary 646:13 397:17 441:17\n 355:5,9 374:21 368:13,18,22 647:20 649:25 441:21 466:18\n 399:6 403:23 372:10,14,17 notations 470:6 466:19 478:17\n 404:20 416:5 402:9 note 314:24 492:20,24\n 472:9 498:11 never 466:15 343:8 350:3 505:12 550:17\n 544:12 550:11 565:12,15 351:10 371:8 550:21 615:12\n 561:7 586:12 574:10 578:16 551:7 608:19 623:9,13\n 601:23 610:7 new 295:2 notes 552:5 644:10\nneeded 563:4 296:6,23 notice 298:7 numbered\nneeds 404:2 300:11 307:3 304:3,4 365:7\n 573:5 589:8 330:3 340:3,5 noticing 300:19 numbers\nnegative 381:24 384:5 noting 585:12 501:16\n 365:15,16 416:7 441:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 405 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[numerous - oh] Page 49\n\nnumerous 530:12 531:5 600:9 601:15 567:18,20\n 599:19 531:21,24 603:2 620:10 577:8 579:7\nny 296:6,23 533:4,20 535:2 objectionable occurring\n o 536:11,20 333:24 334:8 408:12,13\n 537:20 538:6 objections 443:11 446:10\nobject 305:23\n 539:12 540:6 301:8 348:15 448:10 449:18\n 305:23 314:3,6\n 541:11 543:20 objective 450:24 456:5\n 328:25 344:16\n 544:11 545:25 529:25 489:4\n 344:19 345:13\n 554:7 555:21 observe 413:8 october 295:12\n 346:24 352:11\n 557:23 561:4 421:6 423:5 298:10 300:4\n 353:19 354:7\n 562:7 566:4 436:11 304:6 306:22\n 359:6,19 361:4\n 571:5 576:24 observed 316:9 341:5\n 369:14 377:21\n 580:5 582:8,20 365:20 366:8 458:25\n 378:3 379:23\n 583:14 584:10 449:22 odd 434:4\n 380:6 381:3\n 586:4 587:21 observing offer 515:13\n 383:6 388:16\n 588:22 590:16 450:14 516:24 595:19\n 415:20 418:3\n 591:10,23 obstructionist 611:19\n 422:20 424:15\n 592:18 594:9 333:25 offered 314:11\n 426:23 433:3\n 594:12 595:16 obtain 422:8 392:7,21 428:2\n 434:24 435:4\n 596:24 598:10 525:20 500:15\n 435:15 442:8\n 599:2 600:6 obtained offering 448:3\n 443:24 448:23\n 601:4 602:16 499:11 552:19 452:22 456:7\n 450:19 452:3\n 604:5 606:9 obviously 496:23 498:15\n 454:23 457:4\n 611:25 613:4 303:11 304:12 576:12\n 465:19,24\n 619:17 620:6 305:11 307:13 officer 557:14\n 467:14 497:2\n 621:6,20 354:13,24 647:1,2\n 497:19 498:16\n 624:22 627:21 366:19 432:18 offset 627:14\n 500:3 511:22\n 631:5 642:2 634:7 offsetting\n 512:5,14\n objection occasional 626:13 627:15\n 517:18 521:5\n 301:10 347:18 353:9 oh 315:23\n 522:10 523:14\n 347:24 418:11 occur 406:14 318:7 327:4,8\n 524:16 525:11\n 453:4 457:7,10 624:11 327:11 355:5\n 525:23 526:16\n 457:11 500:13 occurred 373:11 385:10\n 526:25 529:13\n 532:7,10 534:6 322:14 397:6 401:5 405:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 406 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[oh - okay] Page 50\n\n 417:22 429:14 342:15,24 397:13 398:7 481:18,24\n 429:17 458:9 343:5,16,20 398:16 401:2,5 482:4,9,13\n 477:18 478:11 344:6 345:5,21 401:8 402:5,7 483:8,14,20,25\n 478:16 483:3 345:22 346:7 402:22 403:18 484:7,13,15,16\n 485:22 501:17 346:15 347:9 403:19 404:10 485:14,21\n 506:25 544:22 347:24 348:6 406:6 407:25 486:4,14\n 545:17 550:8 348:12,24 410:24 411:12 487:13,16,16\n 552:8 559:17 349:6,9,16,19 412:17 413:9 490:12,18\n 559:19 596:10 350:12 352:25 413:16 416:23 491:16,22\n 643:24 644:3 354:2,11 417:20,23 492:16 493:11\n okay 303:4,8 355:14 356:16 422:12 424:7,8 495:17 500:19\n 303:24 304:4,9 356:21 358:3 426:15 427:5 501:14,15,22\n 304:12 306:5,8 360:8,14 427:25 428:4 501:24 504:9\n 306:11,23 361:11,12 429:6,20,25 504:11,16\n 308:4 309:3,13 362:6,11 363:9 430:17 432:23 505:16,22,23\n 310:8 311:5 363:17 364:3 440:23 441:2 505:25 506:4\n 313:23,24 364:12 365:5,8 441:12,16 506:11 507:2\n 315:11,12,23 365:11,18 444:14 454:9 507:10,16\n 316:5 317:4,10 366:22 367:21 458:15 459:8 508:23 517:11\n 318:19 319:4 368:4,25 369:6 460:14 464:17 518:14 519:15\n 319:11 321:7 369:11 370:7 467:9,25 519:24 520:14\n 321:23 322:23 371:7 372:10 468:16,22 520:16,19,23\n 324:6 325:6,24 372:16 374:5 469:14,21 524:22 526:11\n 326:6,21 375:3 380:3 470:9,14 471:2 528:7,19 529:5\n 327:11,15,19 381:25 384:3,9 471:13,18 531:3 532:3\n 327:20 328:2,3 384:11 385:4 472:8,16,18,19 534:5,14 536:9\n 328:13,18 386:5,12 387:3 473:4,18 474:5 537:15 538:10\n 329:5,18,20 387:4,13,19 474:24 475:3,8 538:18 541:7\n 330:2 331:8 388:4,12,12,20 475:11,21 542:15 544:3,4\n 336:20 337:13 389:2,13 476:3,20 477:3 545:13,14,20\n 337:16,25 390:21,22 477:15,24 546:11,12,21\n 338:25 340:24 391:7,8,18 478:9 479:7,11 547:2,5 548:22\n 340:25 341:9 392:16 393:13 479:13,14,23 549:5,8 550:2\n 341:11 342:6 393:18 395:19 479:25 480:8 551:13,15,15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 407 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[okay - opinion] Page 51\n\n 551:21 552:3 623:15 624:24 opener 389:23 428:2 437:24\n 552:14 553:4 626:12 627:4 opening 613:7 437:25 448:3\n 553:13 554:3 627:18 628:9 614:12 448:13,22\n 555:11 556:5,9 628:12,22 operational 451:13 452:2\n 556:17 557:2,6 629:4,12,23 298:23 470:24 452:13,15,16\n 558:7,23 636:5,17,25 operations 452:22,23\n 559:17,18 637:21 638:6 572:4 453:3 456:6,17\n 560:7,10,16,18 638:11 641:10 operative 456:23 466:22\n 560:20 563:7 644:3,21,25 594:18 466:22 468:21\n 564:23 565:3 645:13,20 opine 338:11 495:18 496:15\n 565:22,22 old 382:18 338:22 373:3 496:18,24\n 567:21,24,25 577:7,19 538:23 566:5 497:17 499:21\n 568:25 569:7 older 578:7 621:12 500:7,15\n 572:22 573:10 omissions opining 536:19 520:23 522:6\n 574:3,7 575:19 317:22 318:25 536:21 568:6 522:17,18,21\n 576:12,20 320:2,8 342:18 576:25 522:24 523:2\n 580:15 582:16 omitted 344:11 opinion 308:21 523:17 524:4\n 586:8 587:14 once 316:10 308:22 309:4 525:12,19\n 589:12 591:5 330:24 500:5 310:15,16,24 526:9,11,20\n 593:15 594:17 531:12 533:7 311:3,18 312:2 530:24 534:9\n 595:21 596:10 580:24 619:19 312:10,11,21 539:2,8,16\n 597:5 599:9 630:11 315:9 324:12 543:19 561:6\n 600:13,19 one's 592:4 331:9 343:18 561:17 565:23\n 601:22,22 ones 336:25 344:21,22 566:19,21\n 602:5 605:9,16 337:2 392:8,10 345:3,6,15,22 567:2,16,17,19\n 606:5,21 607:9 393:16 396:14 346:2,8,14 574:9 576:13\n 607:11,25 461:9 486:21 347:5,10 371:5 576:19 584:13\n 608:17,18,24 ooh 386:15 372:19,24 587:15,17\n 610:9,15,21 open 484:4 373:5,14,16 590:3,5,17\n 611:10,21 506:3,11 519:9 374:5,10,23 594:14 595:18\n 612:22 614:10 520:17 615:21 375:3 376:3 608:20 609:12\n 615:5,18,23 opened 474:7 377:16 391:19 609:17,25\n 616:7,10,13 551:8 392:15 426:20 610:13,22\n 619:8 622:7,20 427:2,6,14,20 611:12,19\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 408 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[opinion - pagination] Page 52\n\n 614:3,8 620:25 orient 629:13 overlap 631:3 550:18,22\n 621:15 623:24 oriented 632:14 633:21 563:20,23\n 624:16,25 548:19 634:14 635:9 623:10,14\n 625:2,11 626:6 original 429:12 635:10 644:11,15\n 628:24 629:2,5 548:8 573:25 overlaps 630:6 645:22 646:2\n 638:12 641:23 644:17 630:18 634:6 p2k 557:10,20\n 642:20 originally overly 334:23 604:20,25\n opinions 323:19 335:7 576:10 606:23 607:3,5\n 305:10 310:4 outcome oversight 607:14,15\n 317:19 318:22 647:14 648:11 547:13 p2k's 608:7\n 319:23 320:15 outcomes overstated package 593:10\n 320:25 323:13 299:18 570:10 593:19,20\n 337:19 344:24 outlined 320:17 overstatement page 298:2,6\n 467:23 567:9 431:19 440:21 512:4 299:2 336:14\n 623:21 643:12 567:2 568:9 overstating 337:14,17,18\n opportunities 570:22 634:16 573:14 337:21,23,24\n 394:24 outlook 375:4,6 owe 552:24 365:6,7,8,13\n opportunity 375:8,21,22 own 615:20 385:2,17\n 394:6 403:23 376:2,3,5,12 owned 588:13 393:21 398:8\n 406:8 465:22 377:3,11,17,19 597:22 598:15 401:24 478:16\n opposed 424:14 378:6,7 474:12 owner 599:16 481:25 484:14\n 431:8 437:22 outlooks ownership 484:16 485:10\n 438:14 573:14 377:25 592:3 485:11,13,20\n opposite outside 314:17 owns 598:13 543:2 551:17\n 454:19 392:12 p 551:17 553:6\n optimizes overall 418:19 556:11,24\n p 296:1,1 297:1\n 572:3 437:15 438:7 565:2 573:11\n 297:1 406:12\n order 347:20 527:14 541:10 606:24 631:18\n 406:20 407:5,7\n 478:24 541:13 571:7 649:5\n 407:21 408:20\n ordering 579:4 582:11 pages 337:22\n 423:19,25\n 644:18 614:7 626:23 551:9\n p.m. 405:11,14\n orders 645:14 overcharging pagination\n 441:18,22\n organize 589:18 393:22 507:19\n 492:21,25\n 548:12,25 606:25\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 409 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[paper - part] Page 53\n\n paper 298:11 534:21 535:19 437:7,15 438:6 615:24,25\n 298:20 299:3,6 544:7,18 438:18,19,25 622:7 625:17\n 299:9,13 307:7 545:22 546:13 439:4,7 444:15 626:2,4,16\n 316:11,16 546:13,18 458:20,21 628:15,20\n 327:18 363:10 549:21 571:9 459:2,7,8 629:9,23 630:8\n 363:18 364:4,6 572:5,7 468:22 469:2,5 630:21 631:18\n 365:6,23 paragraph 471:4 472:23 634:2 635:21\n 430:12 466:19 318:13 321:8 472:25 475:9 636:6,10,18,24\n 470:20 473:8 323:2,11 476:10,18,21 637:3\n 475:5,14,23,24 329:16 333:12 486:11 491:7,8 paragraphs\n 475:25 476:2,5 333:14 334:25 491:10 492:2,3 317:12,25\n 476:9,14,16 335:5,14 492:12 493:7 318:7,10 319:7\n 477:4,9 478:4 341:14 343:2,3 493:12,17 350:8,24\n 478:4,8 483:14 349:21 350:14 494:8 502:6 351:16 355:8\n 484:8 486:9,15 351:3,5,20,22 528:7,9,11,13 355:15,22\n 519:25 520:6 352:10 353:12 528:15 542:16 361:5 394:2,5\n 520:20 535:17 353:14,22 542:20,21 394:9,17\n 535:23 539:6 354:5,5,12,19 543:3 546:21 463:16 490:25\n 546:23,23 354:22 355:2 553:5,7,11,18 521:8 524:3\n 547:5 548:11 355:18,23 554:6 556:12 544:8,13,17,19\n 548:11,14,18 356:4,18,23,24 558:18 564:6 544:21 545:5,7\n 548:24 549:14 357:25 358:3 564:21 565:3 545:16,19,23\n 549:15,16,23 359:2,17 360:2 567:3 568:10 546:14 612:5\n 550:10 565:19 360:9,10,21 573:12,20,21 613:25 631:24\n papers 459:17 361:3,8 393:21 573:24,25 pardon 494:4\n 460:2,9,12 393:24 396:5 574:5 587:23 556:14\n 461:6,8 464:18 396:11,13 588:8 596:10 parenthetical\n 464:19,20,22 397:10 398:9 596:13 597:7 356:3\n 465:3,4,4,7,8 398:18 401:11 597:12,13,14 park 296:5,13\n 466:18,25 401:16,17,24 597:19 603:3 part 309:21\n 467:6,18,19 403:8 420:19 606:17,18,18 331:14,19\n 469:23 470:19 420:21,23 607:8 608:11 332:18,20\n 471:9 475:19 421:14 429:7 608:18 609:24 345:17 367:12\n 478:21 479:3,5 430:19,20,21 610:10 615:7 367:13 394:14\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 410 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[part - partida] Page 54\n\n 395:9 401:15 partida 296:20 430:8,10 532:2,8,15\n 401:23 414:2 298:3 300:21 433:18 435:2,9 533:9 534:4,10\n 438:19 509:9 300:22 303:4,7 437:4 441:11 536:8,16 537:5\n 514:7 552:4 303:11 314:7 441:13,23 538:2,9 539:15\n 554:17 585:13 316:23 317:4,5 442:2 443:17 541:6,24 544:2\n 586:14 587:4 326:8,16,20 444:13 448:24 544:15 546:10\n 594:23 617:7 327:8,11,16,21 451:11 452:11 550:2,8,15,23\n 617:18 631:10 328:2,4,8 454:8 456:16 551:11,14\n 634:8 333:20 334:2 457:5 458:2 555:10,22\n partial 616:20 344:17 345:4 465:20 466:2 558:6,15,22\n 617:23,25 345:20 347:8 467:24 470:9 559:20,24\n 618:24 348:6,12,17,21 470:15 474:13 560:7,10,15,19\n partially 617:8 348:23 352:21 474:18,23 561:24 562:12\n 618:15 619:2 353:20 354:10 475:2 482:25 563:15,24\n participants 358:21,23 483:6,18,24 564:2 566:17\n 527:16 359:14 360:6 484:6 492:10 571:14 578:14\n particular 361:10,19,24 492:13,18 580:9 582:15\n 360:2 372:22 362:5,12,14,22 493:2,4 497:15 583:9,22 585:4\n 372:25 391:25 363:5,8,17 498:5,24 500:6 586:5 588:7\n 412:8,16 364:2 370:6 500:18 504:23 590:2 591:4,14\n 428:25 442:15 377:22 378:13 505:7,18,23,25 591:24 593:2\n 450:22 456:7 380:2,21 506:4,8,10 594:10,16\n 486:16 503:4 381:14 382:21 511:23 512:6 595:8,20 597:4\n 509:17 516:13 382:23 383:10 512:18 513:2,4 598:20 599:8\n 546:18 561:8 384:19,25 513:12,19 600:7,12 601:8\n 561:22 581:7 385:10,23 514:4 517:23 601:21 602:18\n 588:5 589:18 386:3,7,12,13 518:18 519:3,6 603:6 604:18\n 589:20 592:23 388:19 403:19 519:15,19,23 606:15 609:6\n 594:24 617:17 404:5,10,19 520:14,16,18 612:21 614:2\n 618:12,14,22 405:7,15,18 522:5,14 615:18,22\n 638:5 640:4 416:22 418:6 523:18 524:21 619:20 620:7\n particularly 420:11 423:2 525:18 526:10 620:15 621:14\n 399:12 417:3 426:8 427:4 526:19 528:6 622:6,16,21,25\n 420:13 429:17,20,25 530:6 531:2,16 623:15,16\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 411 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[partida - period] Page 55\n\n 624:23 628:8 pdfs 519:8 445:23,25 percents 446:3\n 632:4 642:19 pending 307:23 446:2 447:12 perceptions\n 643:16,20 324:23 458:8 447:16 448:18 602:13,23\n 644:17 645:2,4 605:18,21 448:20 449:11 perfect 317:4\n 645:8,12 people 495:8 449:13 450:2,9 326:16 327:16\n parties 301:12 523:21 450:11,15 329:20 348:17\n 647:11,13 percent 343:23 451:15,16,17 348:21 378:14\n 648:7,10 344:15 345:10 451:23,24 401:22 410:10\n partner 301:5 353:9 355:24 452:23,25 492:16 557:2\n parts 334:16 357:5 365:16 454:14 455:13 595:21\n 336:8 365:21 366:6,9 455:16,23 perform 607:12\n party 553:21 380:14 386:7 456:19,24 performance\n 554:5,20,20 406:19,20,21 460:19 461:5 590:20\n 555:9,16 413:11,11 461:14,23 performed\n 569:10,14,23 415:5,5,7,10,12 463:7 464:8 588:14,17\n 571:3,10,21,22 417:5,14,15,15 466:12,23 592:8 597:24\n 572:15,18 419:7,20,21,24 468:4,11,19 598:3,18,24\n 574:11,16 419:25 420:3 469:11 473:14 performing\n 575:2,2 576:16 423:18,24 476:24 487:3 599:15\n 576:21 577:18 426:20 427:6 488:5,7,13,16 perils 299:4\n 579:7,21 580:3 427:23 428:7 488:17,20 475:7\n 580:7 428:19 429:4,4 489:7,11,19,19 period 342:17\n pause 352:12 429:5 431:4,17 584:23 588:12 369:8,10,13,21\n pay 509:9 432:2,2,7,13,13 597:22 598:15 370:4 372:12\n 561:14 593:10 432:23,24 612:7,20 372:15,21\n 593:19,20 433:21,23 626:24 627:2 375:10,13,15\n paying 598:23 434:20,22 percentage 375:23 379:4,5\n 599:23 600:3 435:12,14 391:22 393:11 379:9,22\n pdf 337:21,23 437:18 438:10 percentile 380:13 381:2\n 337:24 365:8 439:15,16,24 419:3 421:25 381:18 382:15\n 385:3 393:23 439:25 442:5,7 422:2 457:19 383:4 387:10\n 482:2 551:18 443:7,19,20,23 457:20,21 387:16 395:22\n 556:12 445:13,14,14 487:2 397:15,16\n 445:15,18,19 398:2 479:16\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 412 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[period - ph.d.] Page 56\n\n 480:3 488:12 305:1 306:1 373:1 374:1 441:1 442:1\n 490:8,11 307:1 308:1 375:1 376:1 443:1 444:1\n 542:14 572:14 309:1 310:1 377:1 378:1 445:1 446:1\n 600:15,18 311:1 312:1 379:1 380:1 447:1 448:1\n 609:15,18,20 313:1 314:1 381:1 382:1 449:1 450:1\n 609:21 610:6 315:1 316:1 383:1 384:1 451:1 452:1\n 610:23 611:6,7 317:1 318:1 385:1 386:1 453:1 454:1\n 611:22 612:6 319:1 320:1 387:1 388:1 455:1 456:1\n 614:9,13,14,18 321:1 322:1 389:1 390:1 457:1 458:1\n periods 632:8 323:1 324:1 391:1 392:1 459:1 460:1\n permit 512:16 325:1 326:1 393:1 394:1 461:1 462:1\n 574:6 585:20 327:1 328:1 395:1 396:1 463:1 464:1\n permitted 329:1 330:1 397:1 398:1 465:1 466:1\n 301:16 331:1 332:1 399:1 400:1 467:1 468:1\n person 377:9 333:1 334:1 401:1 402:1 469:1 470:1\n 524:13 335:1 336:1 403:1 404:1 471:1 472:1\n personally 337:1 338:1 405:1 406:1 473:1 474:1\n 586:19 339:1 340:1 407:1 408:1 475:1 476:1\n persons 552:22 341:1 342:1 409:1 410:1 477:1 478:1\n perspective 343:1 344:1 411:1 412:1 479:1 480:1\n 419:9 642:10 345:1 346:1 413:1 414:1 481:1 482:1\n 643:8 347:1 348:1 415:1 416:1 483:1 484:1\n pertaining 349:1 350:1 417:1 418:1 485:1 486:1\n 579:2 624:7 351:1 352:1 419:1 420:1 487:1 488:1\n pertains 363:13 353:1 354:1 421:1 422:1 489:1 490:1\n 570:18 355:1 356:1 423:1 424:1 491:1 492:1\n petahashes 357:1 358:1 425:1 426:1 493:1 494:1\n 367:2,9,14,22 359:1 360:1 427:1 428:1 495:1 496:1\n ph 565:5,5,11 361:1 362:1 429:1 430:1 497:1 498:1\n 565:12 363:1 364:1 431:1 432:1 499:1 500:1\n ph.d. 295:10 365:1 366:1 433:1 434:1 501:1 502:1\n 297:3 300:1 367:1 368:1 435:1 436:1 503:1 504:1\n 301:1 302:1,17 369:1 370:1 437:1 438:1 505:1 506:1\n 303:1 304:1 371:1 372:1 439:1 440:1 507:1 508:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 413 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[ph.d. - point] Page 57\n\n 509:1 510:1 577:1 578:1 645:1 646:1,5 323:20\n 511:1 512:1 579:1 580:1 649:3,21 plan 621:25\n 513:1 514:1 581:1 582:1 phantom planned 624:12\n 515:1 516:1 583:1 584:1 353:16 472:16 player 507:7\n 517:1 518:1 585:1 586:1 475:18 players 510:3\n 519:1 520:1 587:1 588:1 phone 307:9 please 300:17\n 521:1 522:1 589:1 590:1 phrase 434:5 301:23,25\n 523:1 524:1 591:1 592:1 449:7 599:6 302:9,14\n 525:1 526:1 593:1 594:1 phrased 340:16 307:10 337:13\n 527:1 528:1 595:1 596:1 414:14 351:19 356:17\n 529:1 530:1 597:1 598:1 phraseology 358:25 367:6\n 531:1 532:1 599:1 600:1 449:20 389:6 406:4\n 533:1 534:1 601:1 602:1 phrasing 407:25 418:5\n 535:1 536:1 603:1 604:1 453:11 610:16 459:5 475:13\n 537:1 538:1 605:1 606:1 picking 361:8 479:11,22\n 539:1 540:1 607:1 608:1 piece 336:14 491:15 544:16\n 541:1 542:1 609:1 610:1 576:13 553:10 569:19\n 543:1 544:1 611:1 612:1 pivot 375:8 574:7 607:9\n 545:1 546:1 613:1 614:1 383:21 615:10 629:8\n 547:1 548:1 615:1 616:1 place 380:8 pocket 391:24\n 549:1 550:1 617:1 618:1 628:6 392:23 393:5\n 551:1 552:1 619:1 620:1 placement pockets 553:23\n 553:1 554:1 621:1 622:1 540:19,23 point 318:2\n 555:1 556:1 623:1 624:1 556:2 323:6 331:13\n 557:1 558:1 625:1 626:1 plaintiff 296:2 332:10 334:3,6\n 559:1 560:1 627:1 628:1 296:10 301:4 345:25 349:21\n 561:1 562:1 629:1 630:1 308:6,17 309:8 350:13 351:2\n 563:1 564:1 631:1 632:1 344:12 352:5,8 355:14\n 565:1 566:1 633:1 634:1 plaintiff's 355:17 358:18\n 567:1 568:1 635:1 636:1 320:23 335:15 358:25 360:21\n 569:1 570:1 637:1 638:1 341:13,18 361:15 362:24\n 571:1 572:1 639:1 640:1 472:5 378:21 383:25\n 573:1 574:1 641:1 642:1 plaintiffs 295:5 410:6 420:24\n 575:1 576:1 643:1 644:1 320:6 321:3 442:11 452:6\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 414 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[point - previous] Page 58\n\n 466:11 467:2 popped 445:24 593:3,4,5,5 prefer 404:25\n 467:16 472:18 population 594:3,4,5,11 405:2 505:11\n 477:25 491:2 407:24 595:10,11 premised\n 502:17 503:4 portion 515:6,8 600:20 602:5,7 317:20 318:22\n 510:10 511:13 portions 611:21 612:22 319:24 320:15\n 511:16 516:6 332:12 619:8,21 323:16,19\n 522:16,17 position 312:4 620:17 644:24 329:9 617:8\n 523:25 524:5 461:20 559:2,5 post 484:24 prepared 317:7\n 528:23 542:19 559:14 560:23 485:4,5 497:5 324:12 648:3\n 552:3 556:6 561:12 578:8 531:8 preparing\n 557:8 571:8 610:18 potential 310:18 312:24\n 584:3,11,15 positive 479:19 358:10,15 393:13 465:16\n 585:11,25 480:5 482:11 509:22,25 534:24\n 587:22 588:4 484:23 485:17 571:11,25 preponderance\n 595:9 597:10 488:13 565:7 572:2 621:2,17 418:18\n 599:12 601:17 574:19 611:24 potentially presence 414:9\n 613:12 616:5 612:3 613:2,6 498:3 585:2 607:19,20\n 625:16 628:2 613:9 617:12 613:18 618:21 608:8\n 628:14 629:6 618:11 619:16 620:5 present 297:2\n 637:7 640:6,10 positively 620:12,22 606:3 641:9\n 641:6 580:11 621:11 power 503:6 press 431:20\n pointed 597:5 possibility 509:11,24 516:22 517:3\n pointing 594:2 510:15 518:7 546:20\n 336:21 502:19 possible 347:18 practice 417:2 pressure\n 540:8 582:13 523:9,20,21,22 417:9 460:19 404:18\n points 318:8 532:23 533:16 461:3 462:8,14 presumption\n 337:7 338:24 534:5,12,13 462:15,18,21 526:7\n 339:9,12 572:17 575:20 463:6,8,14,20 pretending\n 396:13 410:8 575:22 576:3 463:21,22 402:24\n 438:16 513:9 576:20 579:20 464:2,7 pretty 456:3\n 543:4,15 558:3 579:20 582:16 pre 485:4 510:4 524:8\n 558:9 572:7 583:10 591:5 preclude 592:4 617:6\n poked 571:8 591:19,25 predicated previous\n 592:12,14 498:19 328:24 477:25\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 415 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[previous - problem] Page 59\n\n 483:10 505:12 414:4,10 528:3 530:2,5 probabilistica...\n 512:8 610:2 415:19,23 531:8 541:2 444:19\n 639:3,3 416:4,11,13,21 559:6 561:2 probability\n previously 418:2,10 421:7 565:8 577:13 406:12 413:19\n 307:2 326:10 421:12,19,23 611:13,23 413:24 414:3\n 328:6,20 422:10,19,24 612:14,17,24 415:7,19,23\n 329:17 349:11 423:6 424:14 613:20,23 424:11 425:19\n 398:14 424:18 425:8,20 614:23 615:4 432:25 433:22\n 426:6 429:21 427:10 428:9 616:20 617:24 434:5,21\n 455:9 486:24 431:3,8,13 619:11,24 435:13,18\n 504:25 506:12 432:25 433:11 621:16 638:13 436:6,21\n 507:24 518:20 433:13,16,22 638:18,24 438:23 442:5\n 527:11 532:6 434:5,10,10,14 639:6,12,23 443:22 447:10\n 578:17 608:25 434:22 435:13 640:13,16 447:14,24,24\n price 311:8 435:18 436:7 prices 395:6 447:25 448:6\n 313:19 343:12 436:13,22 396:20 446:13 448:10,19\n 343:22,24 437:17,22 528:22 612:10 451:16,18,24\n 344:15,18 438:9,14,23 614:17 452:10 453:2,7\n 345:10,11 439:13 440:13 principles 453:9,12,20,23\n 357:5 369:4,6 442:6,14,17 312:14 probable\n 369:12,20 443:13,22 print 327:6 417:25 418:9\n 370:3 371:15 446:14,18,19 printed 476:14 418:14 421:11\n 375:11 378:23 446:20 448:21 prior 314:23 422:18 454:11\n 378:23 379:10 450:18,22 343:25 393:13 454:17,21\n 387:2,2,4,15,21 451:25 452:10 517:11,15 probably\n 388:13,15 453:2,8,9,17,20 529:6 532:23 315:17 354:20\n 389:15 390:15 453:23 454:12 533:16 554:15 462:16 463:12\n 390:25 391:9 454:18,22 558:2,19 579:8 464:21,25\n 391:10,15 456:19,25 647:4 probe 437:9\n 395:18 396:22 457:6 489:15 private 302:6 problem\n 398:12,19 490:4 521:4 pro 566:9 327:11 396:2\n 400:14,21 522:9 523:7 probabilistic 474:23 491:16\n 403:12 412:3 525:16,22 414:6 449:19 506:4 519:6\n 413:19,25 526:15,24 451:8 562:15 638:11\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 416 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[problematic - providing] Page 60\n\n problematic products profits 528:25 pronounce\n 568:15 607:20 programs 528:17\n procedural professional 474:11 proof 308:23\n 301:17 341:25 project 616:11 309:20,23\n proceed 303:2 professor 616:14 617:23 310:5 311:19\n 397:10 622:3 309:14 310:21 619:13 620:2 312:8,17,19\n proceeded 311:6,21 620:20,23 314:17 315:2\n 345:16 312:20 313:17 621:3,5 633:14 320:21\n proceeding 317:13 318:14 projected properties\n 295:14 301:15 319:17 326:11 395:23 397:17 342:3 449:8\n 320:18 618:13 330:4,15 projection proposed\n 646:3 648:4 331:19 332:9 394:18 357:16 593:11\n proceedings 332:11,18,25 projections proprietary\n 310:19 647:3,4 334:5,15 394:10 395:7 510:6\n 647:5,8 648:5 349:22 350:14 395:10,13 prospects\n process 522:8 351:3,16,20 397:24 398:3,6 378:8 581:20\n processes 355:18 356:18 398:21 399:11 581:21 582:2\n 538:12,16 358:4 359:2,3 399:23 400:23 585:18\n processing 360:15,22 627:17 prove 320:11\n 299:15 496:6 393:19 394:8 projects 621:17 320:23 321:4\n 520:25 521:19 394:16 405:20 621:23 323:22 335:15\n 522:4,7 523:4 407:4 459:10 prominence 341:13,19\n 523:5 524:13 459:13 468:2,9 548:21 556:2 provide 309:15\n 525:14 527:6 468:17 477:9 561:20 310:21 311:7\n 529:11 534:22 481:22 487:10 promise 637:12 311:22 313:18\n 540:11 499:25 500:11 637:19 320:24 341:23\n produced 504:25 506:13 promised 604:22 643:7\n 301:14 581:16 515:11 528:16 380:20 provided\n producing 528:19 promises 314:25 336:3\n 399:14 profile 577:25 395:15 584:20 490:22\n product 557:14 profit 529:22 585:3 provides\n productivity 529:25 prompt 348:14 357:14 560:24\n 396:21 397:4,6 profitability prongay 296:4 providing\n 509:22 573:17 296:12 312:21,24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 417 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[providing - question] Page 61\n\n 381:6,6 442:16 pulsed 361:22 532:12 606:14 376:9,13,22\n 445:3,5 495:17 punchline 607:12 618:3,5 377:24 379:17\n 496:14 546:5 439:7 619:4 621:8 382:9 385:25\n 555:5 559:4 pure 425:23 quantifying 389:6 394:13\n province 469:8 523:15 534:7 530:22 396:9,25\n proving 320:7 purported question 397:11,14\n 323:20 554:16 555:4 305:25 307:22 398:25 403:16\n public 494:22 555:17 557:15 307:24 308:12 404:21 407:3\n 494:25 502:18 purposes 308:14 309:7 411:18,25\n 502:22 503:23 621:13 310:10,11,14 412:6 413:4\n 515:21,22 pushing 593:18 313:22 319:14 414:25 421:12\n 521:12 524:7 put 302:6 321:2 319:15 320:3 423:20 424:17\n 527:4,19 330:14 336:5 321:12,19,22 426:5 428:6\n 531:10 552:20 351:7 359:10 321:25 322:8 434:17 435:7\n 646:13 647:20 367:24 370:20 322:10 323:3,7 435:10 438:4\n 649:25 415:2 449:2 323:9,18 440:5,21\n publication 462:9 471:13 324:11,14,22 451:19 452:5\n 528:4 501:2 505:5 324:23 325:3 456:21 458:8\n publications 525:6,6 527:21 325:10,16,17 458:12 466:3\n 459:25 578:18,20 325:22,25 468:6 471:15\n publicly 508:20 620:24 330:24 332:4 471:25 475:11\n 517:13,16,25 puts 347:6 333:7,10,11,17 475:12,21,22\n 526:13,22 putting 383:23 334:4,10,11,14 477:6,7 481:4\n 532:25 533:19 495:23 334:19,20,22 490:14 491:14\n 546:4 q 335:7 337:6 491:21 500:4\n published 340:11,13,18 501:4 504:4\n qdf 484:24\n 464:11 498:4 345:2 347:12 509:7 510:23\n 485:5\n publishing 347:17,22 510:24 512:16\n qualified 647:7\n 496:24 348:7,11 351:9 512:24 513:7\n qualifies 498:8\n pull 504:22 352:6 358:19 513:10,14\n quantify\n pulled 519:13 358:25 360:19 514:14,21,23\n 342:16,19\n pulling 518:8 360:24 367:4 515:4 526:17\n 530:14 531:4\n 519:22 371:11 374:14 527:25 531:17\n 531:18 532:5\n 374:16 375:17 531:23 533:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 418 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[question - reacted] Page 62\n\n 534:3,12 324:24 325:9 552:6 585:22 range 413:13\n 539:14 545:4 325:20 333:18 quoted 333:15 628:13 630:2,5\n 548:23 549:9 347:16 384:16 398:18,20 630:6 632:2\n 562:9 564:9 384:17 426:14 401:7 402:11 634:13,14\n 567:15 569:16 473:22 474:2 403:4 471:10 rank 377:5\n 569:20 572:23 476:4 545:12 478:14 500:17 ratchet 639:5\n 575:21 576:2,8 547:16 557:19 515:16 ratcheted\n 581:7,18 583:4 605:14 610:16 quotes 478:20 624:8\n 591:11,17,18 623:23 635:18 479:5 rate 367:2,9,25\n 591:19 592:12 641:11 643:17 quoting 331:24 368:6,10 369:3\n 594:14,20 643:19 335:5 421:9 395:24 397:18\n 596:21 598:6 quick 304:15 423:9 462:18 399:15 402:17\n 599:25 601:5 316:4 438:16 514:16 402:18,21,23\n 601:24,25 550:5 553:9 r 403:13 624:10\n 605:17,21 574:7 622:14 624:11 637:16\n r 296:1 297:1\n 607:11 613:12 quickly 367:5 638:17 641:5\n 552:11\n 618:17 619:18 611:23 613:2 rates 588:15\n raise 302:14\n 622:17 625:6 quite 313:15 597:25\n ramp 637:6,11\n 629:24 633:9 315:22 397:2 rather 343:13\n 637:17\n 634:11 636:22 447:25 452:8 420:10 489:21\n random 408:12\n 636:25 637:23 488:19 512:4 489:24 609:7\n 408:13,17\n 639:10 533:22 536:25 rating 473:13\n 409:2 412:23\n question's 569:18 575:16 rattled 514:22\n 412:24 424:14\n 434:3 592:19 583:4 638:20 rattling 513:9\n 428:12 431:8\n questionable quotations raw 612:6,20\n 432:17 433:16\n 592:22 402:14 463:10 reach 495:18\n 437:22 438:14\n questioning quote 333:13 496:12,15\n 440:13 443:11\n 361:16 492:6,8 422:17 462:10 498:3 500:15\n 446:10,18\n 514:12 622:13 469:3,7 471:22 reached 371:20\n 449:18 450:24\n questions 472:20,20 react 561:2\n 456:5 488:25\n 304:21 305:4 473:11,16 611:23,23\n 489:4 561:10\n 305:13,15 475:13,22,25 612:25,25\n 561:11\n 306:6 314:16 476:2,21 477:8 reacted 559:6\n 321:17 324:7 511:14 515:17 613:8 616:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 419 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[reacting - record] Page 63\n\n reacting 570:16 529:3 545:9 510:12,13 recent 298:16\n reaction 542:6 553:9 574:7,8 593:17 610:15 459:16,18\n 617:7,12,13 608:14,17 630:20 638:12 460:2,13,16,25\n 618:4,21 616:4,9,25 649:5 462:11,25\n 620:13 635:24 636:3 reasonable 463:3,23 465:4\n reacts 541:21 636:10,19,24 335:6 344:7,13 467:6,21,22,22\n read 317:25 643:22,25 345:6 364:24 577:12,12\n 318:5,5,7 reading 338:2,4 388:11 583:6 recently 369:19\n 319:6,8,10,11 361:8 438:17 reasons 446:12 recklessly\n 321:20 322:25 452:19 460:21 515:13 516:15 317:21 318:24\n 328:16 331:5 470:22 486:10 516:25 319:25 329:10\n 336:14 343:6 493:17 494:8 reboot 560:12 recollect 517:7\n 343:20 349:17 545:3 596:6 563:9 recollection\n 349:18 356:21 599:4,9 608:22 rebuttal 336:3 305:20 466:5\n 382:9 394:4 ready 303:4 recall 354:9 514:6 641:9\n 396:12,22 reaffirmed 380:11,16 recommendat...\n 397:22 400:4 638:24 639:4 399:4 460:10 565:8\n 401:12,14 real 499:13,14 465:2 468:14 record 300:3\n 402:3 403:7 518:25 593:25 468:21 471:24 300:19 301:11\n 406:3,5,6 realizations 472:2 499:8 302:11 306:14\n 407:2 420:22 624:14 504:14,19,24 307:12,25\n 421:14 439:3 realize 614:16 515:19 517:8 324:8 325:5\n 460:4,6 464:5 really 307:16 532:19 548:10 349:24 356:22\n 469:15,19 316:4 338:7 581:23 611:5 362:17,18,21\n 471:9,10 347:16 367:23 636:14 637:23 371:8 405:5,11\n 479:21,24 404:24 426:15 638:6,10 405:12,14\n 485:18 494:8 509:9 510:5,9 640:11 642:22 406:7 441:14\n 504:5 507:19 516:8,16 643:3 441:18,19,22\n 511:6,20 512:7 554:25 581:15 recap 564:7 492:21,22,25\n 512:21 513:15 628:20 629:3,5 receive 303:22 514:3 519:11\n 513:20,21 631:15 430:9 593:20 550:18,19,22\n 514:7,15,25 reason 303:13 received 304:2 563:19,20,21\n 515:6,8 516:3 304:9 327:21 328:5 363:20 563:23 623:10\n 516:4 522:18 351:21 415:16 506:2 623:11,14\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 420 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[record - related] Page 64\n\n 644:8,10,13,15 565:20 636:11 regarded 468:3 regression\n 645:23 647:9 references regarding 433:17\n 648:5 330:7 515:20 323:13 561:16 regularly 420:2\n recorded 300:6 533:11 629:17 569:14 609:17 464:16\n 301:19 647:6 referencing 610:22 616:22 regulation\n recording 333:8 363:12 617:10 537:2\n 301:14 647:8 438:22 regardless rehash 324:19\n 648:3 referred 378:22 480:23 reiterate\n records 554:10 486:23 548:15 regards 311:18 311:23 324:19\n reduce 381:12 579:10 581:13 320:7 335:18 325:14 539:25\n 503:19 509:12 referring 352:4 337:5 339:10 540:3 609:25\n 510:5 639:12 356:15 427:13 339:17 340:4 reiterated\n reduced 397:8 431:9 462:16 356:4 358:8,15 540:3\n 639:10 647:6 463:12,18,19 363:13 378:24 reiterating\n reducing 487:4 515:3 391:15 392:19 339:16\n 584:21 518:6 558:14 395:15 418:19 reject 406:22\n reduction 558:20 625:18 431:21 436:9 relate 545:23\n 638:13 629:20 631:17 442:21 453:12 related 411:15\n redundant refers 462:20 455:9 456:10 411:22 424:12\n 340:5 481:3 463:21 487:6 466:23 468:10 431:6,13\n refer 306:24 reflect 493:22 468:18 495:12 436:12 437:20\n 307:6 316:16 528:22 510:3 517:7 438:12 454:6\n 326:18 327:18 reflected 524:6 525:24 501:25 526:12\n 354:13 368:12 486:17 490:3 525:25 562:24 526:21 534:22\n 397:11 407:14 reframing 566:21 567:3 544:9,19\n 521:20 333:17 567:13 569:13 553:21 554:5\n reference refresh 305:20 570:16 572:7 554:20 555:9\n 546:23 603:4 514:5 573:9 575:4 555:16 569:9\n referenced refreshed 577:7 578:12 569:14,23\n 340:6 372:3 402:5 582:13 586:10 571:3,10,21,22\n 376:14 399:19 refusing 337:5 604:13 613:14 572:15,17\n 499:25 500:11 regard 305:5 614:8 621:9 574:11,16\n 512:12 524:3 307:22 417:4 624:6 625:9 575:2,2 576:16\n 532:17 564:22 511:9 607:18 626:18 632:21 576:21 577:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 421 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[related - reply] Page 65\n\n 579:7,21 580:3 542:8 569:13 reliable 552:18 576:2 601:5\n 580:6 647:10 574:19,20 552:21 602:17 619:18\n 648:7 590:6 617:16 reliably 317:14 630:10\n relation 432:20 621:9 318:15 319:18 repeated\n 624:14 relevant 317:25 338:13 325:19 499:14\n relationship 319:6 332:23 reliance 398:23 514:2 539:10\n 408:21 443:3 332:24 355:22 535:4 539:18 540:4\n 554:13 589:11 459:7 467:16 relied 548:8 541:9 543:5,16\n 590:15 604:16 490:25 511:13 rely 468:24 546:15 573:22\n relative 343:23 511:16 515:2 534:21 535:8 573:23\n 344:18 345:11 539:11,19 536:2 547:15 repeating\n 408:22 500:15 540:5,20 547:19,24 457:15 599:6\n 500:16 503:24 541:10,19 549:9,12 repetition\n 524:23 525:3 542:13 543:7 561:23 587:3 480:15,25\n 527:7 581:19 543:18 545:15 relying 540:13 540:19,24\n 583:17 647:12 545:18 546:16 542:25 543:3 541:17,25\n 648:9 555:19 556:4 543:14 567:22 542:4,7\n release 493:24 569:11,25 remember repetitious\n 516:23 517:4 571:4 572:18 501:16 636:12 541:23\n 518:7 529:6 575:24,24 639:15,19 rephrase 334:9\n released 411:15 576:4,5,15,17 remind 326:17 reply 298:9\n 411:22 413:5 576:22 577:22 reminder 306:16,21\n 414:22 424:13 579:14,22,24 304:15 313:5 314:10\n 427:9 431:7 580:2,4,8,14,23 remote 295:14 316:8 317:7\n 437:21 438:13 581:4 582:7,19 repeat 319:15 331:23 333:12\n 440:16 454:3 583:13 584:9 367:4 389:6 336:4 339:14\n releases 431:21 587:20 588:21 394:13 395:25 341:4 349:12\n 546:20 575:16 591:12 601:3 411:17 413:20 358:13 362:25\n releasing 601:14 604:3 413:21 418:5 384:12,21\n 533:16 607:22 611:24 423:20 427:22 385:16 420:20\n relevance 612:3 613:2 435:7 468:6 429:8,12\n 339:11 367:15 616:23 618:14 477:6 490:14 458:18,23\n 499:18 540:15 618:24 619:2 500:4 526:17 473:2 475:9\n 541:4 542:2,5 621:11 539:13 575:10 476:12,16,17\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 422 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[reply - report] Page 66\n\n 491:25 493:7 331:23 332:9 430:4,25 524:2,18,20\n 508:25 520:2 332:11,20 431:20 437:7 526:13,22\n 520:20 528:8 333:2,3,7,8,9 437:15 438:6,7 527:20 528:2,5\n 528:13 534:19 333:13 334:5,7 444:16 447:18 528:8,10,13\n 534:19,23 334:16,17,24 458:18,23,23 529:6,9 530:11\n 542:16 544:8 335:5,8,14 459:9 461:10 531:13 532:18\n 546:22 547:18 336:4,4,5,9,10 461:11 462:17 532:24 533:6\n 548:15 549:12 336:14,15,22 462:20 463:2 533:10,17,25\n 555:14 562:23 337:8 338:3,6 463:12 464:14 534:20,24,25\n 564:4 565:4 338:17 339:14 465:17 467:7,8 535:5 536:3,4\n 570:4,23 341:4 342:21 468:23 471:4 536:19 538:14\n 573:11,24 344:23,25 472:18 473:2 538:22 539:9\n 574:5 587:24 349:12,14 475:9 476:12 539:17,23\n 588:5 603:4 350:8,14,24 476:13,18 540:9,17\n 606:17 608:12 351:4,16,21 478:14 479:9 542:17,20\n 622:8 625:19 353:23 354:25 479:15 481:22 546:22 547:17\n 626:17 629:9 356:19 358:13 482:21 483:11 547:25 548:9\n 630:21 635:21 359:3 360:10 487:11 490:19 548:16 549:2\n 636:18 360:11 361:9 491:25 493:8 549:12,13,19\n replying 362:25 363:2 493:14,25 549:25 551:20\n 314:22 377:2 378:21 494:2,15,18,21 554:6 555:14\n report 298:9,18 384:13,21 494:24 495:7 555:20 562:3,4\n 306:16,18,18 385:9,16 389:5 495:20,23,23 562:5,5,18,19\n 306:21 310:18 389:11 392:7 496:4,17 497:7 562:20,21,23\n 312:25 313:6,7 392:12 393:9 497:14 498:4 564:4,12,13,14\n 313:9 314:10 393:14,19,22 499:4,11,13,16 564:14 565:4\n 314:10,24 396:7 399:2,6 499:19 500:2 569:10,24\n 315:4 316:9,15 399:13 401:4 500:12,22 570:3,4,14,19\n 317:7,12 322:4 402:16,20 502:5 504:2,5 570:23 573:7\n 324:4 325:20 405:21,23 508:25 515:12 573:11,24\n 326:12 327:2 408:8 420:15 515:17,20 574:2,5 576:19\n 328:10,14 420:18,20 518:5,16 520:2 577:6,11,15,16\n 329:2 330:3,5 428:3 429:7,8 520:20 521:7 578:8,10,19,20\n 330:8,9,11 429:12,13 522:4 523:10 580:17,23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 423 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[report - researched] Page 67\n\n 581:4,5,11 report's 616:22 467:10 490:25 620:21 621:4\n 582:7,19 reported 491:5 501:17 requested\n 583:25 584:9 295:16 470:4 518:6 531:20 514:3 642:7,18\n 584:13,17 reporter 544:9 548:13 requires\n 585:7,17 586:3 300:15 301:7 555:12 562:2 314:20 521:15\n 586:12 587:24 302:3,5,9,14,22 562:10,11,17 521:16\n 588:6,9 595:18 303:2,5 304:16 564:10 565:7 research 297:3\n 596:20,23 321:20 347:11 565:13 566:14 358:14 417:10\n 597:11 602:12 348:5,8,10,13 568:16,16,18 417:18 461:25\n 602:22 603:5 348:19 358:22 581:11,15,22 462:3 486:22\n 603:12 604:23 382:22 384:15 581:24,25 491:23 493:13\n 605:2,3,7 384:24 385:4 584:12 585:20 495:10,19,25\n 606:7,17,24 385:19 386:2,5 586:25 601:19 496:4,9,11,16\n 607:24 608:5 404:5,7,11 610:17 622:9 497:4,21\n 608:12 609:2 452:18 513:20 624:4 639:3,25 498:21 499:10\n 609:11,19,21 513:24 514:2 640:12,13,25 499:22 500:8\n 609:24,24 519:10,16 643:14 520:24 529:9\n 610:2,2,25 558:12 559:22 represent 531:18 532:13\n 611:2,19 613:7 560:2,8,11,18 301:4 303:12 532:24 535:15\n 614:13 615:8 609:5 615:16 472:4 489:21 536:13,25\n 615:24 617:8 623:4 643:24 489:25 506:14 537:11,12\n 617:18 619:10 644:4,14,21,25 532:22 610:9 538:11,17,19\n 619:22 620:19 645:6,10,13,21 representative 539:10 543:7\n 622:8 625:17 reporting 549:15,22 543:18 551:24\n 625:19,24 649:1 represented 552:10 554:4\n 626:17 629:10 reports 308:11 619:13 620:2 558:24 559:13\n 630:22 631:9 308:25 310:7 representing 560:21 565:25\n 631:19 633:16 314:23 322:20 600:21 643:4 566:25 572:9\n 633:17 634:2 353:6,7 369:23 reputation research's\n 635:21 636:18 392:20 396:7 606:4 494:25 530:8\n 637:2,4 638:2 396:15 397:21 reputational 532:9\n 638:5,23,25 399:8,18,19 605:12,24 researched\n 639:10,11,21 400:3 417:8 606:7,13,14 535:10\n 640:4,5 642:12 427:3 464:5 619:15 620:4\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 424 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[reset - revenue] Page 68\n\n reset 368:22 590:7 591:16 restroom 550:7 449:12,22,25\n resources 592:11 595:7 result 485:3 450:5,13 451:3\n 383:24 601:18 603:10 486:16 451:7,10\n respect 314:23 603:17,21 results 417:4 453:18 454:2,6\n 330:19 336:3 604:24 606:12 443:15 468:3 455:4,18,22,25\n 342:4 345:2,16 607:13 613:20 468:10,18 456:4 479:20\n 361:2 375:8 614:13,25 resuming 480:6 482:10\n 378:9 379:13 618:8 621:23 644:15 482:18 487:18\n 381:11 382:5 626:23 640:3 retained 488:13,18,24\n 399:12,23 respective 641:19 489:5,9,19\n 409:25 417:18 486:12 retitle 315:25 612:7,20\n 425:4,19 respectively return 365:15 613:16 618:7\n 431:16,18,19 487:2 366:5 406:13 returns 298:15\n 433:9,14 respond 317:18 406:15,24 408:14,22,25\n 443:14 444:6 319:22 325:22 407:10,18,20 409:4,6,7,10,16\n 449:8 455:3 326:13 340:21 407:23 408:17 409:18 410:14\n 464:11 467:23 421:15 531:15 409:9,18,19 410:16,19\n 487:25 499:18 responded 410:18 411:10 411:8,11\n 502:10 503:23 336:11 620:17 411:14,21,25 419:18,22\n 509:2,24 responding 412:17 413:6,7 421:5 423:5\n 510:18,25 313:11 336:6 413:14,18,23 428:21 432:14\n 511:17 512:10 response 414:7 418:21 436:9 440:6\n 514:9,13 307:24 318:20 419:16,21 442:24 445:12\n 517:13 526:3 325:9 347:23 423:16,19,22 445:22 447:3\n 532:13 537:10 414:10,10,21 423:25 425:17 447:16 449:13\n 537:23 539:3 493:22 531:8 425:18 428:20 450:3,12 451:2\n 540:14,23 responses 432:11,12 454:4 455:5,18\n 542:5,11 436:3 439:20,23 455:23 456:2\n 549:13 568:10 responsibilities 440:3 442:23 488:21\n 568:17 570:4 600:17 443:4,9 444:24 reuters 635:22\n 570:23 572:4 rest 447:3,11 445:6,7,8,18,19 636:9\n 577:18 583:6 447:15 449:24 445:24 446:9 revenue 366:25\n 584:13,21 607:7 447:11,15,19 367:8,17,19\n 585:3 589:5 447:22 448:4 368:9,20 369:2\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 425 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[revenue - role] Page 69\n\n 379:14 394:23 562:16 564:10 373:5 375:23 504:7 517:22\n 395:7 398:21 639:21 379:19 380:22 519:20 523:22\n 400:17,22 reviewed 381:20 382:17 525:7 527:13\n 570:5 581:20 459:15 465:15 383:21 385:11 529:22 530:18\n 585:18 589:21 466:9 501:8 386:9 387:25 535:17 542:22\n 604:7,8,13 506:19 388:13 390:6 550:15,23\n 623:25 624:15 reviewing 392:24 396:6,7 553:6 558:14\n 624:17 625:3 499:13 502:16 401:11,16,20 559:12 561:9\n 625:12 626:6 640:11 404:8 405:5,15 561:13 562:25\n 626:23 627:13 revised 626:25 411:24 412:2 563:18 564:8\n revenues revising 398:5 412:21 414:19 567:10 570:6\n 378:11 394:11 398:11 400:13 418:25 419:3 572:21 574:21\n 394:19 557:21 rexfinance 419:11,20 579:13,19\n 570:8,10 499:24 500:10 422:2 423:8,11 580:8 581:9,18\n 573:14 576:14 500:20 501:7 423:24 424:6 584:25 595:10\n 577:3,24 506:15 532:17 425:3,12 597:19 598:14\n 604:14 532:25 533:11 428:13,22 605:14 606:19\n reversal 616:20 533:13,17 430:2 432:7,11 607:19 611:9\n 617:4,14,15,24 rife 553:20 435:19 436:14 617:11 624:13\n 618:24 619:7 right 302:3,15 436:20 437:5 628:10 629:14\n 621:8 312:23 315:12 439:11,21 629:24 631:21\n reverse 618:15 315:18,20 441:4,23 445:3 632:21 634:18\n 618:16 316:3,6,22 445:6,23 634:22 637:6,9\n revert 314:15 320:11,18 447:20 449:12 644:6,16\n review 374:12 323:12,15,20 449:16,20 645:21\n 459:13 460:16 330:23 334:14 450:3,9,10,23 rightfully\n 460:24 462:11 335:16,20,22 451:12 453:8 400:8\n 462:24 463:3 338:16 347:19 453:14 458:12 rigs 380:8\n 463:23 464:18 348:19,24 471:5 473:5 robots 595:2\n 466:4 499:6 350:25 355:6 474:8,13,18 robyn 593:17\n 500:19 501:5 362:11,23 476:5 477:12 role 591:8,8,22\n 502:15 503:11 366:15,16,16 478:9 484:21 592:17 594:7,8\n 535:23 544:13 366:22 369:19 487:22 493:2 595:14,14\n 544:16 561:25 372:4,6,7 502:5 503:13 601:13\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 426 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[room - sections] Page 70\n\n room 306:9 satisfactory 592:14 599:24 scroll 556:6,7\n roughly 391:17 436:4 620:12 638:16 scrolling\n 391:18 632:23 saw 425:17 says 302:24 608:15\n rpts 573:13 503:23 505:20 338:12 341:17 se 411:6\n rule 304:19,24 512:9 517:20 343:8,21 search 459:22\n 307:16 606:6 548:6 349:25 356:9 466:16 467:4,5\n rules 301:18 saying 304:21 364:6 365:14 530:17\n 304:15 304:22 319:22 377:10 398:9 sec 299:11\n run 347:3 320:14,19 402:16 406:9 483:16 484:10\n running 474:11 323:25 335:3 421:2 422:13 second 304:24\n 489:23 563:3 354:2 356:7,7 462:24,24 310:11 316:17\n runup 577:13 358:12 364:16 484:22 493:21 337:21 367:2\n rush 644:22 365:18 366:4,7 502:4 507:4,12 367:10,22\n rushed 645:2,9 366:14 372:9 507:21 508:11 401:15,24\n s 374:10 376:21 509:8 526:2 430:22 438:20\n 392:9 407:16 553:19 591:13 473:5 482:25\n s 296:1 297:1\n 411:7 414:18 598:7,12,14 484:19 491:21\n 298:5 299:1\n 415:7,12,14 599:11,15,17 493:25 505:17\n 649:5\n 416:5 422:23 599:22 629:24 513:25 519:7\n salience 540:12\n 423:8 424:22 630:16 631:8 553:19 591:7\n 540:14 541:16\n 425:11 426:12 631:20 632:6 591:21 592:16\n 549:16,20\n 427:18 428:23 632:11 633:24 595:13 607:3\n salient 399:22\n 433:5,5 439:12 642:20 615:11 627:9\n 612:13\n 444:12 447:17 scale 298:14 seconds 347:22\n sample 373:22\n 447:23 449:21 scales 370:13 section 330:8,9\n 410:16,17,19\n 451:12,15 scenario 344:7 330:13,16,20\n 413:2 419:18\n 453:13 455:21 344:14 345:7 331:5,6,12,17\n 419:22 443:5\n 463:21 466:21 schlingemann 336:21,22\n 446:4 449:9,24\n 497:13 510:11 298:12 337:16 338:10\n 450:3,24 454:4\n 510:13 514:18 schultz 296:19 339:9 340:7\n 455:5,19 456:3\n 537:23 541:5 300:25 513:20\n sampling\n 578:22,23 scope 315:3 sections 330:21\n 459:15\n 579:5 580:3 screen 389:23 334:7 514:16\n 584:18 587:16 559:18 540:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 427 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[securities - sentence] Page 71\n\n securities 373:7 494:6,10 497:6 seemed 340:18 sellers 548:12\n 373:10,16 501:13 505:4 379:3 575:9 548:25\n 374:7,19 394:9 507:3,8,9,12,15 seems 342:11 semi 528:21\n 394:17 552:22 508:2,11,20 349:4 354:23 send 303:15\n see 303:10 515:2 531:8 355:10 366:6 315:19 326:14\n 313:3 317:23 533:6,25 535:6 366:17 370:11 474:6,14\n 317:25 318:17 539:5 543:21 370:23 391:3 477:16 489:20\n 319:2 328:9 543:22 548:21 397:23 407:23 505:16\n 330:21 333:10 549:2 551:24 414:21 433:13 sending 476:15\n 333:14 342:2 552:2,9,12 439:23 448:21 644:16\n 343:7,13,25 553:2,3,24 452:13 461:11 sense 321:6\n 346:22,25,25 554:2 560:3,3 461:13,14 333:15 342:9\n 349:7 355:4 565:19 581:6 478:23 488:18 342:10 361:12\n 356:2 364:15 581:10 585:17 517:21 522:13 370:7 373:21\n 365:16,17 596:11 598:3 522:18,21 410:9,11 426:4\n 374:2 375:10 599:24 604:21 523:2 554:9 441:10 493:21\n 375:11 379:9 612:6,12,18 598:13 535:8,11 536:3\n 379:10 390:19 613:14,15 seen 373:17 572:16 590:23\n 396:10 397:5 614:21 619:7 375:14 465:23 632:5\n 398:14 399:6 631:13,13 501:6 sensible 528:20\n 401:9 402:10 635:20 640:6 segment 626:19 sensitive 469:9\n 415:14 417:17 seeing 341:25 626:20 627:15 sent 303:21\n 424:16 431:13 471:23,24 627:24,25 315:21 316:8\n 431:23 438:24 472:3 475:15 segments 327:13,14\n 451:2 456:15 475:20 627:19,23 385:21 471:20\n 459:24 461:16 seem 331:4 select 459:21 474:19 505:22\n 463:16 470:18 368:19 369:23 selectively sentence 335:2\n 472:11 473:16 370:3 409:9 398:24 341:14 343:7\n 473:17 475:22 412:20 437:10 seller 559:12 343:21 346:22\n 475:24 476:20 504:24 573:7 560:21,22 347:2 365:13\n 476:24 478:16 584:4 585:11 561:12,15 366:10 400:13\n 479:25 480:6 589:23 590:5 565:6,13 420:14,24\n 485:7,19 607:21 631:25 566:14 421:2 422:11\n 486:22 491:3 633:5 422:13,22\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 428 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[sentence - significant] Page 72\n\n 430:23 432:21 set 336:24 shifting 586:14 signature\n 438:21 439:13 396:7 421:5 586:15 647:19 648:15\n 440:18,19 423:4 433:17 short 395:4 signed 622:2\n 462:23,24 508:17 637:6 489:23 548:12 significance\n 471:24 472:2,6 637:10 639:23 548:25 559:2 339:3,4,10\n 485:16,18 setting 516:11 559:11,12,14 406:11,20\n 486:3 494:6,10 640:13,16 560:20,21,22 408:19 416:3\n 504:4 515:15 seven 348:25 561:11,14 416:12,19,25\n 515:17 543:2 357:10 484:8 563:4 565:6,13 417:24 418:8\n 543:14 552:13 491:12,13 566:14 637:19 418:13,24\n 552:15 553:2 622:24 627:2 show 322:20 421:4,10,18,21\n 553:19,25 several 325:20 335:20 342:3 422:4,9,17,24\n 554:16 573:23 339:9 399:18 342:10 358:17 423:4,14\n 607:2 616:6 452:5 516:19 407:19 408:19 426:19,22\n 617:25 549:21 577:21 442:22 450:21 431:11,24\n sentences 579:8 601:6 469:8 612:4 432:19 433:10\n 516:19 639:24 613:7 617:11 440:8,15\n separate 498:2 shanna 648:2 618:20 442:19,22\n 592:4 648:15 showing 320:11 444:7,25\n september share 375:10 443:3 454:2 449:11 454:10\n 328:11 516:23 378:23 379:10 489:24 619:5 454:16,20\n series 384:23 577:13 614:17 shown 338:17 455:13,16\n 409:16 shared 478:21 339:19 343:21 456:9,12\n serve 640:21 479:6 495:9 462:3 457:14,18\n serves 638:22 shareholders shows 387:8 465:11 469:25\n 639:7 364:9 553:23 419:6 566:8 470:7 480:10\n service 600:17 shares 610:4 side 424:5 480:14 481:2,6\n services 381:7 sharp 372:17 552:9 481:15 486:6\n 382:5 588:14 sheet 649:1 sides 407:22 486:25 487:7\n 597:24 shift 381:23 sift 578:6 487:21 488:5\n serving 538:4,7 382:4 383:22 sifted 573:5 610:19\n 587:18 588:19 585:15 sign 593:19 significant\n 600:14,25 shifted 382:16 643:25 417:6 419:2,7\n 601:11 627:7 382:19 399:8 419:19 425:9\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 429 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[significant - speak] Page 73\n\n 425:18 431:4 siphoned solely 451:22 545:17 547:2\n 432:6 437:18 553:22 somebody 548:23 551:16\n 438:10 439:14 sir 302:3 377:9 630:16 552:6 556:13\n 439:16 451:4,6 304:11 329:19 something's 557:3 558:12\n 468:5,12,19 356:25 379:18 507:18 530:16 559:18,19\n 469:11 476:23 396:17 398:15 soon 508:10 563:5 573:21\n 479:19 480:6 430:15 493:19 sooner 362:6 580:24 581:8\n 483:9,10 485:6 544:22 550:14 sorry 315:22,23 586:21 591:15\n 486:18 487:19 629:22 638:9 316:4 318:7 591:15 596:7\n 488:14 489:7 sit 345:3 354:8 330:9 337:19 597:11 602:6\n 489:11 372:23 481:10 337:20 341:7 611:16 615:25\n significantly 499:7 610:13 351:8 358:21 616:2,2 627:10\n 473:14 638:7 639:16 361:14 373:11 630:11 641:13\n similar 360:17 640:9 382:21 384:15 sort 359:11\n 375:5,13 376:4 site 616:19,23 385:11,13 367:25 371:23\n 377:18,25 sitting 315:18 389:7 390:5,9 384:22 590:24\n 378:16,20 637:14 393:24 395:25 sorts 446:12\n 379:3,15 situation 405:7 411:17 sound 307:25\n 424:17 426:5 558:24 417:20 427:16 sounds 347:25\n 584:19 603:24 six 544:22 427:21,22 362:4 371:12\n simple 313:22 550:5 429:11,14 388:10 448:13\n 321:17 324:17 sizable 549:20 430:20 435:8 610:11\n 325:3 334:4 sizing 535:21 457:9 458:13 source 463:17\n 352:6 408:3 skills 647:9 458:21 460:21 561:20,21\n 409:15 424:3 648:6 463:19 471:16 sources 465:14\n 433:19 599:10 skimmed 472:22 474:22 527:4,8 552:20\n 634:4 545:15,18 477:6 484:17 southern 295:2\n simply 313:15 skipped 507:18 485:12,19 300:10\n 323:8 330:14 slightly 534:18 490:14 491:9 space 507:7\n 421:5 423:4 slow 519:9 494:7,16 500:5 sparse 614:17\n 425:2 495:23 slower 395:25 501:20 506:24 speak 324:8\n 514:14,19,24 slowly 387:25 507:17 519:7 325:7,9,12\n single 497:5 software 510:7 519:21 526:18 373:4 374:20\n 533:8 539:13 400:2 429:2\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 430 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[speak - state] Page 74\n\n 436:23 513:8 371:10 372:20 631:3,12,14,15 375:14 379:4\n 530:15 542:3 392:25 412:10 631:25 632:6 418:18 420:3\n 562:23 566:13 444:15 470:21 632:11,14 436:15 439:22\n 567:8 569:2 493:20 633:15,21 441:4 450:8\n 572:6 587:7 specificity 634:5,13 635:8 479:16 480:2\n 602:3 476:3 575:17 square 336:12 488:12 490:7\n speaking specifics staff 538:19 490:10 507:13\n 412:10 513:8 374:25 stake 574:25 507:22 521:25\n speaks 442:13 speculate stand 307:18 534:16 542:10\n 524:8 541:3 305:16,21 543:22 545:2 552:12\n 609:19 310:2,3 312:6 standard 567:8 631:11\n special 447:2 534:13 370:21,22 started 352:4\n specific 331:9 speculating 372:3 406:18 639:5\n 331:14,19 312:7 416:24 417:2 starting 331:16\n 332:12,18 speculation 419:4 456:14 492:6 507:4\n 334:14 335:4 309:20 350:4 460:18 461:3 508:10\n 336:5,21,24 351:11 354:16 461:15,21,22 starts 355:3\n 338:24 340:17 523:16 534:8 462:8,14,15,18 386:23 401:24\n 345:2 372:25 speculative 462:20 463:6,8 516:7 577:16\n 374:22 415:4 525:2 533:22 463:13,20,20 631:20,24\n 438:25 498:6 641:25 642:21 463:22 464:2,6 634:3,6 635:11\n 511:8 513:10 spent 324:25 510:2,20 stat 408:20\n 513:13 514:13 364:5,11 645:17,18 state 300:17\n 514:15 523:8 sphere 503:24 standards 302:9 309:24\n 524:3 525:24 521:12 524:7 417:17 317:13 318:13\n 540:8 552:4 531:10 standing 442:3 319:17 407:25\n 566:18,21 spikes 386:24 443:19 451:20 479:15 480:24\n 571:19 574:14 spoils 530:3 561:8 484:17 490:19\n 587:23 616:6 spoke 314:13 stands 442:23 491:22 493:12\n 616:16 625:16 538:16 start 306:6 498:8 508:23\n 625:23 626:3 spoken 428:24 308:5 332:13 522:22 535:17\n 628:19 640:11 601:17 332:15 336:24 565:12 573:10\n specifically spring 628:14 337:10 338:7 588:9 608:19\n 305:25 360:3 630:4,15,17 354:21 368:23 616:14 617:21\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 431 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[state - strike] Page 75\n\n 626:24 630:22 521:11,11 462:13 463:5 437:16 438:8\n 647:21 592:6 463:25 465:11 479:20 480:6\n stated 323:8 stating 516:25 466:12 469:25 521:4 522:9\n 337:7 350:21 528:16 565:5 470:7 480:10 523:7 525:21\n 350:23 351:6 statistic 407:21 480:13 481:2,6 526:14,24\n 360:16,18 statistical 481:15 486:6 528:3 559:2,6\n 396:8 398:11 339:3,4,10 486:25 487:7 559:14 560:23\n 427:2 485:24 406:10 407:16 487:21 488:5 561:2,18\n 491:3 498:10 408:10,18 statistically 609:14 610:4\n 503:17 509:23 410:4 413:10 414:11 417:5 611:13,23\n 511:17 527:3 413:17,23 419:2,6,19 612:10,14,17\n 528:19 532:6 415:4,11,17 425:9,18 431:3 612:24 614:5\n 532:11 583:24 416:2,12,19,25 432:6 437:17 616:20 617:24\n 585:5 609:12 417:19,24 438:9 439:14 619:10,23\n 617:5 624:6 418:8,12,23 451:4,6 468:4 stop 335:22\n 630:9 642:25 421:4,9,17,21 468:11,19 560:9\n statement 422:4,7,8,17,23 469:10 479:19 story 518:5\n 343:17,19 423:3,14 480:5 483:9,10 straight 310:13\n 344:3 383:5 424:20,22 485:6 486:18 313:13 334:21\n 395:5 421:13 425:22,24 487:19 488:14 straightforward\n 421:17 438:2 426:19,22 489:6,10 324:11 334:14\n 439:2 448:11 431:11,23 statistics 458:5 360:8\n 453:10 464:4 432:18 433:10 495:14 stream 367:19\n 480:2 485:7 434:7 435:23 stenographic strength\n 494:5 498:18 439:11,18 301:20 408:21 432:20\n 502:4,8,23 440:8,14 stick 476:4 443:2 489:2\n 515:23,23 442:13,19,22 stipulation stretch 307:18\n 523:24 595:25 443:15 444:7 301:22 strict 536:3\n 606:2 626:20 444:25 454:10 stock 343:11 strictly 416:2\n statements 454:16,20 344:14 345:9 416:18 434:7\n 331:25 606:12 455:12,15 357:4 377:10 strike 368:7\n states 295:1 456:9,12 387:2,2,4,15,21 544:5 602:7\n 300:10 400:13 457:14,18,23 389:15 390:15 615:6\n 506:17 508:5 460:8,18 461:2 390:25 431:2\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 432 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[strong - sure] Page 76\n\n strong 378:19 subpoena suggest 358:4 supports 496:2\n 456:3 466:22 303:15 563:8 498:21\n 522:13 528:21 subpoint suggests 355:18 suppose 410:23\n 565:15,21 339:15 359:4 360:22 524:17 535:3\n structured subscribed 484:25 607:4 542:9 600:10\n 566:13 646:8 649:22 suite 296:5,13 supposed\n structures subsections 296:22 465:14 569:3\n 567:23 336:24 338:20 summarizing 637:13\n struggling subsequent 431:17 432:3 supposition\n 437:2,5 539:3,10,18 432:21 383:18\n students 546:15 616:17 summary sure 306:15\n 409:23 617:4,21 337:19 440:19 311:25 316:18\n studies 446:7,7 633:15 641:22 319:8,9,13,16\n 540:21 546:9 subset 366:15 summer 629:18 325:16 327:17\n 608:8 366:17 629:19 630:8 329:21 331:2\n study 298:14 subsidized 630:19,24 332:22 338:25\n 298:24 407:9 503:6 631:13,16,20 348:22 349:24\n 408:5 410:22 substance 631:23 632:15 350:16 351:6\n 411:3,14,20 608:4 632:19,22,23 353:18 354:17\n 433:17 436:25 substantial 633:4,4,16 361:19 362:12\n 442:17 453:6 379:20,24 634:18,19 365:2 367:7\n 453:13 470:25 380:24 635:11,14 369:16 371:4\n 480:13,18 substantially sunlight 590:25 376:10 378:14\n 481:13 487:17 357:18 388:14 591:3 380:14 383:11\n 489:14 490:2 substantive supply 368:21 384:10 394:15\n stulz 298:12 443:10 539:24 403:14 397:2 399:25\n sub 339:8 subsumed support 363:11 407:13 413:21\n submitted 384:21 416:20 431:12 421:14 427:16\n 642:13 sudden 508:13 442:17 453:17 429:20 434:18\n subpanel sufficient 456:19,25 439:4 447:25\n 501:11 622:22 642:13 496:11 497:4 452:8 464:12\n subperiod sufficiently 515:22 559:4 472:23 474:4,4\n 373:2 348:8 supporting 486:8 491:7\n 320:24 560:25 492:5 493:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 433 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[sure - tell] Page 77\n\n 494:20 501:4 525:10 527:7 622:18 635:19 535:24 548:20\n 504:17 509:6 530:9 531:19 636:6,21 548:22 555:3\n 514:25 518:24 t 639:14 642:9 592:13 596:18\n 522:12 533:10 644:7 645:8 618:11\n t 298:5 299:1\n 533:22 534:11 takeaway talks 402:20\n 407:21 408:20\n 550:13 565:2 503:22 504:10 503:12 636:13\n t255 490:3\n 565:14 568:7 taken 300:7 tallahassee\n table 330:12,19\n 569:18 571:6 330:24 373:25 295:15 302:4\n 331:7,16\n 573:21 575:16 570:13,14 302:13\n 332:14,15\n 576:3,8 582:21 617:19 647:3 tangential\n 335:9 337:20\n 583:4 598:11 647:11 648:8 593:12 594:23\n 338:11 340:16\n 608:15 610:25 takes 623:6 tapes 441:14\n 466:17 484:20\n 612:2 636:21 talk 332:5,5,6,6 target 503:2\n 484:23 485:10\n surprised 332:8,21 508:6 518:2\n 485:16 486:12\n 565:20 366:24 370:12 638:13 639:6\n 487:6\n surrounding 370:14 385:12 639:12,23\n tables 469:24\n 613:25 399:19 402:15 targets 638:24\n 470:3,5 486:21\n surveyed 402:19,20 640:14,17\n tadayon 557:14\n 373:22 416:23 491:18 teach 409:24\n take 307:14,17\n swear 301:8 538:10 555:6 technical 367:6\n 316:13 318:4\n switch 441:14 566:15 571:10 371:24\n 322:22 332:23\n switched 581:24 586:19 technology\n 333:21 361:17\n 605:14 624:4 637:4,22 382:19 383:13\n 396:8 403:23\n switching talked 331:10 383:15\n 404:16,22\n 366:23 352:18,19 teeing 516:20\n 405:3 429:6\n sworn 301:11 400:15 432:9 tell 302:19\n 430:17,18\n 302:19 646:8 485:10 518:8 305:17 315:8\n 439:3 459:3\n 647:5 649:22 578:16 587:23 327:17 331:18\n 492:10,14\n synthesis 613:24 334:16 340:14\n 517:5 532:20\n 521:22 talking 304:25 349:16 353:4,5\n 550:3 553:9\n synthesize 333:4 352:2,13 353:12 363:19\n 563:19 574:7\n 521:14 530:20 356:6 385:8,12 386:9 387:14\n 592:9 608:16\n synthesizing 462:22 491:17 387:20 388:5\n 610:8 616:4\n 521:2 523:12 505:14 506:16 389:14 390:24\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 434 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[tell - thank] Page 78\n\n 405:24 417:25 368:21 369:19 556:2 561:8 tested 407:9\n 418:8,13 370:20 375:7 568:8 569:3 408:4 411:13\n 421:10 422:18 376:23 378:20 570:7 572:9 411:20\n 454:10,16,20 382:19 383:22 574:21 578:2 testified 302:21\n 470:16 471:21 392:21 394:23 578:23 582:9 578:17 579:23\n 474:6 493:8 395:6 397:3 584:20,23 testifying\n 547:4 553:7 399:5 403:12 587:6 588:25 633:10 647:5\n 564:24 591:16 403:13 404:11 589:17 606:11 testimony\n telling 337:4 407:15 408:3 612:10 618:2,4 328:25 329:24\n 419:15,16 409:15 410:25 618:16 619:3,5 371:14 462:2,5\n 420:4,5 457:15 411:3 412:11 620:24 625:8 469:17 481:10\n ten 388:17 413:13 415:2 626:14 629:20 644:12\n 441:3 445:11 415:25 416:10 631:7 633:13 testing 407:16\n 459:19 465:5,9 416:18 419:3 638:21 640:16 411:5 417:19\n tend 324:8 419:11 420:5,6 641:3 642:14 425:24 436:25\n 565:6,16 424:4 425:23 642:17 tests 428:17\n tends 466:24 426:24 428:11 terribly 419:10 432:10 436:2\n teoh 547:20,23 428:12,16 577:22 607:22 460:8\n 548:11 549:11 432:19 434:7 tesla 593:18,23 text 484:22\n term 335:13 442:23 444:5 test 408:10 485:23,25\n terminology 444:25 447:3 413:10,17,23 551:23 552:5\n 463:13 452:9 461:17 414:18 415:5 561:11\n terms 308:22 464:13 467:3 415:11,17,24 thank 301:7\n 309:19,25 467:17 478:22 415:25 419:6 303:3,9 306:4\n 310:4 312:4,16 481:14 488:17 419:15 420:4 308:3 309:13\n 320:10,21 495:14 509:16 424:20,22 315:12 316:17\n 329:13 331:24 510:9,15 425:3,4,23,23 316:20 318:3\n 338:18 341:20 516:20 517:6,9 434:7 435:20 319:11 328:23\n 341:25 342:12 518:19 525:21 435:23 436:8 348:3,22\n 345:15 346:5 527:14,23 436:11 439:11 350:11 362:13\n 347:3,4 354:17 530:22 535:12 439:19 440:11 379:18 394:4,5\n 354:19,25 535:20 536:12 442:13 443:16 396:11,17\n 358:9 360:16 537:3,9 540:20 444:2,3,4,6 401:19 402:6\n 361:7 366:13 548:19 554:11 455:21 457:23 406:5,5 421:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 435 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[thank - thought] Page 79\n\n 426:16 459:5,7 thesis 555:2 420:4 423:7 592:19 595:4\n 474:5 477:18 thing 318:19 426:10 435:16 596:16,20\n 479:23,24 335:23 336:19 437:12 438:18 599:5 605:13\n 491:13 492:17 415:6,11,18 438:24 439:2 605:25 606:2\n 493:19 494:9 457:16 505:14 442:9,11 449:2 609:4 613:24\n 502:14 504:11 551:21 588:2 449:4 454:24 615:14 617:5\n 505:23 506:8 611:8 639:19 458:7 460:5 621:21 622:4\n 515:10,10 things 335:25 462:2,4 463:9 624:4 625:17\n 519:19 532:3 364:7 398:3 465:9 475:15 626:12,24\n 538:10 544:3,3 523:22,23 475:17,18 628:12 629:6\n 544:22,25 579:25 629:17 478:18,20 629:25 630:3,4\n 545:19 550:13 think 308:20 479:3 483:3 630:5,5,15,17\n 551:13 559:10 313:12 314:9 486:2 495:11 631:6 632:2\n 563:24 580:10 323:18 324:13 497:3 500:14 635:17 638:21\n 580:12,18 325:2 326:8 511:12 514:10 638:22 639:2,5\n 597:18 607:10 331:20 334:18 515:19 518:4 640:8 641:4\n 615:18 616:9 334:19 335:6 519:8,13 642:6 643:25\n 623:7,15,17 337:6 338:24 533:21 534:16 645:16\n 628:16 635:6 340:2 344:6,13 537:21 545:21 thinking\n 635:15 636:7 345:17 349:7 547:22 548:17 354:18 463:11\n 636:11 639:17 350:17 355:6 548:18 549:14 538:20,24\n 643:20,21 361:13 364:20 554:3,15,17 539:2 578:19\n thanks 340:24 364:24,25 556:11 559:22 625:23 633:23\n 348:2 352:22 368:2 370:10 560:5,23 562:8 634:5 640:6\n 362:14 494:13 375:16 378:7,8 563:10,11 third 398:8\n 549:8 563:24 378:11,16,21 566:20 568:20 404:13 434:3\n theoretically 382:9,24 571:18,20,24 476:9,14\n 548:19 390:13,18 572:6 573:11 thirty 544:22\n theories 535:24 391:16 396:23 574:13,24 thought 355:13\n 537:13 398:22 399:3 575:20 576:18 380:12 447:5\n theory 527:13 400:7,18 577:19 579:25 458:9 485:24\n 530:15 531:6 403:20 409:23 584:22 585:21 511:15 543:9\n 535:19 540:13 411:3 414:16 585:22 587:4 543:10 547:3\n 414:24 417:13 588:2 589:15 582:10,12\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 436 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[thought - traditional] Page 80\n\n 616:4 632:7 tied 367:22 times 349:2 took 359:25\n 634:17,18 414:12,19 352:13 357:11 615:20\n thoughts 441:8 time 295:13 442:10 447:6 top 308:5\n thread 607:4 304:25 305:22 451:2 452:5 386:16,17,22\n threads 536:5 305:22 306:23 466:19 490:13 386:23 460:10\n three 350:24 306:23 307:12 490:15,16 489:18 504:19\n 351:15 459:9 307:16 318:4 560:6 519:5 532:20\n 464:15,18,19 325:2 334:3 timestamp 636:14\n 466:5 469:18 335:24 371:6 549:6 topic 361:16\n 552:8 372:21 378:25 title 470:22 366:23 403:20\n threshold 391:17 404:4 477:9 519:25 534:18\n 406:19 426:21 434:3 441:2 titled 385:18 553:7,11\n 427:8 428:8,11 452:8 489:23 483:16 484:9 topics 504:12\n 428:13,20,25 495:3 499:13 today 303:14 504:15,18\n 440:14 443:6 499:14 502:18 304:10 312:10 538:21\n 461:13 462:4 506:20,25 315:5 344:21 total 356:9\n 466:13,23 542:13 550:6 345:3 346:14 357:11 439:9\n 480:9 481:5 550:11 563:4 354:8 372:23 totally 441:11\n thresholds 572:14 573:4 392:7,15,21 632:8\n 421:24 455:10 579:13,14 448:2,3 456:8 tough 388:2\n 456:10,14 581:14 589:8 468:21 496:24 390:3,10 446:2\n 461:8 467:20 611:22 612:6 499:8 577:2 touted 502:11\n 480:19,20 612:13 613:13 595:18 608:25 503:19 509:4\n 483:13 489:13 614:17,22 610:13 611:2 touting 509:19\n throw 505:10 617:17 623:3 638:7 639:16 510:18 584:19\n throwing 628:2 632:8 640:9 towards 379:8\n 445:12 637:7 640:7 today's 644:11 382:6 585:18\n thrust 331:4 641:6 644:14 644:19 track 605:19\n 480:23 545:12 645:13,15,16 together traded 508:20\n thursday 645:21 400:24 527:20 546:4 608:21\n 295:12 300:4 timeline 490:23 527:21 531:12 611:14 614:6\n tie 413:5 433:8 633:14 tone 514:11 trading 343:25\n 503:9 timely 613:9 516:9 traditional\n 381:23\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 437 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[training - trying] Page 81\n\n training 458:6 transcriptionist trillion 593:10 trying 311:24\n 498:6 647:7 tripped 418:16 312:15 313:13\n transaction transcripts trouble 313:4 313:14 315:6,8\n 345:25 346:10 500:20 501:5 414:15 519:22 320:5 321:9\n 350:6 351:14 502:2 504:22 true 308:11 322:9,19 323:3\n 356:11 357:12 504:24 511:6 321:2,4 323:12 323:5,8,24\n 554:21 555:9 transform 366:7 370:5 324:4 325:14\n 571:21,22 383:16 395:8 406:17 325:15,21\n 572:15 574:16 transformation 417:18 433:2 333:17 335:4\n 575:3 579:7 380:24 381:16 433:21 434:19 335:19 340:12\n transactions 382:13 434:19 435:3 340:19,22,22\n 553:21 554:5 transitioned 435:11 454:15 340:23 341:23\n 554:12 555:16 383:2 454:19 504:13 351:24 352:12\n 569:10,15,24 translate 578:3 511:20 512:13 359:10,22\n 571:3,10 579:16 512:19,20 360:4 377:14\n 572:18 574:12 translates 524:12 542:18 389:19 408:9\n 576:17,22 577:4 545:14 546:20 409:14 410:4\n 577:8,18 translation 558:5 580:4 412:16 413:5\n 579:21 580:3,7 577:24 582:14 584:25 414:17,25\n transcriber transparent 587:10,12 415:15,25\n 648:1 589:10 592:10 600:8 416:18 426:15\n transcript transposed 600:11 647:8 431:12 433:8\n 301:13 500:24 354:15 648:4 434:17,18\n 501:6,11 trend 369:18 trust 338:5 435:20,22\n 502:16 504:8 triangulate truth 302:19,20 436:5 437:9,23\n 506:15,20 335:4 336:20 302:20 315:10 439:20 440:17\n 511:19 512:8 388:2 446:16 375:9 440:19 442:22\n 512:22 513:16 613:19 truthfully 446:5,16 447:8\n 513:18,23 trick 324:7 626:3 448:12 449:6\n 514:8 515:7,9 434:17 628:25 try 305:19 452:12,21\n 516:10 517:21 tricky 434:13 309:3 310:8 467:17 471:11\n 518:11 519:14 tried 381:9 337:10 406:8 501:15 502:2\n 533:13 644:19 516:5 550:10 563:16 503:9 509:18\n 648:3,4 588:6 623:18 513:6 522:15\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 438 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[trying - understand] Page 82\n\n 522:16,23 607:3,4 typically 325:8 undermining\n 524:5 543:13 tweets 495:11 581:13 573:8\n 552:5 554:22 495:13 499:14 typo 352:24 underscore\n 577:9 589:12 539:3,11,18,22 353:2,4,10,11 509:18 554:22\n 589:13,14 539:24 540:17 353:17,21,22 understand\n 592:2 603:14 543:5,16 354:3,4,6,9,20 301:12 304:20\n 605:19 612:4 546:15,18 478:24 547:13 304:23 308:5,9\n 612:11 613:6 570:14,20 typos 353:10 308:17 309:7\n 613:19 614:15 603:13 u 309:10,14,25\n 618:3,20 619:7 twitter 495:3 310:20,25\n uh 417:22\n 621:8,12 496:11,19 311:5,21,24\n ultimately\n 623:20 628:20 498:22 313:6,8,14,25\n 579:16\n 628:23,25 two 347:22 314:2 322:10\n unable 513:7\n 629:3 630:14 379:15 384:16 322:12 323:4,8\n unclear 451:5\n 630:25 633:8 391:19 392:3 323:25 325:15\n 503:8\n 633:10,18 392:11,22 325:17,21,25\n uncomfortable\n turn 307:10 393:3 394:3,4 326:5,22\n 362:2 415:22\n 331:12 337:13 400:24 407:22 328:23 329:5\n 416:17 424:19\n 338:21 351:19 438:16 478:17 330:2,15\n 425:21 433:25\n 405:19 534:17 484:8 493:21 332:18 337:3\n 435:17 436:6\n 553:5 560:11 497:21 501:21 347:14 350:17\n under 301:17\n 593:21 636:17 501:22 508:19 351:24,25\n 339:8 389:25\n turned 417:21 533:7 552:8 357:21 360:20\n 391:2 406:18\n 547:10,14 581:24 585:19 367:15,21\n 442:25 483:13\n tweet 491:22 618:22 641:11 368:2 371:7,14\n 538:3 551:24\n 493:12,25 type 333:23 376:8,11\n underlined\n 495:10,21 354:4 571:21 377:15 381:5\n 590:19\n 496:25 497:5,8 572:14 574:15 389:16 396:23\n underlying\n 497:17,25 575:7,12 397:9 399:7\n 388:10 578:2\n 499:2,5,10,14 types 572:17 411:24 412:6\n 579:15\n 499:22 500:8 575:23 576:4 414:25 415:15\n undermine\n 540:3 556:18 614:19 421:4 423:13\n 554:23 555:6\n 556:18,22,22 typewriting 424:10 427:17\n 577:9 578:12\n 561:10 577:7 647:6 427:20 434:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 439 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[understand - vague] Page 83\n\n 435:11 437:24 understated 395:24 397:18 399:3 410:21\n 448:12 452:12 570:10 441:17,21 417:8,12\n 453:10,21 understating 492:20,24 427:11 428:14\n 454:13 460:7 573:15 550:17,21 462:19 467:7\n 467:22 477:7 understood 623:9,13 644:9 486:5 488:11\n 481:9 494:16 312:20,23 united 295:1 548:4 569:5\n 502:3 522:15 323:7 384:24 300:10 584:12 611:6\n 543:13 546:3 386:2 395:19 unpack 323:3 639:22\n 561:7 573:6 396:22 400:19 unrelated useful 595:22\n 576:9 580:16 401:7 504:20 357:21 uses 301:16\n 582:3 586:13 545:8 546:11 unspecified 461:8,18 462:3\n 595:24 596:4,9 555:11,12,13 516:14 462:17 463:13\n 596:21 602:2 567:24 569:17 unusual 421:6 466:20 467:20\n 603:15 610:18 580:17 611:10 423:5 using 378:14\n 623:20 628:22 611:10 633:25 updates 490:22 381:8 416:20\n 628:24 629:4 635:3 617:10 621:9 421:24 422:5,6\n 630:14 631:2 undertake upset 567:5 426:2 442:16\n 632:8,9 633:19 378:10 529:19 use 307:13 451:8 461:7\n 639:16 undertaken 310:18 374:7 464:15 480:20\n understanding 621:24 374:18 378:15 481:17 489:12\n 309:5,6,12,23 undertaking 382:20 419:12 510:6 565:16\n 310:17 311:16 571:20 420:2 453:7 594:19\n 312:13 313:5 underwent 455:10 460:8 usually 370:15\n 313:16 366:10 380:23 381:16 461:13 462:8 470:5,7 560:13\n 368:14,24 382:13 466:12,24 utilize 383:14\n 371:13,21 undisclosed 480:9 481:5 utilizing 383:12\n 372:13 377:14 553:21 574:11 505:9,12 511:5 utterance\n 382:25 398:17 unfair 390:14 524:11 550:6 638:5\n 403:9 414:16 unfortunately 565:14 596:18 v\n 446:7 458:4 346:14 635:4\n v 295:6 649:2\n 464:3 494:23 unfounded used 360:4\n vague 575:9\n 535:21 541:8 574:23 373:7,8,15,18\n 576:11 594:15\n 610:12 632:13 unit 300:5 373:20 374:3,4\n 634:11 635:7 362:16,20 392:9,11 393:3\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 440 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[valle - videographer] Page 84\n\n valle 557:7,19 546:16 555:19 varied 394:11 621:25 628:4\n 558:4 575:4 556:3 569:11 394:19 395:10 632:22\n 603:21 616:11 569:13,24 395:13 vested 595:5\n 616:19,22 571:3,11,12,12 varies 431:25 viability 381:10\n 617:9,22 618:8 571:16,17 variety 575:15 510:15\n 619:9,22 572:2,3,18,24 various 621:22 video 300:5\n 620:18 621:3 572:25 573:17 ventures 589:7 499:24 500:10\n valuable 574:10,18,19 590:10 500:21,23\n 524:11 525:17 575:23,24 veracity 341:20 501:7,9 502:8\n valuation 576:4,5,14,17 verbatim 502:16,20\n 346:12 350:6 576:22 577:4 325:19 460:6 503:10,12\n 350:19 351:14 577:22 578:4 469:20 500:24 504:6,8,12\n 357:19 358:16 578:25 579:17 529:3 506:15,17\n 359:12 579:4 579:21,24,25 verbiage 352:3 508:5 509:15\n 589:22 580:4,7,13,23 360:2,3 462:19 511:7 515:12\n value 320:18 581:4 582:7,19 514:20 585:21 515:21,25\n 339:11 345:23 583:13 584:9 642:23 643:3 516:3,7,10,21\n 346:6,8 356:10 587:20 588:20 veritext 300:14 519:14 533:12\n 357:11 363:15 590:6,12 601:3 300:16 649:1 533:13 559:25\n 365:21 366:9 601:13 604:3 vernacular 563:19 644:8\n 379:11 397:23 604:17 611:24 448:8 645:15\n 406:12,20 612:3 613:2 version 316:16 videoconfere...\n 407:5,7,21 616:23 617:16 518:21 296:3,11,20\n 408:20 423:19 618:14,23,24 versions 460:13 297:4,5\n 423:25 488:21 619:2,12,25 versus 335:19 videographer\n 490:5 499:17 620:20 621:9 345:19 370:10 297:5 300:2,14\n 523:11 524:14 621:11 379:2,5 412:10 362:15,19\n 524:23 525:4,9 variable 486:17 412:24 416:19 405:10,13\n 525:21 526:7 variation 419:25 421:25 441:3,16,20\n 539:11,19 369:24 370:11 443:10 486:14 492:19,23\n 540:5,15,20 370:24 371:2 487:24 497:5 550:16,20\n 541:4,10,19 371:15,19 497:22 578:7 563:18,22\n 542:2,4,8 372:8 579:9 583:5 623:8,12\n 543:6,17 613:6 614:14 643:22 644:3,7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 441 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[videographer - way] Page 85\n\n 645:14,20 volatility 334:4,6,9 626:5 635:25\n videotaped 369:25 370:9 338:6 340:25 644:23 645:2,3\n 295:10 370:10,11,13 342:25 343:6 645:10\n view 344:10 370:15 371:3,3 349:6,10 352:8 wanted 327:17\n 360:15,17 371:9,20,25 353:25 360:20 348:14,21\n 370:8 371:22 volume 295:11 361:25 362:5 403:22 406:7\n 419:10 498:21 volunteering 362:24 365:11 424:9 478:2\n 569:9,22 458:11 366:23 371:25 514:15,19,24\n 570:25 571:7 vs 300:8 377:4 383:8 548:24 549:3\n 571:15 575:22 w 384:9,11,13 549:23 553:15\n 580:21 581:2 385:12 393:20 564:9,25\n wainwright\n 582:5,25 401:9 404:17 567:25 569:6\n 395:22 396:6\n 583:23 584:2,4 404:18 416:23 599:10 610:17\n 396:14 397:16\n 584:6,7 585:16 423:11 424:2 614:18 644:22\n 398:10,19\n 595:11 600:24 427:16 430:12 wants 510:10\n 400:20\n 601:10 605:9 430:17 435:10 594:24 595:2\n wait 315:23\n 605:22 442:11 458:17 waste 333:23\n 332:2,2,2,3\n viewed 495:9 458:17,19,22 wasting 335:24\n 337:18 347:22\n 504:7 541:18 459:3 469:16 wave 298:16\n waiting 506:5\n 582:17 624:13 471:18,19,20 way 318:12\n 520:11\n viewing 504:5 473:4 487:9,13 340:15 348:14\n waive 643:23\n views 346:5 491:24 501:18 351:7 377:15\n walk 423:12\n 495:15 559:3 505:4,9 508:14 377:20,23\n want 304:14\n visibility 509:9 511:24 406:10 414:14\n 305:6,7,12,15\n 493:14 494:2 515:2 518:14 422:21 433:16\n 305:16,21\n 495:18,22 519:16 534:17 434:4 440:24\n 310:3 313:24\n 496:15,21 545:3,9,10 442:18,18\n 316:2 317:10\n 497:13,18 551:15,22 445:15 452:7\n 322:7 324:19\n 498:22 499:23 553:4 560:8 453:11 470:2,3\n 325:16 326:10\n 500:9 565:23 567:5,6 494:25 502:21\n 326:13 329:21\n volatile 369:12 588:3 591:16 505:9 522:22\n 332:4,5,6,6,8\n 369:16 370:16 591:17 606:16 525:6 534:20\n 332:10,17\n 370:23 372:2,7 607:6 609:10 539:22 553:13\n 333:13,18\n 615:8 625:25 559:9 561:18\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 442 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[way - wondering] Page 86\n\n 566:12 569:17 whatever's 369:15 378:4 540:7 541:12\n 593:24 624:25 361:20 379:24 380:7 541:15 543:21\n 633:9,11 wheel 589:5 381:4 383:7 544:12 546:2\nways 394:22 where'd 633:3 385:6 386:11 550:4,13 551:6\n 495:5 whoa 332:2,2 388:17 403:25 551:13 554:8\nwe've 328:5 widely 373:8 415:21 418:4 557:24 560:5\n 332:14 353:11 373:17 418:12 422:21 561:5 562:8\n 403:20 417:13 wild 510:4 424:16 426:24 566:5 571:6\n 417:13 435:16 wilk 296:21 433:4 435:5,16 576:25 580:6\n 511:6,20 300:22 442:9 443:25 582:9,21\n 606:19 627:24 wilkauslande... 450:20 452:4 583:15 584:11\n 640:20 296:24 453:5 454:24 587:22 588:23\nwealth 298:13 windfalls 457:8,13 590:17 591:11\nweaves 516:6 469:10 467:15 470:14 592:19 594:13\nweb 554:10 winners 530:4 474:22,24 595:17 596:25\n 607:18,20 wish 361:21 483:3 484:4 598:11 599:3\n 608:8 withdrawal 492:4,11,16 600:10 601:5\nwebsite 459:23 517:10 497:3,20 601:16 602:17\n 495:2,24 497:6 withdrawing 498:17 500:4 603:3 604:6\n 498:4 507:13 503:4 515:13 500:14 505:24 606:10 609:4\n 507:23 608:7 516:24 506:3,7 512:15 612:2 613:5\nweeks 562:3,19 witness 301:9 513:3,5 517:19 619:18 620:11\n 564:12 301:11,12 520:15,17 621:7,21\nweight 622:5 302:18 314:4 521:6 522:11 622:20,23\nweird 507:18 327:5,10,15,20 523:15 524:17 627:22 631:6\nwelcome 327:24 328:3 525:12,24 642:3 643:21\n 307:13 348:5 344:20 345:14 526:17 527:2 647:4\n 405:15 420:22 346:25 347:25 529:14 530:13 witnesses\u2019\n 441:23 493:2 348:18,20 531:6,22 649:3\n 550:23 352:12 354:8 532:11 533:5 wonderful\nwent 435:6 359:7,20 361:5 533:21 534:7 396:17 401:19\n 459:23 465:8,9 361:13,21 535:3 536:12 574:6 622:24\n 557:25 597:11 362:4,9,13 536:21 537:21 wondering\n 363:7,24 538:7 539:13 533:15 547:7\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 443 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[wondering - youtube] Page 87\n\n 547:11 557:25 working 597:2 y 563:15 607:9\nword 382:20 598:8,13 y 334:11 615:10 622:23\n 384:2 399:4 600:20 yeah 318:4 626:12 627:11\n 400:7 427:12 works 362:12 327:16 328:22 628:18 630:12\n 509:3 511:5,25 403:2 404:20 329:20 331:2 630:12 632:16\n 512:3 552:10 464:11 341:9 348:20 632:19 634:25\n 594:18 596:19 world 593:25 350:22 352:23 636:5,5 637:25\n 596:22 worried 383:17 353:3 361:23 638:16 640:18\nwording worth 364:19 362:10 369:15 643:2\n 610:20 worthless 373:12,12 year 629:19\nwords 325:18 559:3 560:24 381:13 385:2 630:7,18,23\n 325:19 359:8 would've 386:7 388:25 631:16,22\n 376:9 402:13 343:12 344:15 389:20,21 632:22 633:16\n 444:23 448:6 345:10 346:20 390:4,7,7,8 633:22 634:2,6\n 449:2,3 462:7 357:18 395:2 391:5,13,18 634:14,22,23\n 462:9 464:7 496:19,20 394:7 396:12 635:10,12,14\n 514:22 635:5 546:19 558:25 400:6 401:4,5 years 459:19\n 642:21 582:17 595:21 401:13 403:11 465:5,9 572:10\nwork 329:8 writing 538:13 405:4,9 418:7 577:8,17,21\n 362:3 458:5 written 301:21 423:10 424:8 579:8\n 460:16,25 354:18 426:11 430:15 yep 337:24\n 461:17,21 wrong 383:2 439:6 472:11 389:8 402:12\n 462:12,25 464:4 523:11 473:20 476:19 423:21 550:15\n 463:4,24 523:23 483:5 485:12 634:24\n 465:12 466:17 wrongdoing 487:12 491:16 york 295:2\n 467:22,23 589:17 590:24 501:17 504:10 296:6,23\n 516:13 537:24 wrote 543:11 505:8 518:24 300:11 644:5\n 550:12 588:16 543:22,23 519:3,6 541:14 647:21 649:1\n 590:20 592:7,8 x 541:14 548:21 youtube 500:20\n 592:10 597:9 550:8,9,9 503:10,11\n x 298:1,5 299:1\n 598:2,18,24 552:14 553:14 532:17 533:11\n 334:11 495:3\n 599:13,16,19 553:15 557:4\n 599:23 600:3,5 560:3,15\n 600:11\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 444 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[z - z] Page 88\n\n z 364:1 365:1 432:1 433:1 500:1 501:1\n z 300:1 301:1 366:1 367:1 434:1 435:1 502:1 503:1\n 302:1 303:1 368:1 369:1 436:1 437:1 504:1 505:1\n 304:1 305:1 370:1 371:1 438:1 439:1 506:1 507:1\n 306:1 307:1 372:1 373:1 440:1 441:1 508:1 509:1\n 308:1 309:1 374:1 375:1 442:1 443:1 510:1 511:1\n 310:1 311:1 376:1 377:1 444:1 445:1 512:1 513:1\n 312:1 313:1 378:1 379:1 446:1 447:1 514:1 515:1\n 314:1 315:1 380:1 381:1 448:1 449:1 516:1 517:1\n 316:1 317:1 382:1 383:1 450:1 451:1 518:1 519:1\n 318:1 319:1 384:1 385:1 452:1 453:1 520:1 521:1\n 320:1 321:1 386:1 387:1 454:1 455:1 522:1 523:1\n 322:1 323:1 388:1 389:1 456:1 457:1 524:1 525:1\n 324:1 325:1 390:1 391:1 458:1 459:1 526:1 527:1\n 326:1 327:1 392:1 393:1 460:1 461:1 528:1 529:1\n 328:1 329:1 394:1 395:1 462:1 463:1 530:1 531:1\n 330:1 331:1 396:1 397:1 464:1 465:1 532:1 533:1\n 332:1 333:1 398:1 399:1 466:1 467:1 534:1 535:1\n 334:1,11 335:1 400:1 401:1 468:1 469:1 536:1 537:1\n 336:1 337:1 402:1 403:1 470:1 471:1 538:1 539:1\n 338:1 339:1 404:1 405:1 472:1 473:1 540:1 541:1\n 340:1 341:1 406:1 407:1 474:1 475:1 542:1 543:1\n 342:1 343:1 408:1 409:1 476:1 477:1 544:1 545:1\n 344:1 345:1 410:1 411:1 478:1 479:1 546:1 547:1\n 346:1 347:1 412:1 413:1 480:1 481:1 548:1 549:1\n 348:1 349:1 414:1 415:1 482:1 483:1 550:1 551:1\n 350:1 351:1 416:1 417:1 484:1 485:1 552:1 553:1\n 352:1 353:1 418:1 419:1 486:1 487:1 554:1 555:1\n 354:1 355:1 420:1 421:1 488:1 489:1 556:1 557:1\n 356:1 357:1 422:1 423:1 490:1 491:1 558:1 559:1\n 358:1 359:1 424:1 425:1 492:1 493:1 560:1 561:1\n 360:1 361:1 426:1 427:1 494:1 495:1 562:1 563:1\n 362:1 363:1 428:1 429:1 496:1 497:1 564:1 565:1\n 430:1 431:1 498:1 499:1 566:1 567:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 445 of 448\n\n\n\n\n[z - zoom] Page 89\n\n 568:1 569:1 636:1 637:1\n 570:1 571:1 638:1 639:1\n 572:1 573:1 640:1 641:1\n 574:1 575:1 642:1 643:1\n 576:1 577:1 644:1 645:1\n 578:1 579:1 646:1\n 580:1 581:1 zach 600:14\n 582:1 583:1 zachary 296:19\n 584:1 585:1 301:2 596:2\n 586:1 587:1 zahn 295:10\n 588:1 589:1 298:8,17 300:6\n 590:1 591:1 302:12,17\n 592:1 593:1 430:4 644:12\n 594:1 595:1 646:5 649:3,21\n 596:1 597:1 zero 406:15,25\n 598:1 599:1 407:11,18,20\n 600:1 601:1 408:15,23,25\n 602:1 603:1 409:6 410:14\n 604:1 605:1 412:4,8,9,14,20\n 606:1 607:1 413:11\n 608:1 609:1 zip 302:6\n 610:1 611:1 zoom 474:12\n 612:1 613:1 563:17\n 614:1 615:1\n 616:1 617:1\n 618:1 619:1\n 620:1 621:1\n 622:1 623:1\n 624:1 625:1\n 626:1 627:1\n 628:1 629:1\n 630:1 631:1\n 632:1 633:1\n 634:1 635:1\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 446 of 448\n\n\n\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n\n Rule 30\n\n\n\n (e) Review By the Witness; Changes.\n\n (1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the\n\n deponent or a party before the deposition is\n\n completed, the deponent must be allowed 30 days\n\n after being notified by the officer that the\n\n transcript or recording is available in which:\n\n (A) to review the transcript or recording; and\n\n (B) if there are changes in form or substance, to\n\n sign a statement listing the changes and the\n\n reasons for making them.\n\n (2) Changes Indicated in the Officer's Certificate.\n\n The officer must note in the certificate prescribed\n\n by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review was requested\n\n and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent\n\n makes during the 30-day period.\n\n\n\n\n DISCLAIMER: THE FOREGOING FEDERAL PROCEDURE RULES\n\n ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.\n\n THE ABOVE RULES ARE CURRENT AS OF APRIL 1,\n\n 2019. PLEASE REFER TO THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES\n\n OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION.\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 447 of 448\n\n VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS\n\n COMPANY CERTIFICATE AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions represents that the\n\n foregoing transcript is a true, correct and complete\n\n transcript of the colloquies, questions and answers\n\n as submitted by the court reporter. Veritext Legal\n\n Solutions further represents that the attached\n\n exhibits, if any, are true, correct and complete\n\n documents as submitted by the court reporter and/or\n\n attorneys in relation to this deposition and that\n\n the documents were processed in accordance with\n\n our litigation support and production standards.\n\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions is committed to maintaining\n\n the confidentiality of client and witness information,\n\n in accordance with the regulations promulgated under\n\n the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability\n\n Act (HIPAA), as amended with respect to protected\n\n health information and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as\n\n amended, with respect to Personally Identifiable\n\n Information (PII). Physical transcripts and exhibits\n\n are managed under strict facility and personnel access\n\n controls. Electronic files of documents are stored\n\n in encrypted form and are transmitted in an encrypted\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-7 Filed 12/12/25 Page 448 of 448\n\n\n\n fashion to authenticated parties who are permitted to\n\n access the material. Our data is hosted in a Tier 4\n\n SSAE 16 certified facility.\n\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions complies with all federal and\n\n State regulations with respect to the provision of\n\n court reporting services, and maintains its neutrality\n\n and independence regardless of relationship or the\n\n financial outcome of any litigation. Veritext requires\n\n adherence to the foregoing professional and ethical\n\n standards from all of its subcontractors in their\n\n independent contractor agreements.\n\n\n Inquiries about Veritext Legal Solutions'\n\n confidentiality and security policies and practices\n\n should be directed to Veritext's Client Services\n\n Associates indicated on the cover of this document or\n\n at www.veritext.com.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:13:02.721231-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727945","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit G - 2025.10.30 - Zahn Bozanic , Ph.D. Deposition Transcript","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528960/","id":484528960,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/8/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:59.213315-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:29:18.407133-07:00","sha1":"42bc686e6a55526e948698b8c2204650fd130175","page_count":58,"file_size":692562,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.8.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.8.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-8 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 58\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT H\n\fCase\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page12ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page23ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\nMARK LEONE, Individually Case No. 1:24-cv-09253-CM\nand on Behalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\nASP ISOTOPES INC., PAUL E. MANN,\nand HEATHER KIESSLING,\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n JUNE 26, 2025\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page34ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nI.\u0003 Scope of Report and Opinions .............................................................................................1\u0003\nII.\u0003 Qualifications .......................................................................................................................2\u0003\nIII.\u0003 Case Background .................................................................................................................4\u0003\nIV.\u0003 Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency ............................................................................5\u0003\nV.\u0003 Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for ASP Isotopes (ASPI) Common Stock ..........7\u0003\n A.\u0003 Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume .................................. 9\u0003\n B.\u0003 Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage .......................................................... 10\u0003\n C.\u0003 Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers .............................................................. 13\u0003\n D.\u0003 Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility ................................... 14\u0003\n E.\u0003 Cammer Factor 5: Cause-and-Effect Relationship Between\n Company Information and Stock Prices...................................................... 15\u0003\n i.\u0003 Event Study Methodology ................................................................ 16\u0003\n ii.\u0003 Cause and Effect Analysis Comparing ASP Isotopes\n Common Stock Price Behavior on News Versus No News\n Days .................................................................................................. 19\u0003\n F.\u0003 Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization .................................................. 22\u0003\n G.\u0003 Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread ............................................................ 24\u0003\n H.\u0003 Krogman Factor 3: Public Float .................................................................. 25\u0003\n I.\u0003 Additional Factor: Institutional Ownership................................................. 26\u0003\nVI.\u0003 Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis .......................................................27\u0003\n A.\u0003 Calculation of Damages for Violation of \u00a7\u00a710(b) and 20(a) of the\n Exchange Act .............................................................................................. 27\u0003\n B.\u0003 Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate\n Alternative Findings .................................................................................... 30\u0003\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page45ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nVII.\u0003 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................31\u0003\nAppendix A ................................................................................................................................. A-1\u0003\nAppendix B ..................................................................................................................................B-1\u0003\nExhibit 1 ....................................................................................................................................... E-1\u0003\nExhibit 2 ....................................................................................................................................... E-2\u0003\nExhibit 3 ....................................................................................................................................... E-3\u0003\nExhibit 4 ....................................................................................................................................... E-4\u0003\nExhibit 5 ....................................................................................................................................... E-5\u0003\nExhibit 6 ....................................................................................................................................... E-6\u0003\nExhibit 7 ....................................................................................................................................... E-9\u0003\nExhibit 8 ..................................................................................................................................... E-10\u0003\nExhibit 9 ..................................................................................................................................... E-11\u0003\nExhibit 10 ................................................................................................................................... E-12\u0003\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page56ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n I. Scope of Report and Opinions\n 1. Plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys have asked me to determine whether the market for ASP\n\nIsotopes Inc.\u2019s (\u201cASP Isotopes\u201d, \u201cASPI\u201d, or the \u201cCompany\u201d) common stock (\u201cCommon Stock\u201d)\n\nwas efficient during the period September 26, 2024 to November 26, 2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass\n\nPeriod\u201d).\n\n 2. Plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys have also asked me to opine on whether damages for investors\n\ntrading in ASPI\u2019s Common Stock during the Class Period can be calculated using a common\n\nmethodology for all Class members that is consistent with Plaintiffs\u2019 claims under: (i) \u00a710(b) of\n\nthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) and U.S. Securities & Exchange\n\nCommission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder (collectively, the \u201c\u00a710(b) claims\u201d); and\n\n(ii) \u00a720(a) of the Exchange Act.1\n\n 3. Based on my analysis to date and the evaluation of the factors described throughout\n\nthis report, I have formed the following opinions:\n\n a. The market for ASPI\u2019s Common Stock was efficient throughout the Class Period.\n\n b. The Cammer and Krogman factors accepted and applied by courts to assess market\n\nefficiency corroborate that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market.\n\n c. Though not necessary for a finding of market efficiency, the cause-and-effect\n\nrelationship between new Company disclosures and resulting Common Stock price movements\n\n(which I analyze under the fifth Cammer factor) further shows that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock traded\n\nin an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n d. Damages in this matter can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a standard,\n\ncommon methodology for Plaintiffs\u2019 pending claims. In particular, the out-of-pocket damages\n\n\n1\n See Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, dated May\n27, 2025. (Doc. 25) (\u201cComplaint\u201d). I understand Defendants to include ASP Isotopes and Paul\nMann (ASP Isotopes\u2019 Chief Executive Officer (\u201cCEO\u201d)).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page67ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nmethodology, which is used in virtually all \u00a710(b) class action securities cases, is appropriate and\n\napplicable here.\n\n 4. The remainder of my report is organized as follows: Section II describes my\n\nqualifications. Section III summarizes the case background. Section IV briefly explains the bases\n\nfor the reliance requirement and the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory relating to market efficiency.\n\nSection V presents my analyses of the market efficiency factors for ASPI\u2019s Common Stock during\n\nthe Class Period. Section VI addresses how damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis\n\nsubject to a common methodology under \u00a710(b) and \u00a720(a). Section VII summarizes my\n\nconclusions.\n\n II. Qualifications\n 5. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Pennsylvania State University\n\nand am a tenured, full Professor of Accounting at Florida State University. I also hold the William\n\nHillison Professorship of Accounting. I teach Ph.D. and Master\u2019s-level courses, present my\n\nresearch at universities and conferences both domestic and abroad, deliver guest lectures,\n\nparticipate in academic seminars, attend academic conferences, peer review academic work,\n\norganize academic conferences, and conduct research on areas related to accounting, finance,\n\nstatistics, economics, and law.\n\n 6. My research focuses on topics related to corporate disclosure, debt contracting,\n\nfinancial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement. More\n\nspecifically, my research has examined periodic corporate disclosures (e.g., 10-K\u2019s, earnings press\n\nreleases), earnings guidance, earnings management, earnings manipulation, financial statement\n\nirregularities, debt contracts (e.g., private bank loans and public bonds), debt covenants,\n\nsecuritized debt, credit analysts, equity analysts, SEC comment letters, SEC requests for comment,\n\nand SEC investigations.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page78ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 7. I have been engaged in university-level teaching and academic research for over 15\n\nyears and continue to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting, economics, and\n\nfinance. At the undergraduate level, I have taught courses on financial accounting, investments,\n\nvaluation, and financial statement analysis. In addition, I have taught data analytics, valuation, and\n\nfinancial statement analysis at the Master\u2019s level as well as academic research seminars on\n\nempirical research methods in accounting at the doctoral level. I am an Editorial Board member of\n\nseveral peer-reviewed journals, and am an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting.\n\n 8. Before my current roles, I was a tenured, Associate Professor of Accounting and\n\nthe Director of the Ph.D. Program in Accounting at Florida State University. Prior to then, I was\n\nan Assistant Professor of Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a Research Fellow at\n\nThe National Center for the Middle Market.\n\n 9. Prior to working for Ohio State, I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\nfrom the Pennsylvania State University. Before my graduate work at Penn State, I was employed\n\nby Wells Fargo Bank as a Financial Consultant and Product Manager. I received an M.A. from the\n\nUniversity of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.\n\n 10. I have published research in leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields of finance,\n\naccounting, and economics, including: Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting\n\nand Economics, The Accounting Review, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Review of\n\nQuantitative Finance and Accounting, and Journal of Financial Reporting. My curriculum vitae,\n\nattached as Appendix A, further details my publication record. I have presented my academic\n\nresearch at over 50 academic institutions, as listed in my curriculum vitae. I have also received\n\nseveral awards and honors from my peers both nationally and globally related to my research, peer\n\nreviewing activities, and doctoral research supervision.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page89ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 11. The materials I have considered in forming my opinions are listed and summarized\n\nin Appendix B. My time is billed at a rate of $900 per hour for my work on this matter. I have\n\nbeen assisted in this matter by staff at Fideres USA Inc. working under my direction. My\n\ncompensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my opinions or on the outcome of this case.\n\nMy curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A, further details my testimony experience.\n\n 12. My work is ongoing, and I reserve the right to update my analyses and opinions\n\nbased upon new information, discovery, expert reports, or other information that comes to my\n\nattention.\n\n III. Case Background2\n 13. ASP Isotopes is a small company with limited revenue, that is focused on\n\ndeveloping isotope enrichment technologies acquired from a distressed private company based in\n\nSouth Africa.3 During the Class Period, the Company incurred operating losses and negative cash\n\nflows, and did not generate any income from enriching isotopes.4 Since its inception in 2021, and\n\nthroughout the Class Period, ASP Isotopes was focused on acquiring and developing intellectual\n\nproperty from Klydon, a struggling isotope separation research and development company.5\n\nThroughout the Class Period, ASP Isotopes repeatedly touted its ability to commercialize and\n\nproduce isotopes of various elements, in particular its ability to produce and sell uranium isotopes\n\nvia its \u201cquantum enrichment\u201d technology.6\n\n\n\n2\n The following overview section summarizes the allegations in the Complaint as context for\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claims. I make no findings or opinions as to these allegations, and the opinions I reach\nin other sections of this report regarding market efficiency and the calculation of damages are not\ndependent on any specific allegations summarized herein.\n3\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 2, 23-24.\n4\n Id, \u00b6\u00b6 33-34.\n5\n Id., \u00b6 23-24.\n6\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 39-46.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed 06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 910ofof5758\n\n\n\n\n 14. The Complaint alleges that the Company misled the market regarding its ability to\n\nproduce and commercialize its uranium enrichment technology during the Class Period.7\n\nSpecifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading\n\nstatements and failed to disclose that the company had never enriched uranium nor even tested its\n\ntechnology on uranium.8\n\n 15. The Complaint alleges that the truth was partially revealed to the market on\n\nNovember 26, 2024, when Fuzzy Panda Research published a report revealing issues with ASPI\u2019s\n\nquantum enrichment technology.9\n\n 16. The Complaint also alleges that the truth was fully revealed on November 27, 2024,\n\nwhen ASP Isotopes\u2019 CEO Paul Mann disclosed in an interview with a Canaccord Genuity stock\n\nanalyst that the company had never enriched uranium, nor had it tested its underlying quantum\n\nenrichment technology on uranium.10\n\n 17. Exhibit 1 graphs the closing stock price and trading volume for ASPI\u2019s Common\n\nStock shares throughout the Class Period.\n\n IV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency\n 18. I understand that, with respect to their claims under \u00a710(b), Plaintiffs assert the\n\n\u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory of class-wide reliance, i.e., that all ASP Isotopes shareholders relied\n\non the alleged misrepresentations and omissions through their effect on stock prices in an\n\ninformationally efficient market.11\n\n\n\n\n7\n Id., \u00b6 3.\n8\n Id., \u00b6 5.\n9\n Id., \u00b6 5.\n10\n Id., \u00b6 5.\n11\n Id., \u00b6 127.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page10\n 11ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 19. As courts, including the Supreme Court, have explained, the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d\n\ntheory of class-wide reliance holds that investors trading securities in an informationally efficient\n\nmarket rely on any misrepresentations or material omissions of fact because those statements or\n\nmaterial omissions of fact have distorted the value of each class member\u2019s purchase price. As the\n\nSupreme Court explained in its Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision:\n\n [I]n an open and developed securities market, the price of a\n company\u2019s stock is determined by the available material information\n regarding the company and its business . . . . Misleading statements\n will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do\n not directly rely on the misstatements . . . . The causal connection\n between the defendants\u2019 fraud and the plaintiffs\u2019 purchase of stock\n in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance\n on misrepresentations.12\n 20. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the availability of this theory to satisfy \u00a710(b)\u2019s\n\nreliance requirement on a class-wide basis in Halliburton II:\n\n More than 25 years ago, we held that plaintiffs could satisfy the\n reliance element of the Rule 10b\u20135 cause of action by invoking a\n presumption that a public, material misrepresentation will distort the\n price of stock traded in an efficient market, and that anyone who\n purchases the stock at the market price may be considered to have\n done so in reliance on the misrepresentation. We adhere to that\n decision and decline to modify the prerequisites for invoking the\n presumption of reliance.13\n 21. A market is considered informationally efficient when the market price of securities\n\nquickly responds to publicly available information.14 In securities fraud cases, courts have\n\n12\n Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n13\n Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n14\n In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005). \u201cFor purposes of establishing\nthe fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, we adopt the prevailing definition of market\nefficiency, which provides that an efficient market is one in which the market price of the stock\nfully reflects all publicly available information. By \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 we mean that market price\nresponds so quickly to new information that ordinary investors cannot make trading profits on the\nbasis of such information. This is known as \u2018informational efficiency.\u2019 We reject a second and\nmuch broader meaning of \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 known as \u2018fundamental value efficiency,\u2019 which requires\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page11\n 12ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nendorsed the widely-cited five-factor test laid out in Cammer v. Bloom to evaluate whether a\n\nmarket is efficient for the purposes of establishing the presumption of reliance.15 Courts also accept\n\nadditional factors for evaluating market efficiency found in another widely cited opinion, Krogman\n\nv. Sterritt.16\n\n 22. Research in accounting, economics, and finance support the factors cited by the\n\nCammer and Krogman courts as indicators of market efficiency.17 However, as explained below,\n\nit is important to understand that an assessment of market efficiency does not hinge on any single\n\nfactor; rather, it is an assessment of all the factors together that allows one to reach the conclusion\n\nthat a market for a security is efficient.18\n\n V. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for ASP Isotopes (ASPI) Common Stock\n 23. I now turn to discuss the Cammer and Krogman factors and evaluate them in\n\nrelation to ASPI\u2019s Common Stock.19 To do so, I compare the factors\u2019 application to ASPI\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock against: (1) benchmarks established by courts; (2) scientific tests of statistical\n\nsignificance; and/or (3) findings from peer-reviewed, published academic research.\n\n\n\n\nthat a market respond to information not only quickly but accurately, such that the market price of\na stock reflects its fundamental value.\u201d\n15\n Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264, 1292 (D.N.J. 1989).\n16\n Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n17\n See, e.g., Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings\nAnnouncements: The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\nAccounting 57.\n18\n Id. at 204-205.\n19\n In addition to the Cammer and Krogman factors, I also note that the Company a) had call and\nput options traded on the Common Stock, and b) did not have a statistically significant\nautocorrelation coefficient on abnormal stock returns during the Class Period from my event study\ndescribed in Section V.E. These findings further support my conclusion that ASPI Common Stock\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n\n 7\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page12\n 13ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 24. As discussed below, my analyses and findings on the various market efficiency\n\nfactors support the conclusion that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout\n\nthe Class Period.\n\n 25. One academic study that I use for comparison purposes was published by Mola,\n\nRau, and Khorana, which I refer to as the \u201cMRK Study.\u201d20 In this study, the authors examined two\n\nsamples of firms. The first sample included companies that lost all analyst coverage (the \u201cMRK\n\nSample\u201d firms); these firms had smaller market capitalizations, less trading volume, larger bid-ask\n\nspreads, and lower institutional ownership relative to analyst-covered firms, both before and after\n\nlosing analyst coverage. The second sample included the analyst-covered firms (the \u201cMRK\n\nCovered\u201d firms), and the differences between the two samples in average and median market\n\ncapitalization, trading volume, bid-ask spread, and institutional ownership were all statistically\n\nsignificant at the 99% level.21\n\n 26. The authors of the MRK Study summarize their findings as follows:\n\n This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms\n by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor\n interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at\n least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm\n both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm\u2019s\n future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for\n that firm\u2019s stock. . . . Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue\n to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading\n volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant\n difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers.22\n\n 27. The authors describe these variables as reflective of investor interest: after losing\n\nanalyst coverage, \u201cinvestor interest characteristics, such as market capitalization, trading volume,\n\n\n20\n Mola, S., Rau, P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\nCoverage? The Accounting Review 88 at 667-705.\n21\n MRK Study at 678, 681-682.\n22\n MRK Study at 667.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page13\n 14ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nbid-ask spread, institutional holdings, and number of institutions, significantly worsen relative to\n\n[analyst-]covered peers.\u201d23 Therefore, I interpret the sample of MRK Covered firms as those\n\neliciting high investor interest and reflecting factors common to firms operating in efficient\n\nmarkets.\n\n 28. Below, I compare several of ASPI\u2019s market efficiency factors to the samples of\n\nfirms in the MRK Study to assess whether the Company\u2019s characteristics are consistent with firms\n\noperating in efficient markets.\n\n A. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume\n 29. Trading volume refers to the number of shares of a security transacted between\n\nmarket participants. The greater the amount of buying and selling activity of a security, the more\n\nlikely it is that new information will be quickly incorporated into the price of that security.24 Thus,\n\ntrading volume is an indicator of how developed, liquid, and efficient the market is for a given\n\nstock.25 The first Cammer factor, stock trading volume, has been defined by the Cammer court\n\nusing average weekly trading volume relative to shares outstanding. In setting a threshold of\n\ntrading volume for the presumption of market efficiency, the court stated:\n\n Turnover measured by average weekly trading of 2% or more of the\n outstanding shares would justify a strong presumption that the\n market for the security is an efficient one; 1% would justify a\n substantial presumption.26\n\n\n\n\n23\n MRK Study at 681 (footnotes omitted).\n24\n See, e.g., Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency\nIndicators for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review at 101-102. (the \u201cBhole\nStudy\u201d); Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the\nRegulatory Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems 63 at p. 108; MRK Study at 681.\n25\n Ibid.\n26\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293 (quoting Bromberg, \u00a78.6).\n\n\n 9\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page14\n 15ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 30. Exhibit 2 graphs ASPI\u2019s Common Stock weekly trading volume as a fraction of\n\nCommon Stock outstanding throughout the Class Period.27 The average weekly trading volume\n\nwas 40.96% of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock outstanding over the Class Period. This level of trading\n\nvolume exceeds both the 1% and 2% thresholds established by the Cammer court which would\n\njustify a \u201cstrong presumption\u201d of efficiency. As a result, ASPI\u2019s level of Common Stock trading\n\nvolume throughout the Class Period supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n 31. Additionally, ASPI\u2019s Common Stock daily turnover rate of 8.03% during the Class\n\nPeriod placed it well above the 95th percentile of all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the\n\nNYSE from 2016-2018.28 This further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n B. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage\n 32. An analyst is someone, usually working for a financial institution such as a\n\nbrokerage, bank, or investment bank, who studies financial information and trends for a specific\n\ncompany or industry. Analysts typically publish reports in which they assess recent company\n\nbusiness developments, review historical financial performance and provide forecasts of future\n\noperating performance, or make investment recommendations, such as whether investors should\n\nbuy, sell, or hold the company\u2019s stock.\n\n 33. Analyst coverage can be indicative of market efficiency since research analysts help\n\nto disseminate important new company-specific information to investors, thus impounding new\n\ninformation into stock prices quickly and efficiently. The Cammer court similarly stated:\n\n\n27\n In this analysis, a \u201ctrading week\u201d consists of five consecutive trading days, which may not follow\nthe calendar week.\n28\n Bhole Study at 102. The 95th percentile of daily turnover for the 2016-2018 sample period is\n2.95%. The 2016-2018 subsample time period is the most recent period reported in this study.\n\n\n 10\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page15\n 16ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n [I]t would be persuasive to allege a significant number of securities\n analysts followed and reported on a company\u2019s stock during the\n class period. The existence of such analysts would imply, for\n example, the [auditor] reports were closely reviewed by investment\n professionals, who would in turn make buy/sell recommendations to\n client investors.29\n\n\n 34. In Exhibit 3 I reviewed the analyst coverage of ASPI over the Class Period. As the\n\nClass Period was only two months, I reviewed the analyst coverage for ASPI for the period\n\nspanning one year prior to the start of the Class Period (from September 26, 2023 until November\n\n26, 2024, inclusive, the \u201cAnalysis Period\u201d).30 In this period, I identified a total of at least 47 reports\n\nissued by analysts at seven separate firms.31 The list of analyst reports that I was able to identify\n\nincludes reports by firms that conducted thorough and detailed research on ASPI and the industry\n\nwithin which it operated, such as the reports prepared by analysts at Canaccord Genuity and H.C.\n\nWainwright & Co., among others. Collectively, this degree of analyst coverage served to\n\ndisseminate important new publicly available information to investors, including company news,\n\nfinancial performance, forecasts, and analyst commentary and recommendations.\n\n 35. This degree of analyst coverage compares favorably to that documented by\n\nacademic research. For example, the MRK Study noted that 19% of U.S. firms covered by\n\nInstitutional Brokers\u2019 Estimate System (\u201cI/B/E/S\u201d) received no analyst coverage in a given year.32\n\nFurther, Lee and So documented that, on average, firms were covered by between 0.765 and 7.614\n\n\n\n\n29\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1286.\n30\n I identified a total of at least 13 reports issued by analysts at five separate firms during the Class\nPeriod.\n31\n These statistics represent a lower bound of the analyst coverage of ASPI because many analyst\nreports are provided directly to investors but are not captured by third-party data vendors. See, for\nexample, Amiram, D., Bozanic, Z., Bradshaw, M., and Rozenbaum, O., 2025. Review of\nAccounting Studies, forthcoming.\n32\n MRK Study at 668.\n\n\n 11\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page16\n 17ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nanalysts when ranking firms into deciles by the total number of analyst forecasts issued.33 In other\n\nwords, many firms within the category of the least amount of analyst coverage in their sample\n\nwere covered by only one or two analysts. ASPI\u2019s analyst coverage is consistent with the MRK\n\nCovered firms which elicited high investor interest.\n\n 36. Moreover, ASPI\u2019s level of analyst coverage during the Analysis Period placed it\n\nbetween the 50th and 75th percentiles when compared with all companies listed on the NASDAQ\n\nand the NYSE from 2016-2018.34 This significant level of analyst coverage supports the\n\nconclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class\n\nPeriod.\n\n 37. In addition to the analyst coverage documented above, investors could access\n\ninformation about ASPI from a variety of other sources. For example, I conducted a search of press\n\nand news articles about ASPI using Factiva, a well-known provider of access to business news\n\nacross a comprehensive set of publications. This search produced approximately 61 (174) articles\n\nthroughout the Class (Analysis) Period, including from prominent and widely distributed sources\n\nsuch as Dow Jones Newswires, GlobeNewswire, Reuters, Business Wire, and numerous other\n\noutlets.35\n\n 38. As a result, the amount of analyst coverage, number of analyst research reports\n\nproduced, and substantial public dissemination of news and information about ASPI support the\n\n\n\n\n33\n Lee, C., and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\nProxies. Journal of Financial Economics 124 at 336. (see Table 1, Panel B \u2013 \u201cCOV\u201d).\n34\n Bhole Study at 104 (50th percentile defined as 6.2 analysts; 75th percentile defined as 12.2\nanalysts.).\n35\n The articles were identified through a Factiva search of articles with ASP Isotopes\u2019 company tag\nfrom all available sources excluding SEC Filings.\n\n\n 12\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page17\n 18ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nconclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in a well-developed and informationally\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n C. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers\n 39. The third Cammer factor relates to securities trading outside of major exchanges,\n\nin over-the-counter markets without continuous reporting of trading volume. This factor examines\n\nmarket makers, which are firms that facilitate the buying and selling of shares among investors in\n\na company\u2019s stock during trading hours.36 Market makers are present on major exchanges as well\n\nas over-the-counter markets. In particular, market makers can facilitate market efficiency in an\n\nover-the-counter market because they are:\n\n [P]resumably knowledgeable about the issuing company and the\n stocks\u2019 supply and demand conditions (i.e., the \u201corder flow\u201d).\n Therefore, it is believed the larger the number of market makers in\n a given security, the more information is available about it and the\n quicker its dissemination in the price.37\n 40. In evaluating market efficiency by looking at market makers, the Cammer court\n\nheld:\n\n For over the counter markets without volume reporting, the number\n of market makers is probably the best single criterion. Ten market\n makers for a security would justify a substantial presumption that\n the market for the security is an efficient one; five market makers\n would justify a more modest presumption.38\n\n\n\n\n36\n \u201cA \u2018market maker\u2019 is a firm that stands ready to buy or sell a stock at publicly quoted prices.\u201d\nSee https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/market-makers.\n37\n Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators\nof Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law 19 at 291.\n38\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293; see also Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL\n7406418 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (\u201cThe Court agrees that both the presence of a designated\nmarket maker and so many market makers in other trading venues weigh in favor of a finding of\nmarket efficiency.\u201d).\n\n\n 13\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page18\n 19ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 41. The court thus stated that market makers can be an important indicator of market\n\nefficiency for stock trading in an over-the-counter market without continuous trading volume\n\nreporting.\n\n 42. ASPI\u2019s Common Stock had at least 65 market makers and brokers providing similar\n\nactivity over the Class Period, including well known financial firms such as Morgan Stanley, UBS,\n\nand JP Morgan.39 The presence of more than 10 market makers supports the Cammer Court\u2019s\n\n\u201csubstantial presumption\u201d of the efficiency of the market for the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n D. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility\n 43. The fourth Cammer factor is SEC Form S-3 filing eligibility:\n\n [I]t would be helpful to allege the Company was entitled to file an\n S-3 Registration Statement in connection with public offerings or, if\n ineligible, such ineligibility was only because of timing factors\n rather than because the minimum stock requirements set forth in the\n instructions to Form S-3 were not met. Again, it is the number of\n shares traded and value of shares outstanding that involve the facts\n which imply efficiency.40\n\n 44. Form S-3 filing eligibility allows companies to file a shortened form with the SEC\n\nin order to raise capital, by providing references to previous SEC filings as opposed to repeating a\n\nlarge quantity of information. This eligibility includes the following requirements: the registrant\n\n\n39\n See Bloomberg \u201cRANK\u201d function (\u201cRANK provides brokers\u2019 advertised trade volume\non a post-trade basis, so you can analyze which brokers provide the greatest liquidity, assess how\nyou rank against your peers, and evaluate the greatest liquidity providers in a corporation. RANK\ngenerates historical broker ranking reports, comparing broker activity in a single security or across\nan exchange, index, or portfolio, helping you trade with minimal market impact \u2026 RANK\nprovides the equity market share data that is critical to helping buy-side firms identify which\nbrokers potentially are the market makers in a stock in which they are interested, so that trading\ndecisions can be made more accurately. Additionally, sell-side firms can demonstrate their\nhistorical ability to source liquidity for clients, while investment bankers can market their ability\nto manage their corporate finance clients\u2019 flow.\u201d).\n40\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page19\n 20ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nhas a class of securities subject to the Exchange Act, the registrant has filed all necessary filings\n\nwith the SEC in a timely manner for the past 12 months, the registrant has a float of at least $75\n\nmillion, and the registrant has not failed to pay any dividend or sinking fund installment on\n\npreferred stock or defaulted on any material debts or leases.41 The rationale behind this factor as\n\ndiscussed by the Cammer court is that a company which makes timely financial filings with\n\nregulators implies that investors have timely access to publicly available information about the\n\nissuer.\n\n 45. ASPI made all required filings with the SEC in a timely manner during the Class\n\nPeriod and for the previous 12 months, and satisfied the other Form S-3 requirements.42 During\n\nthe Class Period, ASPI\u2019s float ranged in value from $129 million to $468 million, which was well\n\nabove the minimum requirement for S-3 registration. Additionally, ASPI submitted a Form S-3\n\nfiling during the Class Period.43 As a result, this factor supports the efficiency of the market for\n\nthe Company\u2019s Common Stock throughout the Class Period.\n\n E. Cammer Factor 5: Cause-and-Effect Relationship Between Company Information\n and Stock Prices\n 46. The fifth Cammer factor relates to whether a company\u2019s stock price quickly\n\nresponds to and incorporates new value-relevant information. The Cammer court held:\n\n [O]ne of the most convincing ways to demonstrate [market]\n efficiency would be to illustrate, over time, a cause and effect\n\n\n\n\n41\n See SEC Form S-3, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3.pdf.\n42\n See SEC EDGAR, ASP Isotopes Inc., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/ciks=0001921865&entityName=ASP%2520Isotopes%2520I\nnc.%2520(ASPI)%2520(CIK%25200001921865). Market capitalization of ASPI\u2019s float averaged\n$280.23 million during the Class Period.\n43\n See SEC EDGAR, ASP Isotopes Inc., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1921865/000147793224006805/aspi_s3mef.htm\n\n\n 15\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page20\n 21ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n relationship between company disclosures and resulting movements\n in stock price.44\n 47. I summarize my empirical analysis below, which finds that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock\n\nexhibited the type of cause-and-effect relationship between company-specific information flow\n\nand price movement described in Cammer. I compare the behavior of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock on\n\ndays when company-specific news is issued with its behavior on days when no such news is issued.\n\nThis analysis demonstrates that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price reacted rapidly to company-specific\n\nnews and, thus, further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n i. Event Study Methodology\n 48. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I ran empirical tests using the results of an\n\nevent study. Event studies are widely used by economists to measure the reaction of a security to\n\nthe disclosure of new, issuer-specific information, including in connection with assessments of\n\nmarket efficiency in securities litigation.45 As Professor Fama has explained:\n\n The cleanest evidence on market-efficiency comes from event\n studies, especially event studies on daily returns. When an\n information event can be dated precisely and the event has a large\n effect on prices, the way one abstracts from expected returns to\n measure abnormal daily returns is a second-order consideration. As\n a result, event studies can give a clear picture of the speed of\n adjustment of prices to information.\n\n There is a large event-study literature on issues in corporate finance.\n The results indicate that on average stock prices adjust quickly to\n information about investment decisions, dividend changes, changes\n in capital structure, and corporate-control transactions. This\n evidence tilts me toward the conclusion that prices adjust efficiently\n\n\n44\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1291.\n45\n See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\nLiterature 13.\n\n\n 16\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page21\n 22ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n to firm-specific information. More important, the research uncovers\n empirical regularities, many surprising, that enrich our\n understanding of investment, financing, and corporate-control\n events, and give rise to interesting theoretical work.46\n\n 49. To determine whether ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price movements on any given date\n\nare statistically significant, I performed an event study using generally accepted economic\n\nmethods, specifying a regression model over a selected time period to observe the typical\n\nrelationship between the price of the relevant security, and market and industry indices.\n\n 50. Through this regression model, an economist can model the predicted daily return\n\nof the relevant security, based on market and industry returns. By subtracting the predicted return\n\nfrom the actual return, an economist can calculate the \u201cabnormal\u201d return in the company\u2019s daily\n\nsecurity price movement, which represents the component of the daily security price return that is\n\nnot attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements, but rather is attributable to company-\n\nspecific news. Finally, as part of an event study analysis, an economist tests whether the deviation\n\nfrom expected price movements (i.e., the \u201cabnormal return\u201d) is \u201cstatistically significant,\u201d i.e.,\n\nsufficiently large compared to the usual volatility in the company security price return such that\n\nsimple random movement can be rejected as the cause.\n\n 51. I applied these widely used and generally accepted econometric methodologies to\n\nperform my event study here. Specifically, in order to isolate the impact of company-specific news\n\non ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price during the Class Period, I performed regression analyses to\n\nmeasure the relationship between the Company\u2019s Common Stock price returns and: (1) changes in\n\nmarket-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks; and (2) changes in industry-wide\n\nfactors that would be expected to impact stocks in industries similar to ASPI. By modeling how\n\nASPI\u2019s Common Stock price returns moved relative to an overall market index and an industry\n\n\n\n46\n Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance 46 at 1607.\n\n\n 17\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page22\n 23ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nindex, I was also able to measure the response of the Company\u2019s Common Stock to announcements\n\nof company-specific news.\n\n 52. As the Class Period was only two months, I conducted my event study regression\n\nanalysis for the Analysis Period. For each trading day within the Analysis Period, I constructed a\n\nregression model using data from the prior six months of trading days (the \u201cEstimation\n\nWindow\u201d).47\n\n 53. To study the relationship between ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price returns and overall\n\nmarket factors, I used the S&P 1500 Composite Index (the \u201cMarket Index\u201d). To study the\n\nrelationship between ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price returns and industry-wide factors that would be\n\nexpected to impact all stocks in ASPI\u2019s industry, I used the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index (the\n\n\u201cIndustry Index\u201d).\n\n 54. I established the relationship between the daily returns of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock,\n\nthe daily returns on the Market Index, and the daily returns on the Industry Index over each rolling\n\nEstimation Window.48 As shown in Exhibit 4, the event study model reveals an evolving\n\nrelationship between the daily returns of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock and those of the overall stock\n\n\n47\n I utilized an Estimation Window of 120 trading days, which is approximately six calendar\nmonths. This allowed my regression approach to adapt to the changing volatility of stock returns\nover time. See, e.g., Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in\nSecurities Fraud Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Business\nLawyer 49; MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\nLiterature 35 at 15. (\u201cGiven the selection of a normal performance model, the estimation window\nneeds to be defined. The most common choice, when feasible, is using the period prior to the event\nwindow for the estimation window. For example, in an event study using daily data and the market\nmodel, the market model parameters could be estimated over the 120 days prior to the event.\nGenerally, the event period itself is not included in the estimation period to prevent the event from\ninfluencing the normal performance model parameter estimates.\u201d).\n48\n My use of this estimation model accounts for the relationship between the Company, market,\nand industry daily returns. This method has been accepted by academics in peer-reviewed\nliterature. See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of\nEconomic Literature 35; Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News,\nVolatility, and Betas. Journal of Finance 50 at 1597.\n\n\n 18\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page23\n 24ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nmarket and industry indices throughout the Analysis Period. In other words, movements of the\n\nMarket and Industry Indices help explain movements in the Company\u2019s Common Stock prices.\n\n 55. Consistent with generally accepted econometric methods, these observed\n\nrelationships allowed me to construct a model to predict the expected daily return of the Company\n\non any given date within the Analysis Period which control for that day\u2019s market and industry\n\nreturns. Again, in accordance with standard event-study methodology, I then subtracted this\n\npredicted return from the actual return to obtain the \u201cabnormal\u201d return, which represents the\n\ncomponent of the return that is not attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements.\n\n 56. Finally, I calculated the statistical significance of the abnormal return by comparing\n\nit to the usual volatility in ASPI\u2019s Common Stock price return. An important statistic from a\n\nregression analysis is the standard deviation of the errors, which measures the degree of\n\nimprecision in the predictions from the regression model. In other words, the standard deviation\n\nof errors provides a measure for how much idiosyncratic company-specific volatility (or\n\n\u201crandomness\u201d) remains in the price movement of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock after controlling for the\n\nMarket and Industry Indices. Exhibit 5 plots the standard deviation of the regression errors, also\n\nknown as Root Mean Squared Error, over the Analysis Period.\n\n ii. Cause and Effect Analysis Comparing ASP Isotopes Common Stock\n Price Behavior on News Versus No News Days\n 57. A generally-accepted and peer-reviewed approach to evaluating whether a stock\n\nprice responds to news (including with regard to testing market efficiency in the securities class\n\naction context) is to compare the stock\u2019s behavior on days when a company releases value relevant\n\nnews, or \u201cnews days\u201d, with the stock\u2019s behavior on days when relatively little or no news related\n\nto the company is released, or \u201cno news days.\u201d49 Showing that there is a statistically significant\n\n49\n Ferrillo, P., Dunbar, F., and Tabak, D., 2004. The Less Than Efficient Capital Markets\nHypothesis: Requiring More Proof From Plaintiffs in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases, St. John\u2019s Law\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page24\n 25ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\ndifference in the volatility of a security\u2019s price on news days versus no news days indicates that\n\nthe security responds promptly to news and, therefore, supports a finding of efficiency.\n\n 58. Importantly, research has shown that in an efficient market, it is possible for a\n\nsecurity to exhibit some large price movements despite the absence of news and, conversely, for\n\none to observe news without large price movements.50 For instance, a company may announce\n\nearnings that are in line with investor expectations and, while such an expected announcement is\n\nclearly important to investors, it will often not alter the total mix of information significantly\n\nenough to elicit a statistically significant stock price movement. Likewise, a disclosure may\n\ncontain a mix of positive and negative information, which may effectively offset each other, which\n\nagain would result in no statistically significant price movement. Further, if a company\u2019s\n\ndisclosure conceals important information, the effect of the concealment will generally not result\n\nin a significant stock price movement, but will instead simply maintain the price at its then-current\n\nlevel. Accordingly, a generally-accepted, peer-reviewed methodology accepted by numerous\n\ncourts is to compare stock price behavior on a group of \u201cnews days\u201d to stock price behavior on a\n\ngroup of \u201cno news days.\u201d\n\n 59. Here, I performed such an analysis comparing the behavior of ASPI\u2019s Common\n\nStock on news versus no news days in the Analysis Period. My analysis demonstrates that the price\n\nof ASPI\u2019s stock was statistically significantly more volatile on news days than on no news days.\n\nThis result supports the conclusion that there was a \u201ccause and effect relationship between\n\n\n\n\nReview 78 at 120-21; Miguel O. Villanueva and Steven Feinstein, 2021, Stock Price Reactivity to\nEarnings Announcements: The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors, Review of Quantitative\nFinance and Accounting 57.\n50\n See Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S. and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading, and\nVolatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies 32 at 1004; Fair, R.,\n2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business 75 at 713-714.\n\n\n 20\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page25\n 26ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\ncompany disclosures and resulting movements in stock price\u201d for ASPI\u2019s Common Stock during\n\nthe Analysis Period and, thus, further supports a finding of market efficiency.\n\n 60. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I analyzed news related to the development\n\nof ASPI\u2019s business, such as announcements regarding new security offerings, announcements of\n\nstrategic partnerships, milestones in plant construction, and milestones in isotope production (the\n\n\u201cNews Days\u201d). As I explain in Section III, during the Class Period the Company made no revenue\n\nfrom isotope production. Consequently, these types of announcements represent a potential\n\nopportunity for the public release of new value-relevant Company information to investors.\n\n 61. As shown in Exhibit 6, there were 21 News Days in the Analysis Period. I classified\n\neach day on which such an announcement was first issued as a \u201cNews Day.\u201d51 I then compared the\n\nstock returns and trading volume of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock on these News Days versus those\n\nmetrics on trading days that contained the least news during the Analysis Period (the \u201cNo News\n\nDays\u201d).52 The No News Days provide a benchmark measurement of days in which relatively little\n\nor no new ASPI-specific information was provided to the market. If ASPI\u2019s stock prices tend to\n\nmove more significantly on News Days than on No News Days, this would support a conclusion\n\nof market efficiency.\n\n 62. Exhibit 6 reports the results of the event study using ASPI\u2019s Common Stock returns\n\non the News Days in the Analysis Period. The columns list the market impact dates, returns, and\n\n\n51\n If the release were issued after the close of the market, the relevant news day is appropriately\ndeemed to be the next trading day.\n52\n I identified \u201cNo News Days\u201d as days on which there were no: a) updates related to the\ndevelopment of ASPI\u2019s business; b) alleged corrective disclosures; c) press releases issued by\nASPI; d) news articles on Factiva tagged to ASPI; or e) filings submitted to the SEC by ASPI. I\nexcluded from consideration news articles about trading halts due to volatility and announcements\nrelated to shareholder lawsuits.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page26\n 27ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nabnormal returns from my event study, abnormal dollar change in stock price from my event study,\n\nthe t-statistic, the p-value corresponding to statistical significance, and a description of the\n\nannouncement on each date. Overall, 7 out of 21 News Days saw stock price movements that were\n\nstatistically significant at the 95% level or better during the Analysis Period. I compare this rate\n\nwith that on the No News Days in the following exhibit.\n\n 63. Exhibit 7 summarizes the statistical comparison of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock returns\n\nand trading volume following the 21 News Days versus these metrics as measured on the 189 No\n\nNews Days. As shown in Exhibit 7, 33.33% of the News Days had stock movements that were\n\nstatistically significant at the 95% level. This compares to 3.17% of the No News Days with\n\nstatistically significant stock price movements. The difference between these two percentages is\n\nstatistically significant at the 99% level. In other words, the rate of statistically significant News\n\nDays is more than ten times greater than that of the No News Days. These results provide strong\n\nevidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between new information and ASPI\u2019s Common Stock\n\nprice movements. Moreover, relative to the No News Days, the News Days had a higher average\n\nabsolute abnormal returns and greater trading volume.\n\n 64. In summary, relative to No News Days, News Days caused a greater proportion of\n\nstatistically significant stock price movements at or above the 95% level. This finding establishes\n\na clear cause-and-effect relationship between new company-specific information and ASPI\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock price movements. As a result, this Cammer Factor 5 analysis supports the\n\nconclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market during the Class\n\nPeriod.\n\n F. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization\n 65. Beyond the five Cammer factors, I have also considered several additional factors\n\narticulated by the Krogman court. The first of these is the total value of stock outstanding, or\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page27\n 28ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nmarket capitalization. The Cammer court acknowledged this factor as indicative of market\n\nefficiency, holding that \u201cit is the number of shares traded and value of shares outstanding that\n\ninvolve the facts which imply efficiency.\u201d53 Similarly, the Krogman court stated that \u201c[m]arket\n\ncapitalization, calculated as the number of shares multiplied by the prevailing share price, may be\n\nan indicator of market efficiency because there is a greater incentive for stock purchasers to invest\n\nin more highly capitalized corporations.\u201d54\n\n 66. Conversely, as noted previously, the MRK Study found that companies that lack\n\nanalyst coverage are also companies that are generally associated with other factors \u2013 such as\n\nrelatively small market capitalization \u2013 that indicate that their shares trade in less developed and\n\nefficient markets. The median market capitalization of the MRK Sample firms was $27.91\n\nmillion.55 By contrast, the MRK Covered firms had a median market capitalization of $243.97\n\nmillion.56 This study thus supports the view that firms with larger market capitalizations tend to\n\ntrade in more efficient markets.\n\n 67. Exhibit 8 reports the market capitalization of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock throughout\n\nthe Class Period. This market capitalization averaged $377.2 million over the Class Period. The\n\nCompany\u2019s Common Stock market capitalization places it between the 25th and 50th percentiles of\n\nall companies listed on either the NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018.57 ASPI\u2019s Common\n\nStock market capitalization also exceeded the MRK Sample firms on an inflation-adjusted basis.58\n\n\n53\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n54\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n55\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n56\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n57\n Bhole Study at 107 (25th percentile of market capitalization defined as $167 million; 50th\npercentile defined as $781 million).\n58\n U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator. See\nhttps://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.\n\n\n 23\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page28\n 29ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nASPI\u2019s number of shares outstanding averaged 68.8 million during the Class Period. ASPI\u2019s\n\nmarket capitalization, shares outstanding available for trading, and its float as discussed below,\n\nsupport the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market during\n\nthe Class Period.\n\n G. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread\n 68. The Krogman court considered the bid-ask spread as another factor that can indicate\n\nmarket efficiency: \u201c[a] large bid-ask spread is indicative of an inefficient market, because it\n\nsuggests that the stock is too expensive to trade.\u201d59\n\n 69. The bid-ask spread is the difference between the price at which an investor could\n\npurchase a stock (the ask) and the price at which an investor could sell the stock (the bid). This\n\nspread can be expressed as the difference between these prices in their quoted currency or as a\n\npercentage relative to the bid-ask midpoint. A narrow bid-ask spread indicates lower transaction\n\ncosts to trade in a given stock and is indicative of a more informationally efficient market. A wider\n\nbid-ask spread indicates that investors will pay more to buy and sell a given stock, and these higher\n\ntransaction costs can discourage trading and price discovery, thus indicating a less liquid and less\n\nefficient market.\n\n 70. I analyzed the bid-ask spread of ASPI\u2019s Common Stock during the Class Period.\n\nExhibit 9 reports the Company\u2019s bid-ask spread as a percentage of the bid-ask midpoint.60 This\n\nspread averaged 0.24% over the Class Period.\n\n 71. By way of comparison, the MRK Study found that MRK Sample firms had a\n\nmedian bid-ask spread of 4.55%, while MRK Covered firms had a median bid-ask spread of\n\n\n\n59\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n60\n Calculated as the difference between Bloomberg daily bid and ask prices as a percentage of the\nbid-ask midpoint.\n\n\n 24\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page29\n 30ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n1.69%.61 ASPI\u2019s daily average bid-ask spread was significantly smaller than both of these values,\n\nindicating that investors could trade the Company\u2019s Common Stock at very low relative cost.\n\nAdditionally, ASPI\u2019s average bid-ask spread over the Class Period places it between the 50th and\n\n75th percentiles of all companies listed on NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018 (lower\n\npercentile rankings correspond to smaller bid-ask spreads).62\n\n 72. As a result, ASPI\u2019s bid-ask spread also supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n H. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float\n 73. The Krogman court also considered the public float of a company in weighing\n\nmarket efficiency.63 The public float represents the number of shares outstanding that are available\n\nfor trading and not held by corporate insiders. Even if a company has a large market capitalization,\n\nif the majority of the equity is held by its CEO and/or other insiders, then investors may be unable\n\nto trade the stock without exerting undue pricing pressure resulting from a lack of liquidity and\n\nsupply/demand imbalances.\n\n 74. As noted previously, ASPI\u2019s Common Stock had a market capitalization averaging\n\n$377.2 million and shares outstanding averaging 68.8 million during the Class Period.\n\nFurthermore, as can be seen in Exhibit 10, ASPI insiders held roughly 32.64% of ASPI\u2019s Common\n\nStock during the Class Period.64 As a result, approximately 67.36% of the Company\u2019s Common\n\nStock was held and freely tradeable by outside investors during the Class Period. Hence, the large\n\n\n\n61\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n62\n Bhole Study at 105 (50th percentile of bid-ask spread defined as 0.14%; 75th percentile defined\nas 0.75%).\n63\n \u201cIn determining efficiency, courts also consider the percentage of shares held by the public,\nrather than insiders.\u201d Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n64\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n\n\n 25\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page30\n 31ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\ndegree of public float for the Company\u2019s Common Stock supports the conclusion that ASPI traded\n\nin an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n I. Additional Factor: Institutional Ownership\n 75. I also analyze an additional indicator of market efficiency: the presence of\n\ninstitutional investors.65 Institutional investors are pension funds, endowments, mutual funds,\n\ninvestment banks, hedge funds, and other sophisticated investors who have significant resources\n\nto allocate to investing decisions. These investors can improve market efficiency by digesting new\n\npublic information and making investment decisions over large block holdings of shares, thus\n\ncausing the new information to be quickly impounded into stock prices. Thus, the presence of\n\ninstitutional shareholders can be an indicator of market efficiency.\n\n 76. I report the total institutional ownership of ASPI in Exhibit 10, which shows that\n\nat least 89 institutions held the stock in a given quarter during the Class Period, and at least 128\n\ndifferent institutions held the stock at some point throughout the Class Period, including\n\ninstitutions such as Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street. By comparison, the MRK Study found\n\nthat the MRK Sample firms had a median of only 9 institutional investors while the MRK Covered\n\nfirms had a median of 40 institutional investors.66 ASPI\u2019s institutional ownership base greatly\n\nexceeds both of these levels. On average, institutional investors held 43.37% of ASPI\u2019s Common\n\nStock outstanding during the Class Period. This level placed it between the 25th and 50th percentile\n\n\n\n\n65\n See, e.g., In re Countrywide Fin.l Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586, 614 (C.D. Cal. 2009); In re\nHealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 257 F.R.D. 260, 281 (N.D. Ala. 2009) (\u201c[T]he majority of\nHealthSouth\u2019s shares were owned by large sophisticated institutions. These facts further\ndemonstrate that HealthSouth\u2019s stock traded in an efficient market.\u201d); In re Winstar Commc\u2019ns\nSec. Litig., 290 F.R.D. 437, 449 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).\n66\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n\n\n 26\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page31\n 32ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nof NYSE and NASDAQ traded companies.67 Thus, the significant institutional ownership base for\n\nASPI\u2019s Common Stock supports the conclusion that ASPI traded in an efficient market throughout\n\nthe Class Period.\n\n VI. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis\n 77. I have also been asked to opine on whether per-share damages for traders of ASPI\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock can be assessed for all Class members based upon a methodology common to all\n\nClass members and consistent with Plaintiffs\u2019 theories of liability. As discussed below, damages\n\nfor each of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims can be calculated on a class-wide basis through a common\n\nmethodology.\n\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of \u00a7\u00a710(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act\n 78. For the \u00a710(b) claims, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants\u2019 materially false and/or\n\nmisleading statements and/or failures to disclose artificially inflated the market price of ASPI\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock, and caused Class members to purchase ASPI\u2019s Common Stock at artificially\n\ninflated prices.68 Plaintiffs also claim Defendant Mann is liable as a control person of ASPI under\n\n\u00a720(a).69\n\n 79. The \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method of calculating damages represents a standard and well-\n\naccepted methodology under \u00a710(b) of the Exchange Act. This approach calculates investor\n\ndamages formulaically as the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor\n\npurchase minus the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor sale. If shares\n\n67\n Bhole Study at 106: 25th percentile defined as institutional ownership of 33.58% of shares\noutstanding; 50th percentile defined as 68.26%. I note that the 2016-2018 subsample time period\nis the most recent period reported in the Bhole Study.\n68\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6117, 131-133.\n69\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 134-137. \u00a720(a) provides that control persons shall be \u201cjointly and severally [liable] with\nand to the same extent\u201d as the controlled person(s) that violated the securities law. 15 U.S.C.\n\u00a778t(a). Given \u00a720(a)\u2019s derivative nature, I understand that \u00a720(a) damages can be calculated using\nthe same methodology for assessing \u00a710(b) damages.\n\n\n 27\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page32\n 33ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nare not sold prior to the full revelation of the fraud, then the difference is relative to the mean\n\ntrading price during a 90-day lookback period under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act\n\nof 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).70 This cap on damages is also applied class-wide.\n\n 80. The claims process produces information necessary for the calculation of damages\n\nfor each Class member as inputs to the formula above, including the purchase and sale information\n\nfor the Class member\u2019s trades (including transaction dates, prices, and quantity of shares traded).\n\nThis information is available from brokerage statements, trade blotters, and/or other\n\ndocumentation of securities transactions.\n\n 81. Another input to the above formula, the quantification of artificial inflation per\n\nshare, is based upon a detailed loss causation analysis. I have not been asked to perform a loss\n\ncausation analysis at this time, and such analysis often incorporates information produced during\n\ndiscovery. Nonetheless, the method employed to calculate artificial inflation can be applied class-\n\nwide as an input to the out-of-pocket formula. For example, event studies are widely employed to\n\ncalculate artificial inflation. Event studies measure stock price reactions to corrective disclosures\n\nwhich revealed the relevant truth that was concealed by alleged fraudulent schemes and\n\nmisrepresentations.71\n\n 82. To the extent that reliable evidence is introduced to show that a significant portion\n\nof the difference in artificial inflation between the purchase and sale of securities may be attributed\n\nto non-fraud related factors, the impact of such \u201cconfounding information\u201d on the price of ASPI\u2019s\n\n70\n The PSLRA states: \u201cin any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to\nestablish damages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the\nplaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as\nappropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security\nduring the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the\nmisstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.\u201d 15 U.S.\nCode \u00a778u-4 (codifying language).\n71\n In this report I conducted an event study to assist with the evaluation of market efficiency. My\nevent study in this report was not intended to quantify artificial inflation.\n\n\n 28\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page33\n 34ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nsecurities can be determined on a common, class-wide basis using various accepted\n\nmethodologies. The value of any confounding information can then be subtracted from the price\n\nimpact of corrective disclosures in calculating inflation. This process may rely upon additional\n\ninformation learned during discovery and will be based on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances in a given case.\n\n 83. A loss causation analysis also documents how artificial inflation per share evolved\n\nthroughout the Class Period. This determination depends on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances for a given case and also could incorporate information produced through discovery.\n\n 84. One frequent method for modeling the evolution of inflation is to assume \u201cconstant\n\ndollar inflation.\u201d This assumes that per share inflation equaled a constant dollar amount above the\n\ncorrect share price over the Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates\n\nartificial inflation based upon the abnormal dollar value of stock price decline from an event study\n\naround one or more corrective disclosures.\n\n 85. Alternatively, one can measure \u201cconstant percentage inflation,\u201d which assumes that\n\neach share price was inflated by a constant percentage amount above the correct stock price over\n\nthe Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates artificial inflation based\n\nupon the abnormal percentage return in stock price from an event study around one or more\n\ncorrective disclosures.\n\n 86. In other instances, artificial inflation may have varied and could evolve throughout\n\nthe Class Period based on the timing of specific information or statements. In any of these\n\napproaches, the calculations of artificial inflation and any potential disaggregation of confounding\n\ninformation are based on the specific set of facts and circumstances in a given case and can involve\n\nvaluation techniques, event studies, published academic research studies, analyst research, or other\n\ncase-specific documents.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page34\n 35ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 87. All of these loss causation calculations can be performed on a class-wide basis and\n\nare not dependent upon individual Class member identities or circumstances.\n\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate Alternative Findings\n 88. The damages methodology I have laid out above is flexible and able to incorporate\n\nalternative findings of fact regarding the quantification, as well as the timing, of artificial inflation\n\nand how it evolves over the Class Period. The methodology can be modified based on alternative\n\nfindings the finder of fact may determine, including, but not limited to any: (1) confounding\n\ninformation versus corrective information; (2) how to back-cast inflation over the Class Period;\n\nand (3) the first actionable fraudulent conduct or misstatement.\n\n 89. First, irrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury, determines is the\n\nappropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of corrective versus\n\nconfounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted into the standard damages model\n\nthat I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket formula. Regardless of how the jury weighs\n\nevidence, whether they find that any such disaggregation analysis I may conduct is the most\n\nappropriate, or they determine that based upon the evidence, a different amount is more\n\nappropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages calculation.\n\n 90. Second, should the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over the\n\nClass Period, my out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a scenario and can\n\nmechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis.\n\n 91. Third, should the jury decide that the first actionable misstatement or otherwise\n\nactionable fraudulent conduct happened at a date later than September 26, 2024, then inflation\n\ncould simply be set to zero prior to such date.\n\n 92. If the jury determines that a change to inflation would be necessary over the Class\n\nPeriod, any such change can easily be incorporated into the model.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page35\n 36ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 93. To summarize, I have not been asked to calculate damages in this matter. Such\n\nanalysis would depend on information produced in discovery and development of the case record.\n\nBased on my experience, qualifications, and understanding of the nature of the claims in this\n\nmatter, I conclude that Common Stock damages in this case can, however, be calculated using a\n\nstandard and well-established methodology, and can be applied on a class-wide basis.\n\n VII. Conclusion\n 94. In conclusion, based on my analysis of the market efficiency factors considered by\n\ncourts and in academia, it is my opinion that ASPI\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period. Moreover, it is my opinion that damages in this matter under \u00a7\u00a710(b)\n\nand 20(a) can be calculated on a class-wide basis utilizing a common methodology.\n\nI declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page36\n 37ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A\n\nZAHN BOZANIC\nFlorida State University Telephone: (850) 645-1521\nCollege of Business E-mail: zahn.bozanic@fsu.edu\n821 Academic Way, RBA 522 URL: business.fsu.edu/person/zahn-bozanic\nTallahassee, FL 32306\n\n\n\nACADEMIC INTERESTS\n Research: My primary research interests are in the areas of corporate disclosure, financial reporting\n misconduct, regulation, and enforcement.\n\n Teaching: I teach financial statement analysis (MAcc level) with an emphasis on data analytics\n and an accounting seminar (PhD level) which focuses on empirical research methods.\n\nEDUCATION\n Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University\n\n M.A., The University of Michigan \u2013 Ann Arbor\n\n B.A., The University of California \u2013 Berkeley\n\nACADEMIC EXPERIENCE\n Full Professor, Florida State University (2023-present)\n William Hillison Professor of Accounting\n Introduction to Accounting Research Seminar \u2013 PhD Level\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc Level\n\n Director of the PhD Program in Accounting (2019-2023)\n\n Associate Professor, Florida State University (2019-2023)\n\n Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University (2012-2019)\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc, MBA, and SMF Levels\n Financial Statement Analysis \u2013 Undergraduate Level\n\n Research Fellow, The National Center for the Middle Market (2012-2016)\n\n Instructor, The Pennsylvania State University (2008-2009)\n Intermediate Financial Accounting\n Introduction to Financial and Managerial Accounting\n\nPUBLICATIONS\n 19. \u201cThe Regulatory Observer Effect: Evidence from SEC Investigations\u201d with Terrence\n Blackburne, Bret Johnson, and Darren Roulstone. Review of Accounting Studies, forthcoming.\n\n\n A-1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page37\n 38ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n18. \u201cSelective Information Channels for Investment Research\u201d with Dan Amiram, Mark Bradshaw,\n and Oded Rozenbaum. Review of Accounting Studies, forthcoming.\n\n17. \u201cManaging Expectations through Budgetary Slack: Evidence from Project Financing\u201d with\n Andrew Ferguson and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich. European Accounting Review, 2024, Vol. 33(4), 1603-1638.\n\n16. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Credit Analysts\u2019 Soft Rating Adjustments\u201d with Pepa Kraft and\n Andrea Tillet. European Accounting Review, 2023, Vol. 32(4), 779-807. [Lead Article]\n\n15. \u201cHave SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 Improved the Financial Reporting for Securitizations?\u201d with\n Minkwan Ahn, Sam Bonsall, Yiwei Dou, Gordon Richardson, and Dushyant Vyas. Journal of Business\n Finance & Accounting, 2020, Vol. 47(7-8), 821-857. [Lead Article]\n\n14. \u201cAnalyst Contrarianism\u201d with Jing Chen and Michael Jung. Journal of Financial Reporting, 2019, Vol.\n 4(2), 61-88.\n\n13. \u201cSecurities Law Expertise and Corporate Disclosure\u201d with Preeti Choudhary and Ken Merkley.\n The Accounting Review, 2019, Vol. 94(4), 141-172.\n\n12. \u201cFinancial Reporting Fraud and Other Forms of Misconduct: A Multidisciplinary Review of\n the Literature\u201d with Dan Amiram, James Cox, Quentin Dupont, Jon Karpoff, and Richard Sloan.\n Review of Accounting Studies, 2018, Vol. 23(2), 732-783.\n Ranked Top 10 by RAST for both downloads and citations\n\n11. \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d with Maria\n Loumioti and Florin Vasvari. Journal of Accounting Research, 2018, Vol. 56(1), 45-83.\n\n10. \u201cSoft Information in Loan Agreements\u201d with Lin Cheng and Tzachi Zach. Journal of Accounting,\n Auditing and Finance, 2018, Vol. 33(1), 40-71.\n\n9. \u201cManagement Earnings Forecasts and Other Forward-Looking Statements\u201d with Darren\n Roulstone and Andy Van Buskirk. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2018, Vol. 65(1), 1-20. [Lead\n Article]\n\n8. \u201cSEC Comment Letters and Firm Disclosure\u201d with J. Richard Dietrich and Bret Johnson.\n Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2017, Vol. 36(5), 337-357.\n\n7. \u201cIRS Attention\u201d with Jeff Hoopes, Jake Thornock, and Brady Williams. Journal of Accounting Research,\n 2017, Vol. 55(1), 79-114. [Data]\n\n6. \u201cThe Ex-Ante Monitoring Role of Accounting Covenants in Public Debt\u201d Journal of Business\n Finance & Accounting, 2016, Vol. 43(7), 803-829. [Lead Article]\n\n5. \u201cFinancial Statement Errors: Evidence from the Distributional Properties of Financial\n Statement Numbers\u201d with Dan Amiram and Ethan Rouen. Review of Accounting Studies, 2015, Vol.\n 20(4), 1540-1593. [Data]\n Winner of the Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award and FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award;\n Featured in Audit Analytics\u2019 Accounting Quality and Risk Matrix (AQRM) and Bloomberg Terminal\u2019s AQRM App\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page38\n 39ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n 4. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Changes in Sell-Side Financial Analysts\u2019 Information\n Environment\u201d with Maya Thevenot. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2015, Vol. 32(4), 1595-1616.\n\n 3. \u201cWhat Do Management Earnings Forecasts Convey About the Macroeconomy?\u201d with Sam\n Bonsall and Paul Fischer. Journal of Accounting Research, 2013, Vol. 51(2), 225-266. [Lead Article]\n\n 2. \u201cThe Social Constitution of Regulation: The Endogenization of Insider Trading Laws\u201d with\n Mark Dirsmith and Steve Huddart. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 2012, Vol. 37(7), 461-481.\n\n 1. \u201cManagerial Motivation and Timing of Open Market Share Repurchases\u201d Review of Quantitative\n Finance and Accounting, 2010, Vol. 34(4), 517-531.\n\nWORKING PAPERS\n 6. \u201c(Unwanted) SEC Attention and Voluntary Disclosure\u201d with Andrea Down and Chris Williams\n\n 5. \u201cProcessing Customer News: The Role of Media Coverage\u201d with Bruce Billings, Alyssa Moore,\n and Spencer Pierce (TAR, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 4. \u201cSystemic Risk and Bank Disclosure\u201d with Christina Synn and Chris Williams\n\n 3. \u201cThe Relative Persistence of Earnings Components\u201d with Paul Fischer and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich\n\n 2. \u201cNot All Critical Audit Matters (CAM) Are the Same: Anti-Herding Behavior in CAM\n Disclosures\u201d with Will Anding and Allen Blay (JBFA, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 1. \u201cOn the Role of Jour-Analysts in Capital Market Information Intermediation\u201d with Minkwan\n Ahn, Francine McKenna, and Maya Thevenot.\n\nPROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\n Wells Fargo Bank 2004-2005\n Financial Consultant - Internal consultant to retail banking segment which focused on distribution\n planning. Maintained financial models and databases; conducted ad-hoc research projects to measure\n the profitability of various strategies pre- and post-implementation.\n Product Manager - Managed several retail products which generated annual fee revenues in excess of\n $80MM. Responsible for establishing strategic marketing programs for product enhancement and new\n products including identification of market segments, product positioning, pricing and profitability.\n\n Linsco / Private Ledger (LPL) Brokerage 2003-2004\n Investment Advisor - Solidified relationships with client base through full-service financial planning;\n managed back office financial operations, including cultivation of broker/dealer and wholesaler\n relationships.\n\n The William Davidson Institute 2001-2003\n Center Administrator - Responsible for establishing, implementing, and streamlining the data center\u2019s\n operations. Collected, archived, and disseminated data on transition and emerging market economies.\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page39\n 40ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n Tozzi Financial Research and Trading Center 2002-2003\n Programmer Analyst - Maintained the trading room\u2019s daily activities, assisted users with their financial\n data/modeling needs, and trained users on a variety of valuation and risk management software\n platforms.\n\nINVITED PRESENTATIONS\nINSEAD (2024) University of Toronto (2016)\nHEC Paris (2024) Tilburg University (2016)\nUniversity of Cyprus (2024) ESMT (2016)\nVirginia Tech (2023) FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2015)\nUniversity of Arizona (2023) Georgetown University (2015)\nTokyo Keizai University (2023) Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2015)\nKobe University (2023) The University of California - Berkeley (2014)\nUniversity of Buffalo (2023) The Securities and Exchange Commission (2014)\nUniversity of Pittsburgh (2022) Florida Atlantic University (2014)\nUniversity of Memphis (2022) Singapore Management University (2014)\nUniversity of Florida (2022) Nanyang Technological University (2014)\nIowa State University (2022) Dartmouth College (2014)\nVanderbilt University (2021) Syracuse University (2014)\nThe Pennsylvania State University (2020) CFEA (2010-2011, 2013-2014)\nThe University of Rochester (2018) HKUST Accounting Symposium (2013)\nLondon School of Economics (2018) CUNY - Baruch (2013)\nIESE Business School (2018) The University of Texas - Austin (2013)\nFlorida State University (2018) The University of California - Irvine (2012)\nWest Virginia University (2018) The University of Miami (2012)\nUniversity of Louisville (2018) The University of Michigan (2012)\nWilliam & Mary (2018) Journal of Accounting Research Conference (2012)\nTexas A&M University (2017) Carnegie Mellon University (2011)\nRice University (2017) Cornell University (2011)\nUniversity of Missouri (2017) The Ohio State University (2011)\nUniversity of Florida (2017) Purdue University (2011)\nUniversity of Illinois (2017) The University of Utah (2011)\nGWU Cherry Blossom Conference (2017) Washington University (2011)\nUniversity of Notre Dame (2016) Midwest Accounting Conference (2010)\nColumbia Business School (2016)\n\n\nCONFERENCES\n Contemporary Accounting Research Conference (2012-2013, 2015, 2020-2024)\n Review of Accounting Studies Conference (2015, 2017-2018, 2020-2023)\n Rotman Accounting Research Conference (2023)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2018, 2023)\n LBS Private Equity Symposium (2022)\n USC Emerging Tech in Accounting Conference (2022)\n Deloitte Foundation Faculty Consortium (2022)\n FSU SunTrust Beach Conference (2022)\n\n\n\n\n A-4\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page40\n 41ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n AAA Audit Mid-Year Meeting (2022)\n Tilburg Accounting Winter Camp (2020-2021)\n European Accounting Review Conference (2020-2021), discussant\n Florida Accounting Symposium (2021)\n CAFR Fundamental Analysis Symposium (2020)\n KPMG Ph.D. Project ADSA Conference (2020), panelist\n Accounting Horizons Data Analytics Conference (2019)\n KPMG Faculty Symposium (2019)\n LBS Accounting Symposium (2017, 2018)\n Harvard Business School IMO Conference (2018)\n Penn State Accounting Research Conference (2007-2011, 2014, 2018)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2014, 2017)\n Accounting, Organizations, and Society Conference (2017)\n BYU Accounting Research Symposium (2017)\n EAA Annual Congress (2017)\n NYU Accounting Summer Camp (2014, 2016)\n Minnesota Empirical Conference (2012, 2015-2016)\n Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2013, 2014, 2016)\n Colorado Summer Accounting Research Conference (2015)\n CARE Conference (2010, 2012-2013)\n FASB/IASB Financial Reporting Issues Conference (2012)\n Conference on Financial Economics & Accounting (2012)\n JAR \u2013 NY FED Conference (2012)\n AAA New Faculty Consortium (2012)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2010), moderator and discussant\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2010), doctoral consortium\n CFRM Conference on Financial Reporting (2009)\n Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (2009)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2009), discussant\n\nEXTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference (HARC), Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2023-2026)\n Conference on Financial Economics and Accounting (CFEA), Program Committee (2024-2025)\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award Committee (2024)\n Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Advisory Committee Member (2020-2022)\n EAA Annual Congress, Scientific Committee Member (2020-2021)\n FARS Nominating Committee (2018-2019)\n COSO/ACFE Fraud Risk Management Guide, Advisory Panel Member and Contributor (2016)\n CARE Conference Co-Organizer (2016)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting, Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2015)\n\n Editorial Boards\n The Accounting Review\n European Accounting Review\n Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting & Public Policy\n The International Journal of Accounting (Editor)\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page41\n 42ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n Ad-hoc Journal Referee\n Journal of Accounting Research Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\n The Accounting Review Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance\n Review of Accounting Studies Journal of Accounting and Public Policy\n Contemporary Accounting Research The International Journal of Accounting\n Management Science Journal of Corporate Finance\n Accounting, Organizations and Society Journal of Empirical Finance\n Journal of Management Accounting Research Regulation and Governance\n Journal of Financial Reporting Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting\n European Accounting Review Journal of International Business Studies\n Accounting Horizons Pacific-Basin Finance Journal\n Journal of Accounting Literature Abacus\n\n Ad-hoc Conference Referee\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference (2022)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2014, 2016-2017, 2019, 2021-2023)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2013)\n AAA Ohio Regional Meeting (2012)\n\nINTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\nFlorida State\n Florida Accounting Symposium Committee\n Strategic Planning Committee\n Faculty Evaluation Committee\n Accounting Doctoral Program Committee\n Research Funding Committee\n Professional Development Seminar Co-Coordinator (2020-2022)\n Recruiting Committee (2019-2023)\n Accounting PhD Program Director (2019-2023)\n Doctoral Program Policy Committee (2019-2023)\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Will Anding, 2025 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Texas - San Antonio)\n Andrea Tillet, 2022 (Chair, Initial Placement: University of Wisconsin - Madison)\n\nOhio State\n Faculty Senate\n Recruiting Committee\n PhD Program Committee\n MAcc Program Committee\n KPMG MAcc Data Analytics Initiative\n MIS Program Committee\n Accounting MBA Program Committee\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Danyang Jiang, 2019 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Intl. Business and Economics)\n Aaron Nelson, 2018 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Georgia)\n Bret Johnson, 2015 (Member, Initial Placement: George Mason University)\n Burns Research Colloquium Coordinator\n\n\n\n\n A-6\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page42\n 43ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n PhD Student Pre-Colloquium Coordinator\n Summer Brown Bag Workshop Coordinator\n Graduate Faculty Representative\n Graduate Studies Committee\n\nACADEMIC AWARDS & HONORS\n FARS Best Dissertation Supervision Award\n EAR Excellence in Reviewing Recognition\n William Hillison Professorship\n Faculty Leadership Development Program\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award\n The National Center for the Middle Market Research Fellowship\n Ossian R. MacKenzie Doctoral Teaching Award\n Smeal Competitive Dissertation Award\n G. Kenneth Nelson Scholarship\n Smeal Doctoral Research Grant\n Jane O. Burns Graduate Scholarship\n Center for the Study of Finance Graduate Fellowship\n\nMEDIA MENTIONS\n \u201cExxonMobil, Impairments, and the SEC\u201d \u2013 Audit Analytics, January 2021\n \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law\n School Blue Sky Blog, June 2018\n \u201cUsing Benford\u2019s Law to Assess Financial Reporting Quality\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog,\n February 2016\n \u201cThe SEC Never Reads 74% of Filings, Putting Investors at Risk\u201d \u2013 Marketwatch.com, October 2015\n \u201cOn the Role of Companies\u2019 External Securities Law Advisors \u2013 Facilitators or Gatekeepers?\u201d\n \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog, October 2015\n \u201cAccountants Increasingly Use Data Analysis to Catch Fraud\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, December 2014\n \u201cIRS Pays Attention to Corporate Filings, Study Shows\u201d \u2013 Compliance Week, November 2014\n \u201cIRS Scanning 10-Ks for Tax Data, Report Finds\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, November 2014\n \u201cA New Tool to Detect Financial Reporting Irregularities\u201d\n \u2013 The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, July 2014\n \u201cThe Simple Mathematical Law That Financial Fraudsters Can\u2019t Beat\u201d \u2013 Forbes, May 2014\n \u201cFinancial Fraud Detection Now as Simple as 1, 2, 3\u201d \u2013 PR Newswire, May 2014\n \u201cThe Search for Suspect Accounting\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, April 2014\n \u201cEarnings Bode Ill for Stocks\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, June 2012\n\n\n\n\n A-7\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page43\n 44ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\nPOLICY MENTIONS\n U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Arksansas Teacher Retirement\n System, et al., March 2021\n Comment to the SEC re Concept Release on Regulation S-K Disclosures by U.S. Senate Permanent\n Subcommittee on Investigations, July 2016\n Capital Unbound: Remarks at the Cato Summit on Financial Regulation by SEC Commissioner Michael\n S. Piwowar, June 2015\n\nIMPACT METRICS\n SSRN Downloads: ~13,700 (~1000 per downloadable paper)\n Google Scholar (BYU) Citations: 2,374 (2,169)\n h-index (i10-index): 16 (18)\n\nOUTSIDE ACTIVITIES\nEconomic Litigation Consulting\n I provide economic litigation consulting and support on cases related to financial reporting misconduct,\n including, but not limited to, misleading corporate disclosures, accounting fraud, and insider trading.\n\nExpert Witness Experience\n In re Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-MSG. Report June 2025.\n\n In re CleanSpark Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP). Report January 2025; Deposition\n February 2025; Report May 2025.\n In re Freshworks Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06750-CRB. Report March 2025; Report April\n 2025.\n In re Teleperformance SE Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-24580-CIV-ALTONAGA/REID (S.D. FL).\n Report November 2024; Deposition December 2024.\n\nPERSONAL INTERESTS\n Running, Yoga, Swimming, Weightlifting, Tennis\n\nLINKS\n BYU Rankings Google Scholar SSRN\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page44\n 45ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B\n Documents Considered\n\nCourt Documents:\n x Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, dated\n May 27, 2025 (Doc. 25).\n\nCourt Decisions and Securities Law:\n\n x Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n\n x Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264, 1286, 1287, 1291, 1292, 1293 (D.N.J. 1989).\n\n x Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n\n x Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal. 2016).\n\n x In re Countrywide Fin.l Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586, 614 (C.D. Cal. 2009).\n\n x In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 257 F.R.D. 260, 281 (N.D. Ala. 2009).\n\n x In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005).\n\n x In re Winstar Commc\u2019ns Sec. Litig., 290 F.R.D. 437, 449 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).\n\n x Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467, 477, 478 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n\n x Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, December 1995.\n\nAcademic Literature:\n x Amiram, D., Bozanic, Z., Bradshaw, M., and Rozenbaum, O., 2025. Review of Accounting\n Studies, forthcoming.\n\n x Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the\n Indicators of Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law\n\n x Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency Indicators\n for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review\n\n x Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S., and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading,\n and Volatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies\n\n x Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News, Volatility, and Betas.\n Journal of Finance\n\n x Fair, R., 2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business\n\n\n B-1\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page45\n 46ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n x Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance\n\n x Ferrillo, P., Dunbar, F., and Tabak, D., 2004. The Less Than Efficient Capital Markets\n Hypothesis: Requiring More Proof From Plaintiffs in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases, St.\n John\u2019s Law Review\n\n x Lee, C. and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\n Proxies. Journal of Financial Economics\n\n x MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\n Literature\n\n x Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud\n Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Business Lawyer\n\n x Mola, S., Rau. P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\n Coverage? The Accounting Review\n\n x Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the Regulatory\n Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems\n\n x Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements:\n The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\n Accounting\n\nData Sources:\n x Bloomberg Terminal\n\n x Factiva\n\n x Investext\n\n x S&P Capital IQ\n\n x SEC Edgar\n\nOther:\n x https://www.bls.gov\n\n x https://www.investor.gov\n\n x https://www.sec.gov\n\n x All data and documents cited throughout this report\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\fExhibit 1\n Case\n\n\n\n\n ASPI Common Stock Closing Price and Trading Volume\n September 26, 2024 - November 26, 2024\n 10 60\n\n 9\n 50\n 8\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n 40\n 6\n\n 5 30\n\n\n\n\n Price ($)\n 4\n Document\n\n\n\n\n 20\n 3\n Volume (millions of shares)\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n 10\n 1\n\n 0 0\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n 26-Sep 10-Oct 24-Oct 07-Nov 21-Nov\n\n Volume Closing Price\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n Data source: Bloomberg.\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page46\n 47ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\fExhibit 2\n ASPI Common Stock Weekly Trading Volume\n Case\n\n\n\n\n September 26, 2024 - November 26, 2024\n 120%\n\n\n 100%\n\n\n 80%\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n 60% Average Weekly Trading Volume\n over the Class Period: 40.96%\n 40%\n Document\n\n\n\n\n 20%\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n 0%\n 26-Sep 10-Oct 24-Oct 07-Nov 21-Nov\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n Weekly Volume as % of Shares Outstanding Average Weekly Volume as % of Shares Outstanding\n\n\n Note: Average weekly trading volume is calculated by analyzing each group of five consecutive trading\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n days (rather than calendar weeks) starting with the first day of the Class Period. As the last week of the\n Class Period consists of only four trading days, the volume figure for this week is scaled by 5/4.\n 12/12/25 Page\n\n\n\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar.\n Page47\n 48ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-2\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page48\n 49ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 3\n ASPI Analyst Coverage\n September 26, 2023 \u2013 November 26, 2024\n\n Reports Issued During\n Analyst Name\n the Analysis Period\n Canaccord Genuity 5\n BuySellSignals Research 23\n Sadif Analytics Prime 8\n PriceTarget Research 2\n ValuEngine, Inc 4\n H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC 4\n Baptista Research 1\n Total 47\n\n Data Sources: Investext\n\n\n\n\n E-3\n\fExhibit 4\n Case\n\n\n\n\n ASPI Coefficients from Rolling Event Study Regressions\n September 26, 2023 - November 26, 2024\n 2.5\n\n 2\n\n 1.5\n\n 1\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n 0.5\n\n 0\n Sep 26, 2024:\n -0.5 Start of Class Period\n Document\n\n\n\n\n -1\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n -1.5\n\n -2\n Sep-2023 Dec-2023 Mar-2024 Jun-2024 Sep-2024\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n S&P 1500 Composite Index Range Nuclear Renaissance Index\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, S&P Capital IQ.\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page49\n 50ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-4\n\fExhibit 5\n ASPI Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) from Rolling Event Study Regression\n Case\n\n\n\n\n September 26, 2023 - November 26, 2024\n 0.1\n\n 0.09\n\n 0.08\n\n 0.07\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n 0.06\n\n 0.05\n\n 0.04\n\n 0.03 Sep 26, 2024:\n Document\n\n\n\n\n Start of Class Period\n 0.02\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n 0.01\n\n 0\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n Sep-2023 Dec-2023 Mar-2024 Jun-2024 Sep-2024\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, S&P Capital IQ.\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page50\n 51ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-5\n\fExhibit 6\n Case\n\n\n\n\n ASPI News Days and Common Stock Abnormal Returns during the Analysis Period\n Market Raw Abnormal Abnormal\n t-Statistic p-Value Headline\n Impact Date Return Return Return ($)\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Into Memorandum of\n Understanding With a Small Modular Reactor\n [1] Sep 28, 2023 -0.97% -0.56% -$0.01 -0.069 0.945\n Company To Supply High Assay Low Enriched\n Uranium (HALEU)\n Asp Isotopes Inc Announces Plans To Use Cash Flow\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n [2] Oct 03, 2023 -1.16% -3.23% -$0.03 -0.400 0.690 To Start Construction Of Additional Plants In 2024\n For Other Isotopes\n ASP Isotopes Announces Private Placement of\n [3] Oct 09, 2023 15.88% 16.29% $0.16 2.024 0.045 Approximately $8 Million Shares of Common Stock,\n Priced \u201cAt the Market\u201d Under NASDAQ Rules\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Strategic Relationship With\n Document\n\n\n\n\n [4] Oct 30, 2023 5.88% 5.70% $0.06 0.715 0.476 PET Labs Pharmaceuticals for the Distribution of\n Medical Isotopes\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Into Memorandum of\n Understanding (MOU) With Second US-based Small\n [5] Nov 27, 2023 8.56% 7.25% $0.14 0.979 0.329\n Modular Reactor (SMR) Company To Supply High\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU)\n 1) ASP Isotopes Inc. Provides Update on Plans to\n Spin-Out its Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Quantum\n [6] Feb 20, 2024 3.17% 2.79% $0.08 0.515 0.607 Leap Energy\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n 2) ASP Isotopes Inc. Announces Proposed Offering of\n Convertible Notes by Quantum Leap Energy\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Announces Increase in Offering\n [7] Feb 22, 2024 29.03% 27.70% $0.86 5.215 0.000\n Size of Convertible Notes by Quantum Leap Energy\n 12/12/25 Page\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Announces Signing of Purchase\n Page51\n\n\n\n\n [8] Feb 29, 2024 19.44% 18.68% $0.60 3.363 0.001 Agreement for Offering of Convertible Notes by\n Quantum Leap Energy\n 52ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-6\n\f Market Raw Abnormal Abnormal\n t-Statistic p-Value Headline\n Impact Date Return Return Return ($)\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Into Purchase Agreement\n Case\n\n\n\n\n[9] Apr 01, 2024 -2.91% -3.60% -$0.15 -0.630 0.530 With a Leading Semiconductor Company for the\n Supply of Highly Enriched Electronic Gases\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Into a Contract with U.S.-\n Based Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Company for\n[10] Apr 08, 2024 5.19% 4.50% $0.16 0.794 0.429 Project Focused on Engineering Design and Planning\n for Enrichment Facility for the Production of\n Advanced Nuclear Fuels\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enters Into Warrant Inducement\n[11] Apr 09, 2024 -7.79% -7.79% -$0.30 -1.374 0.172 Transaction for Approximately $5.5 Million in Gross\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n Proceeds\n[12] May 10, 2024 -0.83% -0.32% -$0.01 -0.056 0.956 ASPI files S-3 Registration Statement with SEC\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Receives Purchase Order from a\n[13] Jun 03, 2024 -7.05% -6.52% -$0.33 -1.199 0.233 Leading Global Industrial Gases Company for the\n Document\n\n\n\n\n Supply of Highly Enriched Electronic Gases\n[14] Jun 06, 2024 -2.49% -2.44% -$0.11 -0.449 0.654 ASP Isotopes Files 8K - Unregistered Equity Sales\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Announces Proposed Public Offering of\n[15] Jul 12, 2024 -2.53% -4.70% -$0.17 -0.831 0.408\n Common Stock\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Completes Construction Phase of\n[16] Sep 03, 2024 -2.53% 4.23% $0.10 0.745 0.458\n Ytterbium-176 Enrichment Facility\n ASP Isotopes Inc. Enriches Ytterbium-176 During\n Commissioning Phase of First Quantum Enrichment\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n[17] Oct 17, 2024 15.43% 15.73% $0.55 3.057 0.003\n Facility and Expects to Offer Highly Enriched\n Ytterbium-176 for Commercial Sale in 2025\n ASP Isotopes Inc. enters into Term Sheet with\n 12/12/25 Page\n\n\n\n\n[18] Oct 30, 2024 19.79% 22.11% $1.27 4.041 0.000 TerraPower, LLC for Construction of a HALEU\n Production Facility\n Page52\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Announces Proposed Public Offering of\n[19] Nov 01, 2024 11.44% 11.40% $0.80 2.101 0.038\n Common Stock\n 53ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n ASP Isotopes Inc. enters into Memorandum of\n[20] Nov 14, 2024 -10.20% -9.37% -$0.78 -1.714 0.089\n Understanding with the South African Nuclear\n\n E-7\n\f Market Raw Abnormal Abnormal\n t-Statistic p-Value Headline\n Impact Date Return Return Return ($)\n Energy Corporation (Necsa) to collaborate on the\n Case\n\n\n\n\n research, development and construction of an\n Advanced Nuclear Fuel Production Facility\n Fuzzy Panda Research - ASP Isotopes (ASPI): Failed\n[21] Nov 26, 2024 -23.53% -23.64% -$1.81 -4.424 0.000 Tech + Paid Stock Promotion + \u201cMicrocap\n Fraudsters\u201d (Honig & Stetson) = Nuclear Meltdown\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, Complaint, S&P Capital IQ.\n Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page53\n 54ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-8\n\fExhibit 7\n Case\n\n\n\n\n Comparison of Statistical Significance on ASPI Common Stock\n For News Days vs. No News Days During the Analysis Period\n\n News Days No News Days p-Value of Difference\n\n N 21 189\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n Significant Days at 95% Confidence Level 7 6\n\n % Significant Days at 95% Confidence Level 33.33% 3.17% 0.000\n\n Average Absolute Abnormal Return 9.46% 3.83% 0.005\n Document\n\n\n\n\n Average Volume (Millions) 6.09 0.82 0.074\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n Notes: The event study estimations are based on rolling regressions of the 120 trading days preceding each\n date of analysis. The regression models control for the S&P 1500 Composite Index (\u201cMarket Index\u201d) as well\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n as the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index (\u201cIndustry Index\u201d). The estimation windows exclude the alleged\n corrective disclosures, earnings releases published by the Company, and the News Days identified in Exhibit\n 6. P-Value of difference for significant News Days and No News Days found using a Fisher\u2019s Exactness Test.\n P-Value of difference for average absolute abnormal return and trading volume found using a t-test.\n Filed06/27/25\n\n\n\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva.\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page54\n 55ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-9\n\fExhibit 8\n ASPI Common Stock Market Capitalization\n Case\n\n\n\n\n September 26, 2024 - November 26, 2024\n 700\n\n\n 600\n\n\n 500 Average Market Capitalization over\n the Class Period: $377.2 million\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n\n\n\n\n 400\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n 300\n\n\n\n\n $ (millions)\n 200\n Document\n\n\n\n\n 100\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 26-Sep 10-Oct 24-Oct 07-Nov 21-Nov\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n Market Capitalization of Common Stock Average Market Capitalization Over the Class Period\n\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar.\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page55\n 56ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-10\n\fExhibit 9\n ASPI Common Stock Daily Bid-Ask Spread\n Case\n\n\n\n\n September 26, 2024 - November 26, 2024\n 0.7%\n\n\n 0.6%\n\n\n 0.5%\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n\n\n\n\n 0.4%\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n Average Bid-Ask Spread Over\n 0.3% the Class Period: 0.24%\n\n 0.2%\n Document\n\n\n\n\n 0.1%\n Document 108-8\n\n\n\n\n 0.0%\n 26-Sep 10-Oct 24-Oct 07-Nov 21-Nov\n 39-1 Filed\n\n\n\n\n Bid-Ask Spread as % of Bid-Ask Midpoint Average Bid-Ask Spread as % of Bid-Ask Midpoint\n\n\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page56\n 57ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-11\n\fExhibit 10\n Case\n\n\n\n\n Total Insider Institutional Institutional\n Shares Institutions Insider Short Holdings as Institutional Holdings as Holdings as\n Quarter End Public Float\n Outstanding Owning Holdings Interest % of Shares Holdings % of Shares % of Public\n Stock Outstanding Outstanding Float\n [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] = [2] + [5] - [4] [7] = [4] / [2] [8] [9] = [8] / [2] [10] = [8] / [6]\n Sep 30, 2024 66,686,940 89 23,328,255 9,574,903 52,933,588 34.98% 24,986,401 37.47% 47.20%\n Dec 31, 2024 71,390,110 118 21,624,884 6,774,769 56,539,995 30.29% 35,169,351 49.26% 62.20%\n Total\n Class Period\n Unique 128 32.64% 43.37% 54.70%\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 1:24-cv-09253-CM\n\n\n\n\n Average:\n\u0003\u0003 Institutions:\n\n\n\n Data Source: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, S&P Capital IQ.\n Document\n Document 108-8\n 39-1 Filed\n Filed06/27/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page57\n 58ofof57\n 58\n\n\n\n\n E-12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:13:02.853760-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727946","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit H - Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 1_24-cv-09","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528961/","id":484528961,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/9/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:11:59.689431-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:41.676064-07:00","sha1":"274ed91277b16d29704d297d006f8afb8a568507","page_count":57,"file_size":753346,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.9.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.9.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-9 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 57\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT I\n\fCase\nCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 12 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 23 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n\nKRANTHI GORLAMARI, Individually and On Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-MSG\nBehalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\nVERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TED\nWHITE, and P. TERENCE KOHLER JR.\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n JUNE 12, 2025\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 34 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nI. Scope of Report and Opinions ..........................................................................................1\nII. Qualifications......................................................................................................................2\nIII. Case Background ...............................................................................................................4\nIV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency ........................................................................6\nV. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for Verrica Common Stock .........................7\n A. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume .................................. 9\n B. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage .......................................................... 10\n C. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers .............................................................. 13\n D. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility ................................... 15\n E. Cammer Factor 5: Cause-and-Effect Relationship Between\n Company Information and Stock Prices...................................................... 16\n i. Event Study Methodology................................................................ 16\n ii. Cause and Effect Analysis Comparing Verrica Common\n Stock Price Behavior on News Versus No News Days ................... 20\n F. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization .................................................. 23\n G. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread ............................................................ 24\n H. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float .................................................................. 25\n I. Additional Factor: Institutional Ownership................................................. 26\nVI. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis ...................................................27\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of \u00a7\u00a710(b) and 20(a) of the\n Exchange Act .............................................................................................. 27\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate\n Alternative Findings .................................................................................... 30\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 45 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nVII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................31\nAppendix A ................................................................................................................................ A-1\nAppendix B .................................................................................................................................B-1\nExhibit 1 ......................................................................................................................................E-1\nExhibit 2 ......................................................................................................................................E-2\nExhibit 3 ......................................................................................................................................E-3\nExhibit 4 ......................................................................................................................................E-4\nExhibit 5 ......................................................................................................................................E-5\nExhibit 6 ......................................................................................................................................E-6\nExhibit 7 ......................................................................................................................................E-7\nExhibit 8 ......................................................................................................................................E-8\nExhibit 9 ......................................................................................................................................E-9\nExhibit 10 ..................................................................................................................................E-10\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 56 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n I. Scope of Report and Opinions\n 1. Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys have asked me to determine whether the market for Verrica\n\nPharmaceutical Inc.\u2019s (\u201cVerrica\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) common stock (\u201cCommon Stock\u201d) was\n\nefficient during the period May 19, 2021 to May 24, 2022, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d).\n\n 2. Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys have also asked me to opine on whether damages for investors\n\ntrading in Verrica\u2019s Common Stock during the Class Period can be calculated using a common\n\nmethodology for all Class members that is consistent with Plaintiff\u2019s claims under (i) \u00a710(b) of\n\nthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) and U.S. Securities & Exchange\n\nCommission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder (collectively, the \u201c\u00a710(b) claims\u201d), and\n\n(ii) \u00a720(a) of the Exchange Act.1\n\n 3. Based on my analysis to date and the evaluation of the factors described throughout\n\nthis report, I have formed the following opinions:\n\n a. The market for Verrica\u2019s Common Stock was efficient throughout the Class Period.\n\n b. The Cammer and Krogman factors accepted and applied by courts to assess market\n\nefficiency corroborate that Verrica\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market.\n\n c. Though not necessary for a finding of market efficiency, the cause-and-effect\n\nrelationship between new Company disclosures and resulting Common Stock price movements\n\n(which I analyze under the fifth Cammer factor) further shows that Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n d. Damages in this matter can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a standard,\n\ncommon methodology for Plaintiff\u2019s pending claims. In particular, the out-of-pocket damages\n\n\n\n\n1\n See Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc. 40)\n(\u201cComplaint\u201d) and Memorandum Opinion (Doc 48). I understand Defendants to include Verrica and Ted\nWhite (Verrica\u2019s Chief Executive Officer (\u201cCEO\u201d)).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 67 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nmethodology, which is used in virtually all \u00a710(b) class action securities cases, is appropriate and\n\napplicable here.\n\n 4. The remainder of my report is organized as follows: Section II describes my\n\nqualifications. Section III summarizes the case background. Section IV briefly explains the bases\n\nfor the reliance requirement and the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory relating to market efficiency.\n\nSection V presents my analyses of the market efficiency factors for the Common Stock during the\n\nClass Period. Section VI addresses how damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject\n\nto a common methodology under \u00a710(b) and \u00a720(a). Section VII summarizes my conclusions.\n\n II. Qualifications\n 5. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Pennsylvania State University\n\nand am a tenured, full Professor of Accounting at Florida State University. I also hold the William\n\nHillison Professorship of Accounting. I teach Ph.D. and Master\u2019s-level courses, present my\n\nresearch at universities and conferences both domestic and abroad, deliver guest lectures,\n\nparticipate in academic seminars, attend academic conferences, peer review academic work,\n\norganize academic conferences, and conduct research on areas related to accounting, finance,\n\nstatistics, economics, and law.\n\n 6. My research focuses on topics related to corporate disclosure, debt contracting,\n\nfinancial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement. More\n\nspecifically, my research has examined periodic corporate disclosures (e.g., 10-K\u2019s, earnings press\n\nreleases), earnings guidance, earnings management, earnings manipulation, financial statement\n\nirregularities, debt contracts (e.g., private bank loans and public bonds), debt covenants,\n\nsecuritized debt, credit analysts, equity analysts, SEC comment letters, SEC requests for comment,\n\nand SEC investigations.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 78 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 7. I have been engaged in university-level teaching and academic research for over 15\n\nyears and continue to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting, economics, and\n\nfinance. At the undergraduate level, I have taught courses on financial accounting, investments,\n\nvaluation, and financial statement analysis. In addition, I have taught data analytics, valuation, and\n\nfinancial statement analysis at the Master\u2019s level as well as academic research seminars on\n\nempirical research methods in accounting at the doctoral level. I am an Editorial Board member of\n\nseveral peer-reviewed journals, and am an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting.\n\n 8. Before my current roles, I was a tenured, Associate Professor of Accounting and\n\nthe Director of the Ph.D. Program in Accounting at Florida State University. Prior to then, I was\n\nan Assistant Professor of Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a Research Fellow at\n\nThe National Center for the Middle Market.\n\n 9. Prior to working for Ohio State, I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\nfrom the Pennsylvania State University. Before my graduate work at Penn State, I was employed\n\nby Wells Fargo Bank as a Financial Consultant and Product Manager. I received an M.A. from the\n\nUniversity of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.\n\n 10. I have published research in leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields of finance,\n\naccounting, and economics, including: Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting\n\nand Economics, The Accounting Review, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Review of\n\nQuantitative Finance and Accounting, and Journal of Financial Reporting. My curriculum vitae,\n\nattached as Appendix A, further details my publication record. I have presented my academic\n\nresearch at over 50 academic institutions, as listed in my curriculum vitae. I have also received\n\nseveral awards and honors from my peers both nationally and globally related to my research, peer\n\nreviewing activities, and doctoral research supervision.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 89 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 11. The materials I have considered in forming my opinions are listed and summarized\n\nin Appendix B. My time is billed at a rate of $900 per hour for my work on this matter. I have\n\nbeen assisted in this matter by staff at Fideres Partners LLP working under my direction. My\n\ncompensation is in no way contingent on the outcome of this case. My curriculum vitae, attached\n\nas Appendix A, further details my testimony experience.\n\n 12. My work is ongoing, and I reserve the right to update my analyses and opinions\n\nbased upon new information, discovery, expert reports, or other information that comes to my\n\nattention.\n\n III. Case Background2\n 13. Verrica is a clinical-stage, dermatology therapeutics company that primarily\n\nfocuses on developing medications for skin conditions.3 During the Class Period, the Company\n\nhad no products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for\n\ncommercialization and had not yet generated revenues from product sales.4 Since its inception in\n\n2013, and throughout the Class Period, Verrica\u2019s operations have focused on its lead product, VP-\n\n102.5 Throughout the Class Period, Verrica was focused on obtaining regulatory approval from\n\nthe FDA to legally market VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, an infection\n\ncaused by a pox-virus that is common in children.6\n\n\n\n\n2\n The following overview section summarizes the allegations in the Complaint as context for Plaintiff\u2019s\nclaims. I make no findings or opinions as to these allegations, and the opinions I reach in other sections of\nthis report regarding market efficiency and the calculation of damages are not tied to any specific allegations\nsummarized herein.\n3\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 2, 31.\n4\n Ibid.\n5\n Id., \u00b6 30.\n6\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 2-3.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case\n Case1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed 12/12/25\n 06/13/25 Page 10\n 9 ofof56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 14. The Complaint alleges that Verrica misled the market as to the risks relating to the\n\nFDA approval of VP-102 throughout the Class Period.7 Specifically, the Complaint alleges that\n\nDefendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose issues\n\nrelated to the FDA inspections of the facilities of Verrica\u2019s contract manufacturer Sterling\n\nPharmaceuticals Services, LLC (\u201cSterling\u201d).8 During its review of the new drug application\n\n(\u201cNDA\u201d) for VP-102, the FDA inspected Sterling\u2019s manufacturing facilities to assess compliance\n\nwith Current Good Manufacturing Practices (\u201ccGMP\u201d), regulations that contain minimum\n\nrequirements for manufacturers and facilities concerning all aspects of production.9\n\n 15. The Complaint alleges that the concealed risks partially materialized and/or the\n\ntruth was partially revealed to the market after close of trade on September 20, 2021 when Verrica\n\nannounced the receipt of a Complete Response Letter (\u201cCRL\u201d) from the FDA due to deficiencies\n\nat Sterling\u2019s facility identified during the FDA\u2019s inspection between May 3 and 14, 2021.10\n\n 16. The Complaint also alleges that the concealed risks materialized and/or the truth\n\nwas fully revealed after close of trade on May 24, 2022, when Verrica announced the receipt of\n\nanother CRL, which cited on-going deficiencies identified during the reinspection of Sterling\u2019s\n\nfacility in February 2022.11\n\n 17. Verrica\u2019s Common Stock was traded on the NASDAQ during the Class Period.12\n\nExhibit 1 graphs the closing stock price and trading volume for Verrica\u2019s Common Stock shares\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n\n\n7\n Id., \u00b6 3.\n8\n Id., \u00b6 16.\n9\n Id., \u00b6 5.\n10\n Id.\u00b6\u00b6 7-8.\n11\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 11-12.\n12\n Id., \u00b6 23.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 10\n 11 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n IV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency\n 18. I understand that, with respect to their claims under \u00a710(b), Plaintiff asserts the\n\n\u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory of class-wide reliance, i.e., that all Verrica shareholders relied on\n\nthe alleged misrepresentations (and the fraudulent schemes and acts underlying such misstatements\n\nand omissions) through their effect on stock prices in an informationally efficient market.13\n\n 19. As courts, including the Supreme Court, have explained, the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d\n\ntheory of class-wide reliance holds that investors trading securities in an informationally efficient\n\nmarket rely on any misrepresentations or material omissions of fact because those statements or\n\nmaterial omissions of fact have distorted the value of each class member\u2019s purchase price. As the\n\nSupreme Court explained in its Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision:\n\n [I]n an open and developed securities market, the price of a\n company\u2019s stock is determined by the available material information\n regarding the company and its business . . . . Misleading statements\n will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do\n not directly rely on the misstatements . . . . The causal connection\n between the defendants\u2019 fraud and the plaintiffs\u2019 purchase of stock\n in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance\n on misrepresentations.14\n 20. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the availability of this theory to satisfy \u00a710(b)\u2019s\n\nreliance requirement on a class-wide basis in Halliburton II:\n\n More than 25 years ago, we held that plaintiffs could satisfy the\n reliance element of the Rule 10b\u20135 cause of action by invoking a\n presumption that a public, material misrepresentation will distort the\n price of stock traded in an efficient market, and that anyone who\n purchases the stock at the market price may be considered to have\n done so in reliance on the misrepresentation. We adhere to that\n decision and decline to modify the prerequisites for invoking the\n presumption of reliance.15\n\n\n\n13\n Id., \u00b6 138.\n14\n Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n15\n Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n\n\n 6\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 11\n 12 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 21. A market is considered informationally efficient when the market price of securities\n\nquickly responds to publicly available information.16 In securities fraud cases, courts have\n\nendorsed the widely-cited five-factor test laid out in Cammer v. Bloom to evaluate whether a\n\nmarket is efficient for the purposes of establishing the presumption of reliance.17 Courts also accept\n\nadditional factors for evaluating market efficiency found in another widely cited opinion, Krogman\n\nv. Sterritt.18\n\n 22. Research in accounting, economics, and finance support the factors cited by the\n\nCammer and Krogman courts as indicators of market efficiency.19 However, as explained below,\n\nit is important to understand that an assessment of market efficiency does not hinge on any single\n\nfactor; rather, it is an assessment of all the factors together that allows one to reach the conclusion\n\nthat a market for a security is efficient.20\n\n V. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for Verrica Common Stock\n 23. I now turn to discuss the Cammer and Krogman factors and evaluate them in\n\nrelation to Verrica\u2019s Common Stock.21 To do so, I compare the factors\u2019 application to Verrica\u2019s\n\n\n16\n In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005). \u201cFor purposes of establishing the fraud-\non-the-market presumption of reliance, we adopt the prevailing definition of market efficiency, which\nprovides that an efficient market is one in which the market price of the stock fully reflects all publicly\navailable information. By \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 we mean that market price responds so quickly to new information\nthat ordinary investors cannot make trading profits on the basis of such information. This is known as\n\u2018informational efficiency.\u2019 We reject a second and much broader meaning of \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 known as\n\u2018fundamental value efficiency,\u2019 which requires that a market respond to information not only quickly but\naccurately, such that the market price of a stock reflects its fundamental value.\u201d\n17\n Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264, 1292 (D.N.J. 1989).\n18\n Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n See, e.g., Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements: The\n19\n\nRole of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 57.\n20\n Id. at 204-205.\n21\n In addition to the Cammer and Krogman factors, I also note that the Company a) had call and put options\ntraded on the Common Stock, and b) did not have a statistically significant autocorrelation coefficient on\nabnormal stock returns during the Class Period from my event study in Section V.E. These findings further\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 12\n 13 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nCommon Stock against: (1) benchmarks established by courts; (2) scientific tests of statistical\n\nsignificance; and/or (3) findings from peer-reviewed, published academic research.\n\n 24. As discussed below, my analyses and findings on the various market efficiency\n\nfactors support the conclusion that Verrica\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period.\n\n 25. One academic study that I use for comparison purposes was published by Mola,\n\nRau, and Khorana, which I refer to as the \u201cMRK Study.\u201d22 In this study, the authors examined two\n\nsamples of firms. The first sample included companies that lost all analyst coverage (the \u201cMRK\n\nSample\u201d firms); these firms had smaller market capitalizations, less trading volume, larger bid-ask\n\nspreads, and lower institutional ownership relative to analyst-covered firms, both before and after\n\nlosing analyst coverage. The second sample included the analyst-covered firms (the \u201cMRK\n\nCovered\u201d firms), and the differences between the two samples in average and median market\n\ncapitalization, trading volume, bid-ask spread, and institutional ownership were all statistically\n\nsignificant at the 99% level.23\n\n 26. The authors of the MRK Study summarize their findings as follows:\n\n This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms\n by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor\n interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at\n least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm\n both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm\u2019s\n future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for\n that firm\u2019s stock. . . . Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue\n to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading\n\n\n\n\nsupport my conclusion that Verrica Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class\nPeriod.\n22\n Mola, S., Rau, P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst Coverage?\nThe Accounting Review 88 at 667-705.\n23\n MRK Study at 678, 681-682.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 13\n 14 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant\n difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers.24\n\n 27. The authors describe these variables as reflective of investor interest: after losing\n\nanalyst coverage, \u201cinvestor interest characteristics, such as market capitalization, trading volume,\n\nbid-ask spread, institutional holdings, and number of institutions, significantly worsen relative to\n\n[analyst-]covered peers.\u201d25 Therefore, I interpret the sample of MRK Covered firms as those\n\neliciting high investor interest and reflect factors common to firms operating in efficient markets.\n\n 28. Below, I compare several of Verrica\u2019s market efficiency factors to the samples of\n\nfirms in the MRK Study to assess whether the Company\u2019s characteristics are consistent with firms\n\noperating in efficient markets.\n\n A. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume\n 29. Trading volume refers to the number of shares of a security transacted between\n\nmarket participants. The greater the amount of buying and selling activity of a security, the more\n\nlikely it is that new information will be quickly incorporated into the price of that security.26 Thus,\n\ntrading volume is an indicator of how developed, liquid, and efficient the market is for a given\n\nstock.27 The first Cammer factor, stock trading volume, has been defined by the Cammer court\n\nusing average weekly trading volume relative to shares outstanding. In setting a threshold of\n\ntrading volume for the presumption of market efficiency, the court stated:\n\n Turnover measured by average weekly trading of 2% or more of the\n outstanding shares would justify a strong presumption that the\n\n\n\n24\n MRK Study at 667.\n25\n MRK Study at 681 (footnotes omitted).\n26\n See, e.g., Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency Indicators for\nSecurities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review at 101-102. (the \u201cBhole Study\u201d); Thomas, R. and\nCotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the Regulatory Setting. Law and Contemporary\nProblems 63 at p. 108; MRK Study at 681.\n27\n Ibid.\n\n\n 9\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 14\n 15 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n market for the security is an efficient one; 1% would justify a\n substantial presumption.28\n\n\n 30. Exhibit 2 graphs Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\u2019s weekly trading volume as a fraction\n\nof Common Stock outstanding throughout the Class Period.29 The average weekly trading volume\n\nwas 1.92% of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock outstanding over the Class Period. This level of trading\n\nvolume exceeds the 1% threshold established by the Cammer court which would justify a\n\n\u201csubstantial presumption\u201d of efficiency. As a result, Verrica\u2019s level of Common Stock trading\n\nvolume throughout the Class Period supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n 31. Additionally, Verrica\u2019s Common Stock daily turnover rate of 0.36% during the\n\nClass Period placed it above the 10th percentile of all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the\n\nNYSE from 2016-2018.30 This further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n B. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage\n 32. An analyst is someone, usually working for a financial institution such as a\n\nbrokerage, bank, or investment bank, who studies financial information and trends for a specific\n\ncompany or industry. Analysts typically publish reports in which they assess recent company\n\nbusiness developments, review historical financial performance and provide forecasts of future\n\noperating performance, or make investment recommendations, such as whether investors should\n\nbuy, sell, or hold the company\u2019s stock.\n\n\n\n\n28\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293 (quoting Bromberg, \u00a78.6).\n29\n In this analysis, a \u201ctrading week\u201d consists of five consecutive trading days, which may not follow the\ncalendar week.\n30\n Bhole Study at 102. The 10th percentile of daily turnover for the 2016-2018 sample period is 0.19%. The\n2016-2018 subsample time period is the most recent period reported in this study.\n\n\n 10\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 15\n 16 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 33. Analyst coverage can be indicative of market efficiency since research analysts help\n\nto disseminate important new company-specific information to investors, thus impounding new\n\ninformation into stock prices quickly and efficiently. The Cammer court similarly stated:\n\n [I]t would be persuasive to allege a significant number of securities\n analysts followed and reported on a company\u2019s stock during the\n class period. The existence of such analysts would imply, for\n example, the [auditor] reports were closely reviewed by investment\n professionals, who would in turn make buy/sell recommendations to\n client investors.31\n\n\n 34. In Exhibit 3 I reviewed the analyst coverage of Verrica over the Class Period. I\n\nidentified a total of at least 80 reports issued by analysts at 14 separate firms during that period.32\n\nThe list of analyst reports that I was able to identify includes reports by firms that conducted\n\nthorough and detailed research on Verrica and the industry within which it operated, such as the\n\nreports prepared by analysts at RBC Capital Markets, H.C. Wainwright & Co., and Cowen and\n\nCompany, among others. Collectively, this is a significant degree of analyst coverage which served\n\nto disseminate important new publicly available information to investors, including company\n\nnews, financial performance, forecasts, and analyst commentary and recommendations.\n\n 35. This degree of analyst coverage compares favorably to that documented by\n\nacademic research. For example, the MRK Study noted that 19% of U.S. firms covered by I/B/E/S\n\nreceived no analyst coverage in a given year.33 Further, Lee and So documented that, on average,\n\nfirms were covered by between 0.765 and 7.614 analysts when ranking firms into deciles by the\n\n\n\n\n31\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1286.\n32\n These statistics represent a lower bound of the analyst coverage of Verrica because many analyst reports\nare provided directly to investors but are not captured by third-party data vendors. See, for example,\nAmiram, D., Bozanic, Z., Bradshaw, M., and Rozenbaum, O., 2025. Review of Accounting Studies,\nforthcoming.\n33\n MRK Study at 668.\n\n\n 11\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 16\n 17 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\ntotal number of analyst forecasts issued.34 In other words, many firms within the category of the\n\nleast amount of analyst coverage in their sample were covered by only one or two analysts.\n\nVerrica\u2019s analyst coverage is consistent with the MRK Covered firms which elicited high investor\n\ninterest.\n\n 36. Moreover, Verrica\u2019s high level of analyst coverage also placed it between the 75th\n\nand 90th percentiles when compared with all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the NYSE\n\nfrom 2016-2018.35 The significant analyst coverage of Verrica during the Class Period supports\n\nthe conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the\n\nClass Period.\n\n 37. In addition to the analyst coverage documented above, investors could access\n\ninformation about Verrica from a variety of other sources. For example, I conducted a search of\n\npress and news articles about Verrica using Factiva, a well-known provider of access to business\n\nnews across a comprehensive set of publications. Factiva coverage includes Dow Jones\n\nNewswires, GlobeNewswire, PR Newswire, Reuters, Business Wire, and numerous other outlets.\n\nThis search produced approximately 171 articles throughout the Class Period.36\n\n 38. As a result, the amount of analyst coverage, number of analyst research reports\n\nproduced, and substantial public dissemination of news and information about Verrica support the\n\nconclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in a well-developed and informationally\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n\n\n\n34\n Lee, C., and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage Proxies.\nJournal of Financial Economics 124 at 336. (see Table 1, Panel B \u2013 \u201cCOV\u201d).\n35\n Bhole Study at 104 (75th percentile defined as 12.2 analysts; 90th percentile defined as 20.1 analysts).\n36\n The articles were identified through a Factiva search of articles with Verrica\u2019s company tag from all\navailable sources.\n\n\n 12\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 17\n 18 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n C. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers\n 39. The third Cammer factor relates to securities trading outside of major exchanges,\n\nin over-the-counter markets without continuous reporting of trading volume. This factor examines\n\nmarket makers, which are firms that facilitate the buying and selling of shares among investors in\n\na company\u2019s stock during trading hours.37 Market makers are present on major exchanges as well\n\nas over-the-counter markets. In particular, market makers can facilitate market efficiency in an\n\nover-the-counter market because they are:\n\n [P]resumably knowledgeable about the issuing company and the\n stocks\u2019 supply and demand conditions (i.e., the \u201corder flow\u201d).\n Therefore, it is believed the larger the number of market makers in\n a given security, the more information is available about it and the\n quicker its dissemination in the price.38\n 40. In evaluating market efficiency by looking at market makers, the Cammer court\n\nheld:\n\n For over the counter markets without volume reporting, the number\n of market makers is probably the best single criterion. Ten market\n makers for a security would justify a substantial presumption that\n the market for the security is an efficient one; five market makers\n would justify a more modest presumption.39\n 41. The court thus stated that market makers can be an important indicator of market\n\nefficiency for stock trading in an over-the-counter market without continuous trading volume\n\nreporting.\n\n\n\n\n37\n \u201cA \u2018market maker\u2019 is a firm that stands ready to buy or sell a stock at publicly quoted prices.\u201d See\nhttps://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/market-makers.\n38\n Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common\nStocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law 19 at 291.\n39\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293; see also Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 7406418\nat *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (\u201cThe Court agrees that both the presence of a designated market maker\nand so many market makers in other trading venues weigh in favor of a finding of market efficiency.\u201d).\n\n\n 13\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 18\n 19 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 42. Verrica\u2019s Common Stock had at least 47 market makers and brokers providing\n\nsimilar activity over the Class Period.40 The presence of more than 10 market makers supports the\n\nCammer Court\u2019s \u201csubstantial presumption\u201d of the efficiency of the market for the Company\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock throughout the Class Period.\n\n 43. In addition to the presence of market makers, the presence of institutional investors\n\ncan be an indicator of market efficiency. These investors can improve market efficiency by\n\ndigesting new public information and making investment decisions over large block holdings of\n\nshares, thus causing new information to be quickly impounded into stock prices. During the Class\n\nPeriod, between 69 and 72 institutions held Verrica\u2019s Common Stock.41 By comparison, the MRK\n\nStudy found that the MRK Sample firms had a median of only nine institutional investors while\n\nthe MRK Covered firms had a median of 40 institutional investors.42 Verrica\u2019s institutional\n\nownership base greatly exceeds both of these levels. Moreover, Verrica\u2019s institutional ownership\n\nas a percent of shares during the Class Period placed it between the 10th and 25th percentile of\n\nNYSE and NASDAQ traded companies.43 Thus, the significant institutional ownership base for\n\n\n\n\n40\n See Bloomberg \u201cRANK\u201d function (\u201cRANK provides brokers\u2019 advertised trade volume on a post-\ntrade basis, so you can analyze which brokers provide the greatest liquidity, assess how you rank against\nyour peers, and evaluate the greatest liquidity providers in a corporation. RANK generates historical broker\nranking reports, comparing broker activity in a single security or across an exchange, index, or portfolio,\nhelping you trade with minimal market impact \u2026 RANK provides the equity market share data that is\ncritical to helping buy-side firms identify which brokers potentially are the market makers in a stock in\nwhich they are interested, so that trading decisions can be made more accurately. Additionally, sell-side\nfirms can demonstrate their historical ability to source liquidity for clients, while investment bankers can\nmarket their ability to manage their corporate finance clients\u2019 flow.\u201d).\n41\n Data Source: S&P Capital IQ.\n42\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n43\n Bhole Study at 106: 10th percentile defined as institutional ownership of 13.48% of shares outstanding;\n25th percentile defined as 33.58%. Verrica institutional ownership fluctuated between 20.56% and 24.18%\nof shares outstanding for quarters ending within the Class Period.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 19\n 20 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nVerrica\u2019s Common Stock further supports the conclusion that the Common Stock traded in an\n\nefficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n D. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility\n 44. The fourth Cammer factor is SEC Form S-3 filing eligibility:\n\n [I]t would be helpful to allege the Company was entitled to file an\n S-3 Registration Statement in connection with public offerings or, if\n ineligible, such ineligibility was only because of timing factors\n rather than because the minimum stock requirements set forth in the\n instructions to Form S-3 were not met. Again, it is the number of\n shares traded and value of shares outstanding that involve the facts\n which imply efficiency.44\n\n 45. Form S-3 filing eligibility allows companies to file a shortened form with the SEC\n\nin order to raise capital, by providing references to previous SEC filings as opposed to repeating a\n\nlarge quantity of information. This eligibility includes the following requirements: the registrant\n\nhas a class of securities subject to the Exchange Act, the registrant has filed all necessary filings\n\nwith the SEC in a timely manner for the past 12 months, the registrant has a float of at least $75\n\nmillion, and the registrant has not failed to pay any dividend or sinking fund installment on\n\npreferred stock or defaulted on any material debts or leases.45 The rationale behind this factor as\n\ndiscussed by the Cammer court is that a company which makes timely financial filings with\n\nregulators implies that investors have timely access to publicly available information about the\n\nissuer.\n\n 46. Verrica made all required filings with the SEC in a timely manner during the Class\n\nPeriod and satisfied the other Form S-3 requirements.46 Additionally, Verrica\u2019s submitted a Form\n\n44\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n45\n See SEC Form S-3, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3.pdf.\n46\n See SEC EDGAR, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/ciks=0001660334&entityName=Verrica%2520Pharmaceuticals%252\n0Inc.%2520(VRCA)%2520(CIK%25200001660334). Market capitalization of Verrica\u2019s float averaged\n$150.22 million during the Class Period.\n\n\n 15\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 20\n 21 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nS-3 filing shortly after the Class Period.47 As a result, this factor is consistent with the efficiency\n\nof the market for the Company\u2019s Common Stock throughout the Class Period.\n\n E. Cammer Factor 5: Cause-and-Effect Relationship Between Company Information\n and Stock Prices\n 47. The fifth Cammer factor relates to whether a company\u2019s stock price quickly\n\nresponds to and incorporates new value-relevant information. The Cammer court held:\n\n [O]ne of the most convincing ways to demonstrate [market]\n efficiency would be to illustrate, over time, a cause and effect\n relationship between company disclosures and resulting movements\n in stock price.48\n 48. I summarize my empirical analysis below, which finds that Verrica\u2019s Common\n\nStock exhibited the type of cause-and-effect relationship between company-specific information\n\nflow and price movement described in Cammer. I compare the behavior of Verrica\u2019s Common\n\nStock on days when company-specific news is issued with its behavior on days when no such news\n\nis issued. This analysis demonstrates that Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price reacted rapidly to\n\ncompany-specific news and, thus, further supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common\n\nStock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n i. Event Study Methodology\n 49. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I ran empirical tests using the results of an\n\nevent study. Event studies are widely used by economists to measure the reaction of a security to\n\n\n\n\n47\n See SEC EDGAR, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1660334/000119312522279251/d418490ds3.htm\n48\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1291.\n\n\n 16\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 21\n 22 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nthe disclosure of new, issuer-specific information, including in connection with assessments of\n\nmarket efficiency in securities litigation.49 As Professor Fama has explained:\n\n The cleanest evidence on market-efficiency comes from event\n studies, especially event studies on daily returns. When an\n information event can be dated precisely and the event has a large\n effect on prices, the way one abstracts from expected returns to\n measure abnormal daily returns is a second-order consideration. As\n a result, event studies can give a clear picture of the speed of\n adjustment of prices to information.\n\n There is a large event-study literature on issues in corporate finance.\n The results indicate that on average stock prices adjust quickly to\n information about investment decisions, dividend changes, changes\n in capital structure, and corporate-control transactions. This\n evidence tilts me toward the conclusion that prices adjust efficiently\n to firm-specific information. More important, the research uncovers\n empirical regularities, many surprising, that enrich our\n understanding of investment, financing, and corporate-control\n events, and give rise to interesting theoretical work.50\n\n 50. To determine whether Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price movements on any given\n\ndate are statistically significant, I performed an event study using generally accepted economic\n\nmethods, specifying a regression model over a selected time period to observe the typical\n\nrelationship between the price of the relevant security, and market and industry indices.\n\n 51. Through this regression model, an economist can model the predicted daily return\n\nof the relevant security, based on market and industry returns. By subtracting the predicted return\n\nfrom the actual return, an economist can calculate the \u201cabnormal\u201d return in the company\u2019s daily\n\nsecurity price movement, which represents the component of the daily security price return that is\n\nnot attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements, but rather is attributable to company-\n\nspecific news. Finally, as part of an event study analysis, an economist tests whether the deviation\n\nfrom expected price movements (i.e., the \u201cabnormal return\u201d) is \u201cstatistically significant,\u201d i.e.,\n\n49\n See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic Literature 13.\n50\n Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance 46 at 1607.\n\n\n 17\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 22\n 23 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nsufficiently large compared to the usual volatility in the company security price return such that\n\nsimple random movement can be rejected as the cause.\n\n 52. I applied these widely used and generally accepted econometric methodologies to\n\nperform my event study here. Specifically, in order to isolate the impact of company-specific news\n\non Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price during the Class Period, I performed regression analyses to\n\nmeasure the relationship between the Company\u2019s Common Stock price returns and: (1) changes in\n\nmarket-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks; and (2) changes in industry-wide\n\nfactors that would be expected to impact stocks in industries similar to Verrica. By modeling how\n\nVerrica\u2019s Common Stock price returns moved relative to an overall market index and an industry\n\nindex, I was also able to measure the response of the Company\u2019s Common Stock to announcements\n\nof company-specific news.\n\n 53. I conducted my event study regression analysis over an Analysis Period\n\nencompassing the Class Period (May 19, 2021 to May 24, 2022, inclusive), plus one trading day\n\nfollowing the Class Period (Analysis Period = May 19, 2021 to May 25, 2022, inclusive). For each\n\ntrading day, I constructed a regression model using data from the prior six months of trading days\n\n(the \u201cEstimation Window\u201d).51\n\n 54. To study the relationship between Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price returns and\n\noverall market factors, I used the S&P 1500 Total Return Index (the \u201cMarket Index\u201d). To study\n\nthe relationship between Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price returns and industry-wide factors that\n\n51\n I utilized an Estimation Window of 120 trading days, which is approximately six calendar months. This\nallowed my regression approach to adapt to the changing volatility of stock returns over time. See, e.g.,\nMitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud Cases: Applications\nat the Securities and Exchange Commission. Business Lawyer 49; MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in\nEconomics and Finance. Journal of Economic Literature 35 at 15. (\u201cGiven the selection of a normal\nperformance model, the estimation window needs to be defined. The most common choice, when feasible,\nis using the period prior to the event window for the estimation window. For example, in an event study\nusing daily data and the market model, the market model parameters could be estimated over the 120 days\nprior to the event. Generally, the event period itself is not included in the estimation period to prevent the\nevent from influencing the normal performance model parameter estimates.\u201d).\n\n\n 18\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 23\n 24 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nwould be expected to impact all stocks in Verrica\u2019s industry, I used the NASDAQ Biotechnology\n\nIndex (the \u201cIndustry Index\u201d).\n\n 55. I established the relationship between the daily return of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock,\n\nthe daily return on the Market Index, and the daily returns on the Industry Index over each rolling\n\nEstimation Window.52 As shown in Exhibit 4, the event study models revealed an evolving\n\nrelationship between the daily returns of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock and those of the overall stock\n\nmarket and industry indices throughout the Analysis Period. In other words, movements of the\n\nMarket and Industry Indices help explain movements in the Company\u2019s Common Stock prices.\n\n 56. Consistent with generally accepted econometric methods, these observed\n\nrelationships allowed me to construct a model to predict the expected daily return of the Company\n\non any given date within the Analysis Period which controls for that day\u2019s market and industry\n\nreturns. Again, in accordance with standard event-study methodology, I then subtracted this\n\npredicted return from the actual return to obtain the \u201cabnormal\u201d return, which represents the\n\ncomponent of the return that is not attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements.\n\n 57. Finally, I calculated the statistical significance of the abnormal return by comparing\n\nit to the usual volatility in Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\u2019s price return. An important statistic from a\n\nregression analysis is the standard deviation of the errors, which measures the degree of\n\nimprecision in the predictions from the regression model. In other words, the standard deviation\n\nof errors provides a measure for how much idiosyncratic company-specific volatility (or\n\n\u201crandomness\u201d) remains in the price movement of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock after controlling for\n\n\n\n\n52\n My use of this estimation model accounts for the relationship between the Company, market, and industry\ndaily returns. This method has been accepted by academics in peer-reviewed literature. See MacKinlay, A.,\n1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic Literature 35; Braun, P., Nelson, D.,\nand Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News, Volatility, and Betas. Journal of Finance 50 at 1597.\n\n\n 19\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 24\n 25 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nthe Market and Industry Indices. Exhibit 5 plots the standard deviation of the regression errors,\n\nalso known as Root Mean Squared Error, over the Analysis Period.\n\n ii. Cause and Effect Analysis Comparing Verrica Common Stock Price\n Behavior on News Versus No News Days\n 58. A generally-accepted and peer-reviewed approach to evaluating whether a stock\n\nprice responds to news (including with regard to testing market efficiency in the securities class\n\naction context) is to compare the stock\u2019s behavior on news days with its behavior on other days\n\nwith relatively little or no news.53 In showing that a security\u2019s price is more volatile on news days\n\nthan on no news days to a statistically significant degree indicates that the security responds\n\npromptly to news and, therefore, supports a finding of efficiency.\n\n 59. Importantly, research has shown that in an efficient market, it is possible for a\n\nsecurity to exhibit some large price movements despite the absence of news and, conversely, for\n\none to observe news without large price movements.54 For instance, a company may announce\n\nearnings that are in line with investor expectations and, while such an expected announcement is\n\nclearly important to investors, it will often not alter the total mix of information significantly\n\nenough to elicit a statistically significant stock price movement. Likewise, a disclosure may\n\ncontain a mix of positive and negative information, which may effectively offset each other, which\n\nagain would result in no statistically significant price movement. Further, if a company\u2019s\n\ndisclosure conceals important information, the effect of the concealment will generally not result\n\nin a significant stock price movement, but will instead simply maintain the price at its then-current\n\n\n53\n Ferrillo, P., Dunbar, F., and Tabak, D., 2004. The Less Than Efficient Capital Markets Hypothesis:\nRequiring More Proof From Plaintiffs in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases, St. John\u2019s Law Review 78 at 120-21;\nMiguel O. Villanueva and Steven Feinstein, 2021, Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements: The\nRole of the Cammer/Krogman Factors, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 57.\n54\n See Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S. and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading, and Volatility:\nEvidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies 32 at 1004; Fair, R., 2002. Events That\nShook the Market. Journal of Business 75 at 713-714.\n\n\n 20\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 25\n 26 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nlevel. Accordingly, a generally-accepted, peer-reviewed methodology accepted by numerous\n\ncourts is to compare stock price behavior on a group of \u201cnews days\u201d to stock price behavior on a\n\ngroup of \u201cno news days.\u201d\n\n 60. Here, I performed such an analysis comparing the behavior of Verrica\u2019s Common\n\nStock on news versus no news days. My analysis demonstrates that the price of Verrica\u2019s stock\n\nwas statistically significantly more volatile on news days than on no news days. This result\n\nsupports the conclusion that there was a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price\u201d for Verrica\u2019s Common Stock during the\n\nAnalysis Period and, thus, further supports a finding of market efficiency.\n\n 61. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\ndisclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I analyzed Verrica\u2019s announcements\n\nregarding the FDA\u2019s approval of VP-102. As I explain in Section III, during the Class Period the\n\nCompany had no products approved by the FDA for commercialization and its operations focused\n\non its lead product, VP-102. Consequently, these types of announcements represent a potential\n\nopportunity for the public release of new value-relevant Company information to investors.\n\n 62. As shown in Exhibit 6, Verrica issued six updates regarding the FDA\u2019s approval\n\nof VP-102 during the Analysis Period. I classified each day on which such an announcement was\n\nfirst issued as a \u201cNews Day.\u201d55 I then compared the stock returns and trading volume of Verrica\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock on these News Days versus those metrics on trading days that contained the least\n\nnews during the Analysis Period (the \u201cNo News Days\u201d).56 The No News Days provide a\n\n\n\n55\n If the release were issued after the close of the market, the relevant news day is appropriately deemed to\nbe the next trading day.\n56\n I identified \u201cNo News Days\u201d as days on which there were no: a) updates regarding the FDA\u2019s approval\nof VP-102; b) alleged corrective disclosures; c) press releases issued by Verrica; d) news articles on Factiva\ntagged to Verrica; or e) filings submitted to the SEC by Verrica. I ignore news articles about trading halts\ndue to volatility and announcements related to shareholder lawsuits.\n\n\n 21\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 26\n 27 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nbenchmark measurement of days in which relatively little or no new Verrica-specific information\n\nwas provided to the market. If Verrica\u2019s stock prices tend to move more significantly on News\n\nDays than on No News Days, this would support a conclusion of market efficiency. As discussed\n\nbelow, there were 185 No News Days during the Analysis Period.\n\n 63. Exhibit 6 reports the results of the event study using Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\n\nreturns. The columns list the market impact dates, raw return, abnormal raw return from my event\n\nstudy, abnormal dollar change in stock price from my event study, the t-statistic, the p-value\n\ncorresponding to statistical significance, and a description of the announcement on each date.\n\nOverall, two out of six Verrica\u2019s updates regarding FDA approval of VP-102 caused stock price\n\nmovements that were statistically significant at the 95% level or better. I compare this rate with\n\nthat on the No News Days in the following exhibit.\n\n 64. Exhibit 7 summarizes the statistical comparison of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\n\nreturns and trading volume following the six News Days versus these metrics as measured on the\n\n185 No News Days. As shown in the Exhibit 7, 33.33% of the announcements related to the FDA\u2019s\n\napproval of Verrica\u2019s drugs caused stock movements that were statistically significant at the 95%\n\nlevel. This compares to 3.78% of the No News Days with statistically significant stock price\n\nmovements. The difference between these two percentages is statistically significant at the 95%\n\nlevel. In other words, the rate of statistically significant News Days is more than eight times greater\n\nthan that of the No News Days. These results provide strong evidence of a cause-and-effect\n\nrelationship between new information and Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price movements. Moreover,\n\nrelative to the No News Days, the News Days had a higher average absolute abnormal return and\n\ngreater trading volume.\n\n 65. In summary, relative to other trading days contained in each event study\u2019s\n\nEstimation Window, News Days caused a greater proportion of statistically significant stock price\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 27\n 28 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nmovements at the 95% level. This finding establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship between\n\nnew company-specific information and Verrica\u2019s Common Stock price movements. As a result,\n\nthis Cammer Factor 5 analysis supports the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded\n\nin an efficient market during the Class Period.\n\n F. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization\n 66. Beyond the five Cammer factors, I have also considered several additional factors\n\narticulated by the Krogman court. The first of these is the total value of stock outstanding, or\n\nmarket capitalization. The Cammer court acknowledged this factor as indicative of market\n\nefficiency, holding that \u201cit is the number of shares traded and value of shares outstanding that\n\ninvolve the facts which imply efficiency.\u201d57 Similarly, the Krogman court stated that \u201c[m]arket\n\ncapitalization, calculated as the number of shares multiplied by the prevailing share price, may be\n\nan indicator of market efficiency because there is a greater incentive for stock purchasers to invest\n\nin more highly capitalized corporations.\u201d58\n\n 67. Conversely, as noted previously, the MRK Study found that companies that lack\n\nanalyst coverage are also companies that are generally associated with other factors \u2013 such as\n\nrelatively small market capitalization \u2013 that indicate that their shares trade in less developed and\n\nefficient markets. The median market capitalization of the MRK Sample firms was $27.91\n\nmillion.59 By contrast, the MRK Covered firms had a median market capitalization of $243.97\n\nmillion.60 This study thus supports the view that firms with larger market capitalizations tend to\n\ntrade in more efficient markets.\n\n\n\n\n57\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n58\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n59\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n60\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n\n\n 23\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 28\n 29 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 68. Exhibit 8 reports the market capitalization of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock throughout\n\nthe Class Period. This market capitalization averaged $272.5 million over the Class Period. The\n\nCompany\u2019s Common Stock market capitalization places it between the 25th and 50th percentiles of\n\nall companies listed on either the NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018.61 Verrica\u2019s Common\n\nStock market capitalization also exceeded the MRK Sample firms on an inflation-adjusted basis.62\n\nVerrica\u2019s number of shares outstanding were approximately 27.5 million during the Class Period.\n\nVerrica\u2019s market capitalization, shares outstanding available for trading, and its float as discussed\n\nbelow, are consistent with the conclusion that the Company\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient\n\nmarket during the Class Period.\n\n G. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread\n 69. The Krogman court considered the bid-ask spread as another factor that can indicate\n\nmarket efficiency: \u201c[a] large bid-ask spread is indicative of an inefficient market, because it\n\nsuggests that the stock is too expensive to trade.\u201d63\n\n 70. The bid-ask spread is the difference between the price at which an investor could\n\npurchase a stock (the ask) and the price at which an investor could sell the stock (the bid). This\n\nspread can be expressed as the difference between these prices in their quoted currency or as a\n\npercentage relative to the bid-ask midpoint. A narrow bid-ask spread indicates lower transaction\n\ncosts to trade in a given stock and is indicative of a more informationally efficient market. A wider\n\nbid-ask spread indicates that investors will pay more to buy and sell a given stock, and these higher\n\ntransaction costs can discourage trading and price discovery, thus indicating a less liquid and less\n\nefficient market.\n\n61\n Bhole Study at 107 (25th percentile of market capitalization defined as $167 million; 50th percentile\ndefined as $781 million).\n62\n U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator. See\nhttps://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.\n63\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n\n\n 24\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 29\n 30 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 71. I analyzed the bid-ask spread of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock during the Class Period.\n\nExhibit 9 reports the Company\u2019s bid-ask spread as a percentage of the bid-ask midpoint.64 This\n\nspread averaged 0.59% over the Class Period.\n\n 72. By way of comparison, the MRK Study found that MRK Sample firms had a\n\nmedian bid-ask spread of 4.55%, while MRK Covered firms had a median bid-ask spread of\n\n1.69%.65 Verrica\u2019s bid-ask spread was significantly smaller than both of these values, indicating\n\nthat investors could trade the Company\u2019s Common Stock at very low relative cost. Additionally,\n\nVerrica\u2019s average bid-ask spread over the Class Period places it between the 50th and 75th\n\npercentiles of all companies listed on NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018 (lower percentile\n\nrankings correspond to smaller bid-ask spreads).66\n\n 73. As a result, Verrica\u2019s bid-ask spread also supports the conclusion that the\n\nCompany\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n H. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float\n 74. The Krogman court also considered the public float of a company in weighing\n\nmarket efficiency.67 The public float represents the number of shares outstanding that are available\n\nfor trading and not held by corporate insiders. Even if a company has a large market capitalization,\n\nif the majority of the equity is held by its CEO and/or other insiders, then investors may be unable\n\nto trade the stock without exerting undue pricing pressure resulting from a lack of liquidity and\n\nsupply/demand imbalances.\n\n\n\n\n64\n Calculated as the difference between Bloomberg daily bid and ask prices as a percentage of the bid-ask\nmidpoint.\n65\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n66\n Bhole Study at 105 (50th percentile of bid-ask spread defined as 0.14%; 75th percentile defined as 0.75%).\n67\n \u201cIn determining efficiency, courts also consider the percentage of shares held by the public, rather than\ninsiders.\u201d Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n\n\n 25\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 30\n 31 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 75. Verrica\u2019s Common Stock had a market capitalization averaging $272.5 million and\n\nbetween 27.4 and 27.5 million shares outstanding during the Class Period. Furthermore, as can be\n\nseen in Exhibit 10, Verrica insiders held roughly 53.4% to 58.9% of Verrica\u2019s Common Stock\n\nduring the Class Period.68 As a result, approximately 41.1% to 46.6% of the Company\u2019s Common\n\nStock was held and freely tradeable by outside investors during the Class Period. Hence, the large\n\ndegree of public float for the Company\u2019s Common Stock supports the conclusion that Verrica\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n I. Additional Factor: Institutional Ownership\n 76. I also analyze an additional indicator of market efficiency: the presence of\n\ninstitutional investors.69 Institutional investors are pension funds, endowments, mutual funds,\n\ninvestment banks, hedge funds, and other sophisticated investors who have significant resources\n\nto allocate to investing decisions. These investors can improve market efficiency by digesting new\n\npublic information and making investment decisions over large block holdings of shares, thus\n\ncausing the new information to be quickly impounded into stock prices. Thus, the presence of\n\ninstitutional shareholders can be an indicator of market efficiency.\n\n 77. I report the total institutional ownership of Verrica in Exhibit 10, which shows that\n\nat least 69-72 institutions held the stock in a given quarter during the Class Period, and at least 124\n\ndifferent institutions held the stock at some point throughout the Class Period. By comparison, the\n\nMRK Study found that the MRK Sample firms had a median of only nine institutional investors\n\nwhile the MRK Covered firms had a median of 40 institutional investors.70 Verrica\u2019s institutional\n\n68\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n69\n See, e.g., In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586, 614 (C.D. Cal. 2009); In re\nHealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 257 F.R.D. 260, 281 (N.D. Ala. 2009) (\u201c[T]he majority of HealthSouth\u2019s\nshares were owned by large sophisticated institutions. These facts further demonstrate that HealthSouth\u2019s\nstock traded in an efficient market.\u201d); In re Winstar Commc\u2019ns Sec. Litig., 290 F.R.D. 437, 449 n.16\n(S.D.N.Y. 2013).\n70\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n\n\n 26\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 31\n 32 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nownership base greatly exceeds both of these levels. On average, institutional investors held 22.2%\n\nof Verrica\u2019s Common Stock outstanding during the Class Period. This level placed it between the\n\n10th and 25th percentile of NYSE and NASDAQ traded companies.71 Thus, the significant\n\ninstitutional ownership base for Verrica\u2019s Common Stock supports the conclusion that Verrica\n\ntraded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n VI. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis\n 78. I have also been asked to opine on whether per-share damages for traders of\n\nVerrica\u2019s Common Stock can be assessed for all Class members based upon a methodology\n\ncommon to all Class members and consistent with Plaintiff\u2019s theories of liability. As discussed\n\nbelow, damages for each of Plaintiff\u2019s claims can be calculated on a class-wide basis through a\n\ncommon methodology.\n\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of \u00a7\u00a710(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act\n 79. For the \u00a710(b) claims, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants\u2019 materially false and/or\n\nmisleading statements and/or failures to disclose artificially inflated the market price of Verrica\u2019s\n\nCommon Stock, and caused Class members to purchase Verrica\u2019s Common Stock at artificially\n\ninflated prices.72 Plaintiff also claims certain Defendants are liable as control persons under\n\n\u00a720(a).73\n\n 80. The \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method of calculating damages represents a standard and well-\n\naccepted methodology under \u00a710(b) of the Exchange Act. This approach calculates investor\n\n\n71\n Bhole Study at 106: 10th percentile defined as institutional ownership of 13.48% of shares outstanding;\n25th percentile defined as 33.58%. I note that the 2016-2018 subsample time period is the most recent period\nreported in the Bhole Study.\n72\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6138-139, 153-155.\n73\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 157-160. \u00a720(a) provides that control persons shall be \u201cjointly and severally [liable] with and to\nthe same extent\u201d as the controlled person(s) that violated the securities law. 15 U.S.C. \u00a778t(a). Given\n\u00a720(a)\u2019s derivative nature, I understand that \u00a720(a) damages can be calculated using the same methodology\nfor assessing \u00a710(b) damages.\n\n\n 27\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 32\n 33 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\ndamages formulaically as the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor\n\npurchase minus the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor sale. If shares\n\nare not sold prior to the full revelation of the fraud, then the difference is relative to a 90-day\n\nlookback period under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).74 This\n\ncap on damages is also applied class-wide.\n\n 81. The claims process produces information necessary for the calculation of damages\n\nfor each Class member as inputs to the formula above, including the purchase and sale information\n\nfor the Class member\u2019s trades (including transaction dates and quantity of shares traded). This\n\ninformation is available from brokerage statements, trade blotters, and/or other documentation of\n\nsecurities transactions.\n\n 82. Another input to the above formula, the quantification of artificial inflation per\n\nshare, is based upon a detailed loss causation analysis. I have not been asked to perform a loss\n\ncausation analysis at this time, and such analysis often incorporates information produced during\n\ndiscovery. Nonetheless, the method employed to calculate artificial inflation can be applied class-\n\nwide as an input to the out-of-pocket formula. For example, event studies are widely employed to\n\ncalculate artificial inflation. Event studies measure stock price reactions to corrective disclosures\n\nwhich revealed the relevant truth that was concealed by alleged fraudulent schemes and\n\nmisrepresentations.75\n\n\n\n\n74\n The PSLRA states: \u201cin any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to establish\ndamages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed\nthe difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as appropriate, by the plaintiff for the\nsubject security and the mean trading price of that security during the 90-day period beginning on the date\non which the information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is\ndisseminated to the market.\u201d 15 U.S. Code \u00a778u-4 (codifying language).\n75\n In this report I conducted an event study to assist with the evaluation of market efficiency. My event study\nin this report was not intended to quantify artificial inflation.\n\n\n 28\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 33\n 34 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 83. To the extent that reliable evidence is introduced to show that a significant portion\n\nof the difference in artificial inflation between the purchase and sale of securities may be attributed\n\nto non-fraud related factors, the impact of such \u201cconfounding information\u201d on the price of\n\nVerrica\u2019s securities can be determined on a common, class-wide basis using various accepted\n\nmethodologies. The value of any confounding information can then be subtracted from the price\n\nimpact of corrective disclosures in calculating inflation. This process may rely upon additional\n\ninformation learned during discovery and will be based on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances in a given case.\n\n 84. A loss causation analysis also documents how artificial inflation per share evolved\n\nthroughout the Class Period. This determination depends on the specific set of facts and\n\ncircumstances for a given case and also could incorporate information produced through discovery.\n\n 85. One frequent method for modeling the evolution of inflation is to assume \u201cconstant\n\ndollar inflation.\u201d This assumes that per share inflation equaled a constant dollar amount above the\n\ncorrect share price over the Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates\n\nartificial inflation based upon the abnormal dollar value of stock price decline from an event study\n\naround one or more corrective disclosures.\n\n 86. Alternatively, one can measure \u201cconstant percentage inflation,\u201d which assumes that\n\neach share price was inflated by a constant percentage amount above the correct stock price over\n\nthe Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates artificial inflation based\n\nupon the abnormal percentage return in stock price from an event study around one or more\n\ncorrective disclosures.\n\n 87. In other instances, artificial inflation may have varied and could evolve throughout\n\nthe Class Period based on the timing of specific information or statements. In any of these\n\napproaches, the calculations of artificial inflation and any potential disaggregation of confounding\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 34\n 35 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\ninformation are based on the specific set of facts and circumstances in a given case and can involve\n\nvaluation techniques, event studies, published academic research studies, analyst research, or other\n\ncase-specific documents.\n\n 88. All of these loss causation calculations can be performed on a class-wide basis and\n\nare not dependent upon individual Class member identities or circumstances.\n\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate Alternative Findings\n 89. The damages methodology I have laid out above is flexible and able to incorporate\n\nalternative findings of fact regarding the quantification, as well as the timing, of artificial inflation\n\nand how it evolves over the Class Period. The methodology can be modified based on alternative\n\nfindings the finder of fact may determine, including, but not limited to any: (1) confounding\n\ninformation versus corrective information; (2) how to back-cast inflation over the Class Period;\n\nand (3) the first actionable fraudulent conduct or misstatement.\n\n 90. First, irrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury, determines is the\n\nappropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of corrective versus\n\nconfounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted into the standard damages model\n\nthat I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket formula. Regardless of how the jury weighs\n\nevidence, whether they find that any such disaggregation analysis I may conduct is the most\n\nappropriate, or they determine that based upon the evidence, a different amount is more\n\nappropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages calculation.\n\n 91. Second, should the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over the\n\nClass Period, my out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a scenario and can\n\nmechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 35\n 36 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 92. Third, should the jury decide that the first actionable misstatement or otherwise\n\nactionable fraudulent conduct happened at a date later than May 19, 2021, prior to such date,\n\ninflation could simply be set to zero.\n\n 93. If the jury determines that a change to inflation would be necessary over the Class\n\nPeriod, any such change can easily be incorporated into the model.\n\n 94. To summarize, I have not been asked to calculate damages in this matter. Such\n\nanalysis would depend on information produced in discovery and development of the case record.\n\nBased on my experience, qualifications, and understanding of the nature of the claims in this\n\nmatter, I conclude that Common Stock damages in this case can, however, be calculated using a\n\nstandard and well-established methodology, and can be applied on a class-wide basis.\n\n VII. Conclusion\n 95. In conclusion, based on my analysis of the market efficiency factors considered by\n\ncourts and in academia, it is my opinion that Verrica\u2019s Common Stock traded in an efficient market\n\nthroughout the Class Period. Moreover, it is my opinion that damages in this matter under \u00a7\u00a710(b)\n\nand 20(a) can be calculated on a class-wide basis utilizing a common methodology.\n\nI declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 36\n 37 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A\nZAHN BOZANIC\nFlorida State University Telephone: (850) 645-1521\nCollege of Business E-mail: zahn.bozanic@fsu.edu\n821 Academic Way, RBA 522 URL: business.fsu.edu/person/zahn-bozanic\nTallahassee, FL 32306\n\n\n\nACADEMIC INTERESTS\n Research: My primary research interests are in the areas of corporate disclosure, financial reporting\n misconduct, regulation, and enforcement.\n\n Teaching: I teach financial statement analysis (MAcc level) with an emphasis on data analytics\n and an accounting seminar (PhD level) which focuses on empirical research methods.\n\nEDUCATION\n Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University\n\n M.A., The University of Michigan \u2013 Ann Arbor\n\n B.A., The University of California \u2013 Berkeley\n\nACADEMIC EXPERIENCE\n Full Professor, Florida State University (2023-present)\n William Hillison Professor of Accounting\n Introduction to Accounting Research Seminar \u2013 PhD Level\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc Level\n\n Director of the PhD Program in Accounting (2019-2023)\n\n Associate Professor, Florida State University (2019-2023)\n\n Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University (2012-2019)\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc, MBA, and SMF Levels\n Financial Statement Analysis \u2013 Undergraduate Level\n\n Research Fellow, The National Center for the Middle Market (2012-2016)\n\n Instructor, The Pennsylvania State University (2008-2009)\n Intermediate Financial Accounting\n Introduction to Financial and Managerial Accounting\n\nPUBLICATIONS\n 18. \u201cSelective Information Channels for Investment Research\u201d with Dan Amiram, Mark Bradshaw,\n and Oded Rozenbaum. Review of Accounting Studies, forthcoming.\n\n\n A-1\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 37\n 38 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n17. \u201cManaging Expectations through Budgetary Slack: Evidence from Project Financing\u201d with\n Andrew Ferguson and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich. European Accounting Review, 2024, Vol33(4), 1603-1638.\n\n16. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Credit Analysts\u2019 Soft Rating Adjustments\u201d with Pepa Kraft and\n Andrea Tillet. European Accounting Review, 2023, Vol. 32(4), 779-807. [Lead Article]\n\n15. \u201cHave SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 Improved the Financial Reporting for Securitizations?\u201d with\n Minkwan Ahn, Sam Bonsall, Yiwei Dou, Gordon Richardson, and Dushyant Vyas. Journal of Business\n Finance & Accounting, 2020, Vol. 47(7-8), 821-857. [Lead Article]\n\n14. \u201cAnalyst Contrarianism\u201d with Jing Chen and Michael Jung. Journal of Financial Reporting, 2019, Vol.\n 4(2), 61-88.\n\n13. \u201cSecurities Law Expertise and Corporate Disclosure\u201d with Preeti Choudhary and Ken Merkley.\n The Accounting Review, 2019, Vol. 94(4), 141-172.\n\n12. \u201cFinancial Reporting Fraud and Other Forms of Misconduct: A Multidisciplinary Review of\n the Literature\u201d with Dan Amiram, James Cox, Quentin Dupont, Jon Karpoff, and Richard Sloan.\n Review of Accounting Studies, 2018, Vol. 23(2), 732-783.\n Ranked Top 10 by RAST for both downloads and citations\n\n11. \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d with Maria\n Loumioti and Florin Vasvari. Journal of Accounting Research, 2018, Vol. 56(1), 45-83.\n\n10. \u201cSoft Information in Loan Agreements\u201d with Lin Cheng and Tzachi Zach. Journal of Accounting,\n Auditing and Finance, 2018, Vol. 33(1), 40-71.\n\n9. \u201cManagement Earnings Forecasts and Other Forward-Looking Statements\u201d with Darren\n Roulstone and Andy Van Buskirk. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2018, Vol. 65(1), 1-20. [Lead\n Article]\n\n8. \u201cSEC Comment Letters and Firm Disclosure\u201d with J. Richard Dietrich and Bret Johnson.\n Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2017, Vol. 36(5), 337-357.\n\n7. \u201cIRS Attention\u201d with Jeff Hoopes, Jake Thornock, and Brady Williams. Journal of Accounting\n Research, 2017, Vol. 55(1), 79-114. [Data]\n\n6. \u201cThe Ex-Ante Monitoring Role of Accounting Covenants in Public Debt\u201d Journal of Business\n Finance & Accounting, 2016, Vol. 43(7), 803-829. [Lead Article]\n\n5. \u201cFinancial Statement Errors: Evidence from the Distributional Properties of Financial\n Statement Numbers\u201d with Dan Amiram and Ethan Rouen. Review of Accounting Studies, 2015, Vol.\n 20(4), 1540-1593. [Data]\n Winner of the Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award and FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award;\n Featured in Audit Analytics\u2019 Accounting Quality and Risk Matrix (AQRM) and Bloomberg Terminal\u2019s AQRM App\n\n4. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Changes in Sell-Side Financial Analysts\u2019 Information\n Environment\u201d with Maya Thevenot. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2015, Vol. 32(4), 1595-1616.\n\n3. \u201cWhat Do Management Earnings Forecasts Convey About the Macroeconomy?\u201d with Sam\n Bonsall and Paul Fischer. Journal of Accounting Research, 2013, Vol. 51(2), 225-266. [Lead Article]\n\n\n A-2\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 38\n 39 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n 2. \u201cThe Social Constitution of Regulation: The Endogenization of Insider Trading Laws\u201d with\n Mark Dirsmith and Steve Huddart. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 2012, Vol. 37(7), 461-481.\n\n 1. \u201cManagerial Motivation and Timing of Open Market Share Repurchases\u201d Review of\n Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2010, Vol. 34(4), 517-531.\n\nWORKING PAPERS\n 7. \u201c(Unwanted) SEC Attention and Voluntary Disclosure\u201d with Andrea Down and Chris Williams\n\n 6. \u201cProcessing Customer News: The Role of Media Coverage\u201d with Bruce Billings, Alyssa Moore,\n and Spencer Pierce (TAR, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 5. \u201cSystemic Risk and Bank Disclosure\u201d with Christina Synn and Chris Williams\n\n 4. \u201cThe Relative Persistence of Earnings Components\u201d with Paul Fischer and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich\n\n 3. \u201cNot All Critical Audit Matters (CAM) Are the Same: Anti-Herding Behavior in CAM\n Disclosures\u201d with Will Anding and Allen Blay (JBFA, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 2. \u201cThe Regulatory Observer Effect: Evidence from SEC Investigations\u201d with Terrence\n Blackburne, Bret Johnson, and Darren Roulstone (RAST, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 1. \u201cOn the Role of Jour-Analysts in Capital Market Information Intermediation\u201d with Minkwan\n Ahn, Francine McKenna, and Maya Thevenot.\n\nPROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\n Wells Fargo Bank 2004-2005\n Financial Consultant - Internal consultant to retail banking segment which focused on distribution\n planning. Maintained financial models and databases; conducted ad-hoc research projects to measure\n the profitability of various strategies pre- and post-implementation.\n Product Manager - Managed several retail products which generated annual fee revenues in excess of\n $80MM. Responsible for establishing strategic marketing programs for product enhancement and new\n products including identification of market segments, product positioning, pricing and profitability.\n\n Linsco / Private Ledger (LPL) Brokerage 2003-2004\n Investment Advisor - Solidified relationships with client base through full-service financial planning;\n managed back office financial operations, including cultivation of broker/dealer and wholesaler\n relationships.\n\n The William Davidson Institute 2001-2003\n Center Administrator - Responsible for establishing, implementing, and streamlining the data center\u2019s\n operations. Collected, archived, and disseminated data on transition and emerging market economies.\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 39\n 40 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n Tozzi Financial Research and Trading Center 2002-2003\n Programmer Analyst - Maintained the trading room\u2019s daily activities, assisted users with their financial\n data/modeling needs, and trained users on a variety of valuation and risk management software\n platforms.\n\nINVITED PRESENTATIONS\nINSEAD (2024) University of Toronto (2016)\nHEC Paris (2024) Tilburg University (2016)\nUniversity of Cyprus (2024) ESMT (2016)\nVirginia Tech (2023) FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2015)\nUniversity of Arizona (2023) Georgetown University (2015)\nTokyo Keizai University (2023) Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2015)\nKobe University (2023) The University of California - Berkeley (2014)\nUniversity of Buffalo (2023) The Securities and Exchange Commission (2014)\nUniversity of Pittsburgh (2022) Florida Atlantic University (2014)\nUniversity of Memphis (2022) Singapore Management University (2014)\nUniversity of Florida (2022) Nanyang Technological University (2014)\nIowa State University (2022) Dartmouth College (2014)\nVanderbilt University (2021) Syracuse University (2014)\nThe Pennsylvania State University (2020) CFEA (2010-2011, 2013-2014)\nThe University of Rochester (2018) HKUST Accounting Symposium (2013)\nLondon School of Economics (2018) CUNY - Baruch (2013)\nIESE Business School (2018) The University of Texas - Austin (2013)\nFlorida State University (2018) The University of California - Irvine (2012)\nWest Virginia University (2018) The University of Miami (2012)\nUniversity of Louisville (2018) The University of Michigan (2012)\nWilliam & Mary (2018) Journal of Accounting Research Conference (2012)\nTexas A&M University (2017) Carnegie Mellon University (2011)\nRice University (2017) Cornell University (2011)\nUniversity of Missouri (2017) The Ohio State University (2011)\nUniversity of Florida (2017) Purdue University (2011)\nUniversity of Illinois (2017) The University of Utah (2011)\nGWU Cherry Blossom Conference (2017) Washington University (2011)\nUniversity of Notre Dame (2016) Midwest Accounting Conference (2010)\nColumbia Business School (2016)\n\n\nCONFERENCES\n Contemporary Accounting Research Conference (2012-2013, 2015, 2020-2024)\n Review of Accounting Studies Conference (2015, 2017-2018, 2020-2023)\n Rotman Accounting Research Conference (2023)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2018, 2023)\n LBS Private Equity Symposium (2022)\n USC Emerging Tech in Accounting Conference (2022)\n Deloitte Foundation Faculty Consortium (2022)\n FSU SunTrust Beach Conference (2022)\n AAA Audit Mid-Year Meeting (2022)\n\n\n\n\n A-4\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 40\n 41 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n Tilburg Accounting Winter Camp (2020-2021)\n European Accounting Review Conference (2020-2021), discussant\n Florida Accounting Symposium (2021)\n CAFR Fundamental Analysis Symposium (2020)\n KPMG Ph.D. Project ADSA Conference (2020), panelist\n Accounting Horizons Data Analytics Conference (2019)\n KPMG Faculty Symposium (2019)\n LBS Accounting Symposium (2017, 2018)\n Harvard Business School IMO Conference (2018)\n Penn State Accounting Research Conference (2007-2011, 2014, 2018)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2014, 2017)\n Accounting, Organizations, and Society Conference (2017)\n BYU Accounting Research Symposium (2017)\n EAA Annual Congress (2017)\n NYU Accounting Summer Camp (2014, 2016)\n Minnesota Empirical Conference (2012, 2015-2016)\n Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2013, 2014, 2016)\n Colorado Summer Accounting Research Conference (2015)\n CARE Conference (2010, 2012-2013)\n FASB/IASB Financial Reporting Issues Conference (2012)\n Conference on Financial Economics & Accounting (2012)\n JAR \u2013 NY FED Conference (2012)\n AAA New Faculty Consortium (2012)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2010), moderator and discussant\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2010), doctoral consortium\n CFRM Conference on Financial Reporting (2009)\n Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (2009)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2009), discussant\n\nEXTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference, Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2023-2025)\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award Committee (2024)\n Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Advisory Committee Member (2020-2022)\n EAA Annual Congress, Scientific Committee Member (2020-2021)\n FARS Nominating Committee (2018-2019)\n COSO/ACFE Fraud Risk Management Guide, Advisory Panel Member and Contributor (2016)\n CARE Conference Co-Organizer (2016)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting, Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2015)\n\n Editorial Boards\n The Accounting Review\n European Accounting Review\n Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting & Public Policy\n The International Journal of Accounting (Editor)\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 41\n 42 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n Ad-hoc Journal Referee\n Journal of Accounting Research Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\n The Accounting Review Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance\n Review of Accounting Studies Journal of Accounting and Public Policy\n Contemporary Accounting Research The International Journal of Accounting\n Management Science Journal of Corporate Finance\n Accounting, Organizations and Society Journal of Empirical Finance\n Journal of Management Accounting Research Regulation and Governance\n Journal of Financial Reporting Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting\n European Accounting Review Journal of International Business Studies\n Accounting Horizons Pacific-Basin Finance Journal\n Journal of Accounting Literature Abacus\n\n Ad-hoc Conference Referee\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference (2022)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2014, 2016-2017, 2019, 2021-2023)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2013)\n AAA Ohio Regional Meeting (2012)\n\nINTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\nFlorida State\n Florida Accounting Symposium Committee\n Strategic Planning Committee\n Faculty Evaluation Committee\n Accounting Doctoral Program Committee\n Research Funding Committee\n Professional Development Seminar Co-Coordinator (2020-2022)\n Recruiting Committee (2019-2023)\n Accounting PhD Program Director (2019-2023)\n Doctoral Program Policy Committee (2019-2023)\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Will Anding, 2025 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Texas - San Antonio)\n Andrea Tillet, 2022 (Chair, Initial Placement: University of Wisconsin - Madison)\n\nOhio State\n Faculty Senate\n Recruiting Committee\n PhD Program Committee\n MAcc Program Committee\n KPMG MAcc Data Analytics Initiative\n MIS Program Committee\n Accounting MBA Program Committee\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Danyang Jiang, 2019 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Intl. Business and Economics)\n Aaron Nelson, 2018 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Georgia)\n Bret Johnson, 2015 (Member, Initial Placement: George Mason University)\n Burns Research Colloquium Coordinator\n PhD Student Pre-Colloquium Coordinator\n\n\n\n\n A-6\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 42\n 43 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n Summer Brown Bag Workshop Coordinator\n Graduate Faculty Representative\n Graduate Studies Committee\n\nOUTSIDE ACTIVITIES\nEconomic Litigation Consulting\n I provide economic litigation consulting and support on cases related to financial reporting misconduct,\n including, but not limited to, misleading corporate disclosures, accounting fraud, and insider trading.\n\nExpert Witness Experience\n In re CleanSpark Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-511 (LAP). Report January 2025; Deposition\n February 2025; Report May 2025.\n In re Freshworks Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06750-CRB. Report March 2025; Report April\n 2025.\n In re Teleperformance SE Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-24580-CIV-ALTONAGA/REID (S.D. FL).\n Report November 2024; Deposition December 2024.\n\nACADEMIC AWARDS & HONORS\n FARS Best Dissertation Supervision Award\n EAR Excellence in Reviewing Recognition\n William Hillison Professorship\n Faculty Leadership Development Program\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award\n The National Center for the Middle Market Research Fellowship\n Ossian R. MacKenzie Doctoral Teaching Award\n Smeal Competitive Dissertation Award\n G. Kenneth Nelson Scholarship\n Smeal Doctoral Research Grant\n Jane O. Burns Graduate Scholarship\n Center for the Study of Finance Graduate Fellowship\n\nMEDIA MENTIONS\n \u201cExxonMobil, Impairments, and the SEC\u201d \u2013 Audit Analytics, January 2021\n \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law\n School Blue Sky Blog, June 2018\n \u201cUsing Benford\u2019s Law to Assess Financial Reporting Quality\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog,\n February 2016\n \u201cThe SEC Never Reads 74% of Filings, Putting Investors at Risk\u201d \u2013 Marketwatch.com, October 2015\n \u201cOn the Role of Companies\u2019 External Securities Law Advisors \u2013 Facilitators or Gatekeepers?\u201d\n \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog, October 2015\n\n\n\n A-7\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 43\n 44 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n \u201cAccountants Increasingly Use Data Analysis to Catch Fraud\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, December 2014\n \u201cIRS Pays Attention to Corporate Filings, Study Shows\u201d \u2013 Compliance Week, November 2014\n \u201cIRS Scanning 10-Ks for Tax Data, Report Finds\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, November 2014\n \u201cA New Tool to Detect Financial Reporting Irregularities\u201d\n \u2013 The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, July 2014\n \u201cThe Simple Mathematical Law That Financial Fraudsters Can\u2019t Beat\u201d \u2013 Forbes, May 2014\n \u201cFinancial Fraud Detection Now as Simple as 1, 2, 3\u201d \u2013 PR Newswire, May 2014\n \u201cThe Search for Suspect Accounting\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, April 2014\n \u201cEarnings Bode Ill for Stocks\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, June 2012\n\nPOLICY MENTIONS\n U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Arksansas Teacher Retirement\n System, et al., March 2021\n Comment to the SEC re Concept Release on Regulation S-K Disclosures by U.S. Senate Permanent\n Subcommittee on Investigations, July 2016\n Capital Unbound: Remarks at the Cato Summit on Financial Regulation by SEC Commissioner Michael\n S. Piwowar, June 2015\n\nIMPACT METRICS\n SSRN Downloads: ~13,700 (~1000 per downloadable paper)\n Google Scholar (BYU) Citations: 2,374 (2,169)\n h-index (i10-index): 16 (18)\n\nPERSONAL INTERESTS\n Running, Yoga, Swimming, Weightlifting, Tennis\n\nLINKS\n BYU Rankings Google Scholar SSRN\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 44\n 45 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B\n Documents Considered\n\nCourt Documents:\n\n \u2022 Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,\n dated January 26, 2024 (Doc. 40).\n \u2022 Memorandum Opinion, dated September 3, 2024 (Doc 48).\n\nCourt Decisions and Securities Law:\n\n \u2022 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n\n \u2022 Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1989).\n\n \u2022 Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n\n \u2022 Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal. 2016).\n\n \u2022 In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586, 614 (C.D. Cal. 2009).\n\n \u2022 In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 257 F.R.D. 260, 281 (N.D. Ala. 2009).\n\n \u2022 In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005).\n\n \u2022 In re Winstar Commc\u2019ns Sec. Litig., 290 F.R.D. 437, 449 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).\n\n \u2022 Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n\n \u2022 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, December 1995.\n\nAcademic Literature:\n\n \u2022 Amiram, D., Bozanic, Z., Bradshaw, M., and Rozenbaum, O., 2025. Review of Accounting\n Studies, forthcoming.\n\n \u2022 Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the\n Indicators of Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law\n\n \u2022 Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency Indicators\n for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review\n\n \u2022 Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S., and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading,\n and Volatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies\n\n\n\n\n B-1\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 45\n 46 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News, Volatility, and Betas.\n Journal of Finance\n\n \u2022 Fair, R., 2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business\n\n \u2022 Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance\n\n \u2022 Ferrillo, P., Dunbar, F., and Tabak, D., 2004. The Less Than Efficient Capital Markets\n Hypothesis: Requiring More Proof From Plaintiffs in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases, St.\n John\u2019s Law Review\n\n \u2022 Lee, C. and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\n Proxies. Journal of Financial Economics\n\n \u2022 MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\n Literature\n\n \u2022 Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud\n Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Business Lawyer\n\n \u2022 Mola, S., Rau. P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\n Coverage? The Accounting Review\n\n \u2022 Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the Regulatory\n Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems\n\n \u2022 Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements:\n The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\n Accounting\n\nData Sources:\n\n \u2022 Bloomberg\n\n \u2022 Factiva\n\n \u2022 Investext\n\n \u2022 S&P Capital IQ\n\n \u2022 SEC Edgar\n\n \u2022 Verrica Press Releases\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 46\n 47 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nOther:\n\n \u2022 https://www.bls.gov\n\n \u2022 https://www.investor.gov\n\n \u2022 https://www.sec.gov\n\n \u2022 Analyst reports from Counsel.\n\n \u2022 All data and documents cited throughout this report.\n\n\n\n\n B-3\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 47\n 48 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 1\n\n VRCA Common Stock Closing Price and Trading Volume\n May 19, 2021 - May 24, 2022\n 16 1.8\n\n 14 1.6\n\n 1.4\n\n\n\n\n Volume (millions of shares)\n 12\n 1.2\n 10\n Price ($)\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 8\n 0.8\n 6\n 0.6\n 4\n 0.4\n\n 2 0.2\n\n 0 0\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n Volume Closing Price\n\n\n Data source: Bloomberg.\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 48\n 49 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 2\n\n VRCA Common Stock Weekly Trading Volume\n May 19, 2021 - May 24, 2022\n 14%\n\n\n 12%\n\n\n 10%\n\n\n 8%\n\n\n 6%\n\n\n 4%\n Average Weekly Trading Volume\n Over the Class Period: 1.92%\n 2%\n\n\n 0%\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n Weekly Volume as % of Shares Outstanding Average Weekly Volume as % of Shares Outstanding\n\n\n Notes: Average weekly trading volume is calculated by analyzing each group of five consecutive trading\n days (rather than calendar weeks) starting with the first day of the Class Period. As the last week of the\n Class Period consists of only two trading days, the volume figure for this week is scaled by 5/2.\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar.\n\n\n\n\n E-2\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 49\n 50 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 3\n Verrica Analyst Coverage\n May 19, 2021 \u2013 May 24, 2022\n\n Analyst Name Reports Issued During the Class Period\n RBC Capital Markets 14\n H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC 11\n Needham & Company Inc. 11\n BuySellSignals Research 8\n Northland Securities 7\n Cowen and Company 6\n Sadif Analytics Prime 5\n GlobalData 4\n Jefferies 4\n ValuEngine, Inc 4\n Wright Reports 3\n PriceTarget Research 1\n Sadif Analytics 1\n The Insight Partners 1\n Total 80\n\n\n Data Sources: Counsel, Investext.\n\n\n\n\n E-3\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 50\n 51 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 4\n\n Coefficients from Rolling Event Study Regressions\n May 19, 2021 - May 25, 2022\n 2.5\n\n\n 2\n\n\n 1.5\n\n\n 1\n\n\n 0.5\n\n\n 0\n\n\n -0.5\n\n\n -1\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n S&P 1500 Total Return Index NASDAQ Biotechnology Index\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, Verrica Press Releases, Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n E-4\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 51\n 52 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 5\n\n Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) from Rolling Event Study Regressions\n May 19, 2021 - May 25, 2022\n 0.07\n\n\n 0.06\n\n\n 0.05\n\n\n 0.04\n\n\n 0.03\n\n\n 0.02\n\n\n 0.01\n\n\n 0\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, Verrica Press Releases, Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n E-5\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 52\n 53 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 6\n Verrica News Days and Common Stock Abnormal Returns\n Market Raw Abnormal Abnormal t- p-\n News Day Description\n Impact Date Return Return Return ($) Statistic Value\n Verrica Pharmaceuticals Announces Extension of FDA\n [1] May 28, 2021 -4.41% -5.01% -$0.59 -1.144 0.255 Review Period of its NDA for VP-102\n Verrica Pharmaceuticals Receives CRL From FDA On\n [2] Sep 21, 2021 -8.31% -9.44% -$1.14 -2.362 0.020 New Drug Application For VP-102\n Verrica Pharmaceuticals provides update on FDA\n [3] Nov 12, 2021 -1.91% -2.60% -$0.33 -0.647 0.519 approval of VP-102 in Q3 2021 earnings release\n Verrica Pharmaceuticals Announces Resubmission of\n [4] Nov 29, 2021 0.76% -0.80% -$0.08 -0.207 0.836 New Drug Application for VP-102\n Verrica Pharmaceuticals Announces Acceptance by FDA\n [5] Dec 16, 2021 -1.70% 0.39% $0.04 0.108 0.914 of NDA Resubmission for VP-102\n Verrica Receives Complete Response Letter from the\n [6] May 25, 2022 -63.85% -64.58% -$3.59 -23.759 0.000 FDA for its NDA for VP-102\n\n\n Notes: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 7.\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, Verrica Press Releases, Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n E-6\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 53\n 54 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 7\n Comparison of Statistical Significance on Verrica Common Stock\n for News Days vs. No News Days During the Analysis Period\n\n News Days No News Days p-Value of Difference\n\n N 6 185\n\n Significant Days at 95% Confidence Level 2 7\n\n % Significant Days at 95% Confidence Level 33.3% 3.78% 0.027\n\n Average Absolute Abnormal Return 13.8% 2.36% 0.315\n\n Average Volume (Millions) 1.51 0.08 0.241\n\n Notes: The event study estimations are based on rolling regressions of the 120 trading days preceding each\n date of analysis. The regression models control for the S&P 1500 Total Return Index (\u201cMarket Index\u201d) as\n well as the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (\u201cIndustry Index\u201d). The estimation windows exclude the alleged\n corrective disclosures, earnings and press releases published by the Company, and the News Days identified\n in Exhibit 6. P-Value of difference for significant News Days and No News Days found using a Fisher\u2019s\n Exactness Test. P-Value of difference for average absolute abnormal return and trading volume found using\n a t-test.\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar, Factiva, Verrica Press Releases.\n\n\n\n\n E-7\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 54\n 55 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 8\n\n VRCA Common Stock Market Capitalization\n May 19, 2021 - May 24, 2022\n 450\n\n 400\n\n 350\n Average Market Capitalization over the\n 300 Class Period: $272.5 million\n $ (millions)\n\n\n\n\n 250\n\n 200\n\n 150\n\n 100\n\n 50\n\n 0\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n Market Capitalization of Common Stock Average Market Capitalization Over the Class Period\n\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, SEC Edgar.\n\n\n\n\n E-8\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 55\n 56 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 9\n\n VRCA Common Stock Daily Bid-Ask Spread\n May 19, 2021 - May 24, 2022\n 3.0%\n\n\n 2.5%\n Average Bid-Ask Spread Over\n the Class Period: 0.59%\n 2.0%\n\n\n 1.5%\n\n\n 1.0%\n\n\n 0.5%\n\n\n 0.0%\n May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22\n\n Bid-Ask Spread as % of Bid-Ask Midpoint Average Bid-Ask Spread as % of Bid-Ask Midpoint\n\n\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n\n\n\n\n E-9\n\f Case\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n 2:22-cv-02226-KNS Document\n Document108-9\n 69-3 Filed\n Filed 06/13/25\n 12/12/25 Page\n Page 56\n 57 of\n of 56\n 57\n\n\n\n\nExhibit 10\n\n Total Insider Institutional Institutional\n Shares Institutions Insider Short Holdings as Institutional Holdings as Holdings as\n Quarter End Public Float\n Outstanding Owning Holdings Interest % of Shares Holdings % of Shares % of Public\n Stock Outstanding Outstanding Float\n [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] = [2] + [5] - [4] [7] = [4] / [2] [8] [9] = [8] / [2] [10] = [8] / [6]\n Jun 30, 2021 27,409,576 70 16,145,631 2,068,708 13,332,653 58.91% 6,626,437 24.18% 49.70%\n Sep 30, 2021 27,514,720 69 14,701,012 1,475,179 14,288,887 53.43% 5,851,514 21.27% 40.95%\n Dec 31, 2021 27,519,053 69 15,302,769 1,434,503 13,650,787 55.61% 5,751,807 20.90% 42.14%\n Mar 31, 2022 27,519,053 71 14,742,138 1,538,784 14,315,699 53.57% 5,656,983 20.56% 39.52%\n Jun 30, 2022 27,519,053 72 16,170,709 1,195,458 12,543,802 58.76% 6,592,647 23.96% 52.56%\n Total\n Class Period\n Unique 124 56.06% 22.17% 44.97%\n Average:\n Institutions:\n\n\n\n\n E-10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:13:34.371987-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":9,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727947","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit I - Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 2_22-cv-02","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528962/","id":484528962,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/10/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:12:00.074249-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:21:02.047273-07:00","sha1":"772489fd38ee4160aa21664d4508a8ece65dcda6","page_count":62,"file_size":1169505,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.10.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.10.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-10 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT J\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 2 of\n Page\n 62 4 of 238\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n\n\n Case No. 23-24580-CIV-ALTONAGA/REID\n CITY OF WARREN GENERAL\n EMPLOYEES\u2019 RETIREMENT CLASS ACTION\n SYSTEM, et al.,\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v.\n\n TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n EXPERT REPORT OF ZAHN BOZANIC, PH.D.\n\n November 5, 2024\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 3 of\n Page\n 62 5 of 238\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n I. Scope of Report and Opinions ..........................................................................................2\n II. Qualifications......................................................................................................................3\n III. Case Background and Alleged Fraudulent Scheme .......................................................5\n IV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency ........................................................................7\n V. Background and Overview of Teleperformance ADRs ..................................................8\n A. Background on ADRs and OTC Market ..................................................................8\n B. Overview of Teleperformance ADRs ....................................................................15\n VI. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for Teleperformance ADRs .......................17\n C. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume ...........................................18\n D. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage .....................................................................20\n E. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers .........................................................................22\n F. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility ..............................................23\n G. Cammer Factor 5: Cause and Effect Relationship Between Company\n Information and Stock Prices .................................................................................25\n H. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization .............................................................30\n I. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread ......................................................................32\n J. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float .............................................................................33\n VII. Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock Supports Market Efficiency of its ADRs ...........34\n VIII. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis ...................................................35\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of\n the Exchange Act ...................................................................................................36\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate Alternative\n Findings..................................................................................................................38\n IX. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................40\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 4 of\n Page\n 62 6 of 238\n\n\n\n\n I. Scope of Report and Opinions\n 1. Plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys have asked me to determine whether the market for\n\n Teleperformance SE\u2019s (\u201cTeleperformance\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) American Depositary Receipts\n\n (\u201cADRs\u201d) was efficient during the period February 20, 2020 to August 3, 2022, inclusive (the\n\n \u201cClass Period\u201d).\n\n 2. Plaintiffs have also asked me to opine on whether damages for investors trading in\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs during the Class Period can be calculated using a common methodology\n\n for all Class members that is consistent with Plaintiffs\u2019 claims under (i) Section 10(b) of the\n\n Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) and U.S. Securities & Exchange\n\n Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder (collectively, the \u201c\u00a710(b) claims\u201d), and (ii)\n\n Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.1\n\n 3. Based on my analysis to date and the evaluation of the factors described throughout\n\n this report, I have formed the following opinions:\n a. The market for Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs was efficient throughout the Class\n Period.\n b. The Cammer and Krogman factors accepted and applied by courts to assess\n market efficiency corroborate that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an\n efficient market.\n c. Though not necessary for a finding of market efficiency, the cause-and-\n effect relationship between new Company disclosures and resulting ADR\n price movements (which I analyze under the fifth Cammer factor) further\n shows that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market\n throughout the Class Period.\n d. Damages in this matter can be calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a\n standard, common methodology for Plaintiffs\u2019 pending claims. In\n particular, the out-of-pocket damages methodology, which is used in\n\n\n 1\n See Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc.\n 71) (\u201cComplaint\u201d); Order, dated Aug. 28, 2024 (Doc. 75) (the \u201cMTD Order\u201d). I understand\n Defendants to include Teleperformance, Daniel Julien (Chairman and CEO of Teleperformance),\n Olivier Rigaudy (Deputy CEO and Chief Financial Officer of Teleperformance), and Akash\n Pugalia (Global President of Trust & Safety at Teleperformance).\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 5 of\n Page\n 62 7 of 238\n\n\n\n\n virtually all Section 10(b) class action securities cases, is appropriate and\n applicable here.\n\n 4. The remainder of my report is organized as follows: Section II describes my\n\n qualifications. Section III summarizes the case background. Section IV briefly explains the bases\n\n for the reliance requirement and the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory relating to market efficiency.\n\n Section V provides background on ADRs and the OTC market as well as an overview of\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs. Section VI presents my analyses of the market efficiency factors for\n\n the ADRs during the Class Period. Section VII discusses how Teleperformance\u2019s common stock\n\n also supports the market efficiency of the ADRs. Section VIII addresses how damages can be\n\n calculated on a class-wide basis subject to a common methodology under Section 10(b). Section\n\n IX summarizes my conclusions.\n\n II. Qualifications\n 5. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Pennsylvania State University\n\n and am a tenured, full Professor of Accounting at Florida State University. I also hold the William\n\n Hillison Professorship of Accounting. I teach Ph.D. and Master\u2019s-level courses, present my\n\n research at universities and conferences both domestic and abroad, deliver guest lectures,\n\n participate in academic seminars, attend academic conferences, peer review academic work,\n\n organize academic conferences, and conduct research on areas related to accounting, finance,\n\n statistics, economics, and law.\n\n 6. My research focuses on topics related to corporate disclosure, debt contracting,\n\n financial intermediaries, financial reporting misconduct, regulation, and enforcement. More\n\n specifically, my research has examined periodic corporate disclosures (e.g., 10-K\u2019s, earnings press\n\n releases, etc.), earnings guidance, earnings management, earnings manipulation, financial\n\n statement irregularities, debt contracts (e.g., private bank loans and public bonds), debt covenants,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 6 of\n Page\n 62 8 of 238\n\n\n\n\n securitized debt, credit analysts, equity analysts, SEC comment letters, SEC requests for comment,\n\n and SEC investigations.\n\n 7. I have been engaged in university-level teaching and academic research for over 15\n\n years and continue to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals in accounting, economics, and\n\n finance. At the undergraduate level, I have taught courses on financial accounting, investments,\n\n valuation, and financial statement analysis. In addition, I have taught data analytics, valuation, and\n\n financial statement analysis at the Master\u2019s level as well as academic research seminars on\n\n empirical research methods in accounting at the doctoral level. I am an Editorial Board member of\n\n several peer-reviewed journals, and am an Editor at the International Journal of Accounting.\n\n 8. Before my current roles, I was a tenured, Associate Professor of Accounting and\n\n the Director of the Ph.D. Program in Accounting at Florida State University. Prior to then, I was\n\n an Assistant Professor of Accounting at the Ohio State University as well as a Research Fellow at\n\n The National Center for the Middle Market.\n\n 9. Prior to working for Ohio State, I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration\n\n from the Pennsylvania State University. Before my graduate work at Penn State, I was employed\n\n by Wells Fargo Bank as a Financial Consultant and Product Manager. I received an M.A. from the\n\n University of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.\n\n 10. I have published research in leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields of finance,\n\n accounting, and economics, including: Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting\n\n and Economics, The Accounting Review, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Review of\n\n Quantitative Finance and Accounting, and Journal of Financial Reporting, inter alia. My\n\n curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A, further details my publication record. I have presented\n\n my academic research at over 50 academic institutions, as listed in my curriculum vitae. I have\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n DocumentDocument\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10\n on FLSD\n FiledDocket\n 12/12/25\n 12/05/2024\n Page 7 of\n Page\n 62 9 of 238\n\n\n\n\n also received several awards and honors from my peers both nationally and globally related to my\n\n research, peer reviewing activities, and doctoral research supervision.\n\n 11. The materials I have considered in forming my opinions are listed and summarized\n\n in Appendix B. My time is billed at a rate of $900 per hour for my work on this matter. I have\n\n been assisted in this matter by staff at Cleveland Analytics, LLC working under my direction. My\n\n compensation is in no way contingent on the outcome of this case.\n\n 12. My work is ongoing, and I reserve the right to update my analyses and opinions\n\n based upon new information, discovery, expert reports, or other information that comes to my\n\n attention.\n\n III. Case Background and Alleged Fraudulent Scheme\n 13. Teleperformance is headquartered in Paris, France and has offices throughout the\n\n world, including the United States.2 The Company\u2019s common shares trade on the Paris Stock\n\n Exchange (ticker: TEP.PA) and the Company\u2019s ADRs trade on the Over-the-Counter (OTC)\n\n market in the United States (ticker: TLPFY).3 The Company provides customer experience\n\n management services tailored to specific client needs, including, for example, call center\n\n operations, employee recruitment, payment collection, and content moderation.4 The Complaint\n\n alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants claimed to provide a work environment that\n\n fostered employee well-being to include appropriate screening, training, safeguards, and support\n\n for its content moderators.5 The Complaint further alleges that content moderators were instead\n\n\n 2\n Complaint, \u00b6 7. The following overview section summarizes the allegations in the Complaint as\n context for Plaintiffs\u2019 claims. I make no findings or opinions as to these allegations, and the\n opinions I reach in other sections of this report regarding market efficiency and the calculation of\n damages are not tied to any specific allegations summarized herein.\n 3\n Id., \u00b6 7.\n 4\n Id., \u00b6 13.\n 5\n Id., \u00b6 14.\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10on FLSD\n Filed 12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 8 ofPage\n 62 10 of\n 238\n\n\n\n subjected to \u201cgrotesque and horrifying working conditions,\u201d from the exposure to training\n\n materials regarding the sexual abuse of children to inadequate psychological care.6\n\n 14. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a\n\n fraudulent scheme and course of business, misled investors, and made materially false and\n\n misleading statements and omissions relating to the screening and hiring of its content moderators,\n\n their training and safeguards, as well as on-going support for moderators.7\n\n 15. The Complaint alleges that the relevant truth was revealed to investors on August\n\n 4-5, 2022 following the publication of a Forbes article.8 Based on accounts from current and\n\n former Teleperformance content moderators, the article revealed that moderators were allegedly\n\n exposed to \u201csexually exploitative\u201d images of children as part of their training and were \u201cunder-\n\n trained and overworked.\u201d 9 The article further revealed that Teleperformance\u2019s practices allegedly\n\n had adverse effects on moderators to the point where some were \u201cstruggling to just function\n\n properly\u201d and had \u201cfeelings of suicide.\u201d10\n\n 16. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of Defendants\u2019 fraudulent scheme and course\n\n of business, misstatements, and omissions, investors traded Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock at\n\n artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.11 Exhibit 1 graphs the closing stock price and\n\n trading volume for Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock shares throughout the Class Period.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n Id., \u00b6 14.\n 7\n Id., \u00b6 42-46.\n 8\n Id., \u00b6 47.\n 9\n Id., \u00b6 47-48.\n 10\n Id., \u00b6 49.\n 11\n Id., \u00b6 12, 109.\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10on FLSD\n Filed 12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 9 ofPage\n 62 11 of\n 238\n\n\n\n IV. Bases for Opinions on Market Efficiency\n 17. I understand that, with respect to their claims under \u00a710(b), Plaintiffs assert the\n\n \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d theory of class-wide reliance, i.e., that all Teleperformance shareholders\n\n relied on the alleged misrepresentations (and the fraudulent schemes and acts underlying such\n\n misstatements and omissions) through their effect on stock prices in an informationally efficient\n\n market.12\n\n 18. As courts, including the Supreme Court, have explained, the \u201cfraud-on-the-market\u201d\n\n theory of class-wide reliance holds that investors trading securities in an informationally efficient\n\n market rely on any misrepresentations or material omissions of fact because those statements or\n\n material omissions of fact have distorted the value of each class member\u2019s purchase price. As the\n\n Supreme Court explained in its Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision:\n\n [I]n an open and developed securities market, the price of a\n company\u2019s stock is determined by the available material information\n regarding the company and its business . . . . Misleading statements\n will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do\n not directly rely on the misstatements . . . . The causal connection\n between the defendants\u2019 fraud and the plaintiffs\u2019 purchase of stock\n in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance\n on misrepresentations.13\n 19. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the availability of this theory to satisfy Section\n\n 10(b)\u2019s reliance requirement on a class-wide basis in Halliburton II:\n\n More than 25 years ago, we held that plaintiffs could satisfy the\n reliance element of the Rule 10b\u20135 cause of action by invoking a\n presumption that a public, material misrepresentation will distort the\n price of stock traded in an efficient market, and that anyone who\n purchases the stock at the market price may be considered to have\n done so in reliance on the misrepresentation. We adhere to that\n\n\n\n\n 12\n Id.\n 13\n Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 10 ofPage\n 62 12 of\n 238\n\n\n\n decision and decline to modify the prerequisites for invoking the\n presumption of reliance.14\n 20. A market is considered informationally efficient when the market price of securities\n\n quickly responds to publicly available information.15 In securities fraud cases, courts have\n\n endorsed the widely-cited five-factor test laid out in Cammer v. Bloom to evaluate whether a\n\n market is efficient for the purposes of establishing the presumption of reliance.16 Courts also accept\n\n additional factors for evaluating market efficiency found in another widely cited opinion, Krogman\n\n v. Sterritt.17\n\n 21. Research in accounting, economics, and finance support the factors cited by the\n\n Cammer and Krogman courts as indicators of market efficiency.18 However, as explained below,\n\n it is important to understand that an assessment of market efficiency does not hinge on any single\n\n factor; rather, it is an assessment of all the factors together that allows one to reach the conclusion\n\n that a market for a security is efficient.19\n\n V. Background and Overview of Teleperformance ADRs\n\n A. Background on ADRs and OTC Market\n 22. An American Depositary Receipt (ADR) is a \u201cnegotiable certificate that evidences\n\n an ownership interest in American Depositary Shares (ADSs) which, in turn, represent an interest\n\n\n\n 14\n Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n 15\n Academics often consider more stringent forms of market efficiency, e.g., defining an efficient\n market as one in which prices reflect all material, widely available public information up to the\n point that any marginal profits to be gained from trading on existing information do not exceed\n trading costs. See Fama, E.F., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance 46, at 1575.\n 16\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1292.\n 17\n Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n 18\n See, e.g., Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings\n Announcements: The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\n Accounting 57.\n 19\n Id., at 204-205.\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 11 ofPage\n 62 13 of\n 238\n\n\n\n in the shares of a non-U.S. company that have been deposited with a U.S. bank.\u201d20 ADRs allow a\n\n domestic investor to invest in the shares of a foreign issuer and allow the foreign issuer to access\n\n U.S. capital markets either to establish a trading presence or raise capital. An ADR is a dollar-\n\n denominated security and may trade on either a 1-1 share basis with a foreign issuer\u2019s shares or on\n\n a fractional or multiple share basis.21\n\n 23. To issue an ADR, a U.S. depository institution first acquires or receives shares of a\n\n foreign issuer. Because these shares are typically held at a foreign branch of the U.S. depository\n\n institution, they are termed American Depositary Shares. The depository institution then creates a\n\n receipt (i.e., an ADR) for a potential investor to trade his or her interest in the share in U.S. markets.\n\n A foreign issuer can work with a U.S. depository institution to issue ADRs on the foreign issuer\u2019s\n\n stock (i.e., \u201csponsored\u201d ADR) or a U.S. depository institution can issue ADRs without the\n\n cooperation of the foreign issuer (i.e., \u201cunsponsored\u201d ADR). While both sponsored and\n\n unsponsored ADRs are registered with the SEC via Form F-6, sponsored ADRs also require the\n\n foreign issuer to file an annual report with the SEC via Form 20-F. Furthermore, sponsored ADRs\n\n trade on major exchanges (e.g., NYSE, NASDAQ) whereas unsponsored ADRs trade in the OTC\n\n market.22\n\n 24. The OTC market is regulated by the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory\n\n Authority (FINRA) yet most stocks trading in this market are largely exempt from SEC registration\n\n\n\n\n 20\n Investor Bulletin: American Depositary Receipts, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission,\n August 2012.\n 21\n Id.\n 22\n Id. There are 3 levels of ADRs depending on the intent of foreign issuer and/or depository\n institution. While all 3 levels establish a trading presence, Level 1 are unsponsored and trade OTC,\n Level 2 trade on major exchanges, and Level 3 allows the foreign issuer to raise capital.\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 12 ofPage\n 62 14 of\n 238\n\n\n\n and filing requirements.23 Further, OTC stocks are traded outside of traditional exchanges, such as\n\n the NYSE or NASDAQ, and instead trading is facilitated by OTC Markets Group.24 OTC Markets\n\n Group offers electronic trading on three exchanges (OTCQX, OTCQB, and Pink) tiered by the\n\n \u201cquantity and quality\u201d of information provided.25 While stocks trading in the OTC market are\n\n sometimes characterized as \u201cpenny stocks\u201d of companies that offer very little information, low\n\n liquidity, and high volatility, the OTC market is intended to serve a variety of investor needs.26\n\n For example, the OTC market allows investors to trade large blocks of shares normally traded on\n\n a traditional exchanges to provide anonymity.27 In addition, the OTC market may be used to trade\n\n corporate bonds, government securities, or derivatives.28\n\n 25. Alternatively, some foreign issuers may have their shares traded in the U.S. OTC\n\n market to allow domestic investors\u2019 exposure to the foreign issuer\u2019s stock without the need for the\n\n foreign issuer to comply with domestic SEC registration and filing requirements:\n\n \u201cThe U.S. capital markets offer greater liquidity and deeper pool of\n sophisticated investors, skilled investment professionals and\n financial news and media outlets than any other market in the world.\n However, because of the fear of the registration with the U.S.\n Securities and Exchange Commission (the \u201cSEC\u201d), the cost of\n compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws, and the burden of\n meeting stock exchange cross-trading requirements, many\n\n 23\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/market-101/market-structure; White, J., 2016, Outcomes\n of Investing in OTC Stocks, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Division of Economic and\n Risk Analysis (DERA) White Paper, at pp. 1-2.\n 24\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/market-101/trading.\n 25\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/faqs.\n 26\n Low-Priced Stocks Can Spell Big Problems, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA),\n January 2024. (https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/low-priced-stocks-big-problems); Ang,\n A., Shtauber, A., and Tetlock, P., 2013. Asset Pricing in the Dark: The Cross-Section of OTC\n Stocks. The Review of Financial Studies 26, at p. 2986.\n 27\n Can You Swim in a Dark Pool?, FINRA, November 2023.\n (https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/can-you-swim-dark-pool).\n 28\n See https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-trading-markets/over-counter-market.\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 13 ofPage\n 62 15 of\n 238\n\n\n\n international companies elect not to have their securities traded in\n the United States. OTCQX International provides a cost-effective\n way for smaller foreign private issuers with securities cross-traded\n on a qualified foreign exchange to test the U.S. capital market waters\n and have their securities traded in the United States without SEC\n registration under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.\u201d29\n\n\n Further, in addition to having their common shares traded in their domestic market, some large\n\n foreign issuers may have ADRs, whether sponsored by the issuer or a U.S. depository institution,\n\n traded OTC on their foreign-issued shares. As a result, many large and well-known international\n\n stocks trade their ADRs in the U.S. OTC market, such as Mitsubishi (ticker: MTSUY), Airbus\n\n (ticker: EADSY), and LVMH-Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (ticker: LVMUY), among others,\n\n without having to comply with SEC registration and filing requirements.30\n\n 26. None of the above-mentioned stocks or ADRs could be characterized as a \u201cpenny\n\n stock\u201d since these shares traded at a range of $19.25 (MSBHF) to $657.133 (LVMHF) as of\n\n 10/17/2024 per OTC Markets Group.31 Furthermore, none of these stocks or ADRs carry OTC\n\n Markets Group\u2019s \u201cCaveat Emptor\u201d designation, which is intended to warn investors of stocks that\n\n could be characterized as \u201cpenny stocks\u201d insofar as they might be subject to\n\n misleading/manipulative promotion, investigation of fraud, or other concerns.32 Hence, even\n\n though the above-mentioned shares or ADRs are traded in the OTC market, they are not\n\n comparable to a typical \u201cpenny stock\u201d but rather are more comparable to a dual- or cross-stock\n\n listing from a well-established company trading on a major exchange that is widely-followed by\n\n\n\n\n 29\n Testing the Waters: Tapping U.S. Capital Markets without SEC Registration by Cross-Trading\n on OTCQX International, Seward & Kissel LLP, July 2021, at p. 1.\n 30\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com.\n 31\n Id.\n 32\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/caveat-emptor.\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 14 ofPage\n 62 16 of\n 238\n\n\n\n investors and analysts. This is further evidenced by the fact that instead of holding the ADR, an\n\n investor can choose to convert the ADR to its underlying security.33\n\n 27. Because ADRs represent the foreign issuer\u2019s underlying common stock, ADR\n\n prices derive their value from the foreign issuer\u2019s underlying common stock. Academic research\n\n has documented that the movement of the ADR\u2019s underlying shares, i.e., the foreign issuer\u2019s shares\n\n trading in the foreign issuer\u2019s country, is the factor that most influences ADR price movements.\n\n For example, Kim et al. (2000) document that \u201c\u2026innovations from each country's underlying\n\n shares explain substantial portion of innovations in the corresponding ADRs\u2026\u201d; similarly, Ely\n\n and Salehizadeh (2001) document that \u201c\u2026foreign markets are the more important source of\n\n information on the values of the equity values.\u201d; and Aquino and Poshakwale (2006) document\n\n that \u201c\u2026movements in the underlying shares are the most influential factor affecting ADR\n\n prices.\u201d34\n\n 28. While an ADR\u2019s price is derived from the foreign issuer\u2019s underlying shares, there\n\n may be temporary impediments to price transmission which could give rise to possible arbitrage\n\n opportunities. However, as Gagnon and Karolyi (2010) state: \u201cArbitrage is one of the central tenets\n\n of \ufb01nancial economics, enforcing the law of one price and keeping markets ef\ufb01cient. It is de\ufb01ned\n\n as the \u2018simultaneous purchase and sale of equivalent securities in two different markets in order to\n\n pro\ufb01t from discrepancies in their price relationship\u2019 (Bodie, Kane, and Marcus, 2009, p. 319).\u201d35\n\n 33\n Investor Bulletin: American Depositary Receipts, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission,\n August 2012.\n 34\n Kim, M., Szakmary, A., and Mathur, I, 2000. Price Transmission Dynamics Between ADRs and\n Their Underlying Foreign Securities, Journal of Banking & Finance 24, at p. 1368; Ely, D. and\n Salehizadeh, M., 2001. American Depositary Receipts An Analysis of International Stock Price\n Movements, International Review of Financial Analysis 10, at p. 359; and Aquino, K., and\n Poshakwale, S., 2006. Price Determinants of American Depositary Receipts (ADR): A Cross-\n sectional Analysis of Panel Data, Applied Financial Economics 16, at p. 1225.\n 35\n Gagnon, L. and Karolyi, G., 2010. Multi-Market Trading and Arbitrage, Journal of Financial\n Economics 97, at p. 53.\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 15 ofPage\n 62 17 of\n 238\n\n\n\n For example, because the underlying is priced in the currency of the foreign issuer while ADRs\n\n are dollar-denominated, foreign currency fluctuations could also affect ADR pricing.36 In addition,\n\n because of differences in the timing of trading hours between the U.S. and foreign exchanges, there\n\n may be a temporary delay in the impounding of information from the underlying to its ADR.37\n\n 29. Gagnon and Karolyi (2010) find that \u201c\u2026daily deviations from price parity among\n\n cross-listed pairs are, on average, economically small averaging around 4.9 basis points (as a\n\n percent of the home share price) and with a daily standard deviation of 1.4% for a typical stock\n\n pair.\u201d38 Similarly, Alsayed and McGroarty (2012) document that \u201c\u2026stock\u2013ADR arbitrage is\n\n characterized by a high incidence of small, short-lived, exploitable mispricings.\u201d39 Furthermore,\n\n they state that \u201cArbitrage is an important element in enforcing stock\u2013ADR parity, and is\n\n demonstrably successful at doing so. Our analysis constitutes evidence in support of Grossman\n\n and Stiglitz (1976, 1980) in that pricing anomalies incentivize arbitrageurs to restore price\n\n ef\ufb01ciency.\u201d40 Similarly, Kim et al. (2000) find that \u201cThe resulting mismatches between ADR and\n\n underlying security values are eventually eliminated by arbitrageurs, but the arbitrage activity is\n\n impeded by nonsynchronous trading times and transactions costs.\u201d41\n\n 30. Depending on the time of year (i.e., eastern standard or daylight time), there are up\n\n to two trading hours in a given calendar day where the open trading hours overlap between U.S.\n\n 36\n Kim, M., Szakmary, A., and Mathur, I, 2000. \u201cPrice Transmission Dynamics Between ADRs\n and Their Underlying Foreign Securities.\u201d Journal of Banking & Finance 24, at p. 1380.\n 37\n Id., at p. 1359.\n 38\n Gagnon, L. and Karolyi, G., 2010. Multi-Market Trading and Arbitrage, Journal of Financial\n Economics 97, at p. 54.\n Alsayed, H. and McGroarty, F., 2012. Arbitrage and the Law of One Price in the Market for\n 39\n\n American Depository Receipts. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and\n Money 22, at p. 1274.\n 40\n Id. (emphasis added).\n 41\n Kim, M., Szakmary, A., and Mathur, I, 2000. \u201cPrice Transmission Dynamics Between ADRs\n and Their Underlying Foreign Securities.\u201d Journal of Banking & Finance 24, at p. 1378.\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 16 ofPage\n 62 18 of\n 238\n\n\n\n and French markets. That is, the Paris Stock Exchange may be open for up to two hours at the end\n\n of their trading day while east coast traders in the U.S. begin their trading day. In the window of\n\n synchronous trading, Howe and Ragan (2002) find that \u201c\u2026the opening volatility of American\n\n depositary receipts (ADRs) is lower when the trading of the underlying asset overlaps trading of\n\n the ADR on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). This lower volatility is consistent with the\n\n notion that price discovery on the NYSE is enhanced by concurrent trading in the underlying\n\n market.\u201d42 Similarly, Figueiredo and Parhizgari (2018) find that \u201cRegarding market efficiency,\n\n based on the results obtained, we conclude that when the local market and the US market are\n\n simultaneously open for trading, ADR prices and their equivalent underlying local share prices\n\n trade within a tight band. This band is mostly within a 5-cent range on a minute-by-minute basis,\n\n making it difficult to find profitable arbitrage opportunities to exploit\u2026\u201d43\n\n 31. Hence, due to asynchronous trading, it often takes an extra calendar trading day for\n\n prices in the U.S. ADR market to reflect information from the foreign issuer\u2019s market, as evidenced\n\n in Mehanaoui (2017), who states: \u201cThis suggests that the prices of the French firms listed on the\n\n EURONEXT market lead the prices of their cross-listed shares on the NYSE market. Stated\n\n alternatively, lagged changes in the prices of French firms on the EURONEXT market lead to\n\n subsequent changes in the prices of ADRs on the NYSE. \u2026 Hence, markets are integrated, since\n\n differences in prices are temporary.\u201d44 These temporary differences in prices do not indicate\n\n inefficiency, but rather reflect price discovery consistent with Kim et al. (2000), Gagnon and\n\n Karolyi (2010), and Alsayed and McGroarty (2012). This is further consistent with informational\n\n\n 42\n Howe, J. and Ragan, K., 2002. Price Discovery and the International Flow of Information.\n Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 12, at p. 201.\n 43\n Figueiredo, A. and Parhizgari, A., 2018. Contemporaneous ADR pricing: intraday dynamics\n during overlapping trading hours. The European Journal of Finance 24, at p. 204.\n 44\n Mehanaoui, M., 2017. Financial Market Integration: Evidence from Cross-Listed French Firms.\n Journal of Risk and Financial Management 10, at p. 10.\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 17 ofPage\n 62 19 of\n 238\n\n\n\n efficiency insofar as prices are responding to information, albeit with delay given the asynchronous\n\n nature of trading across these markets.45\n\n B. Overview of Teleperformance ADRs\n 32. Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs are considered as Level 1 ADRs which trade OTC in the\n\n U.S. via OTC Markets Group on their Pink Exchange.46 Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs are registered\n\n with the SEC via Form F-6.47 Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs establish a trading presence in the U.S. to\n\n allow U.S. investors to indirectly invest in the underlying shares of Teleperformance trading in\n\n France. Alternatively, U.S. investors could directly invest in shares of Teleperformance trading in\n\n France. Several depository institutions facilitate the trading of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs, including\n\n JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, The Bank of New York Mellon, along with\n\n other depository institutions.48\n\n 33. As discussed above, some foreign issuers and depository institutions choose to\n\n trade on certain exchanges, such as OTC, in order to be exempt from SEC registration and filing\n\n requirements. Many foreign issuers are exempt from SEC registration and filing requirements by\n\n 45\n In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005). \u201cFor purposes of establishing\n the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, we adopt the prevailing definition of market\n efficiency, which provides that an efficient market is one in which the market price of the stock\n fully reflects all publicly available information. By \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 we mean that market price\n responds so quickly to new information that ordinary investors cannot make trading profits on the\n basis of such information. This is known as \u2018informational efficiency.\u2019 We reject a second and\n much broader meaning of \u2018fully reflect,\u2019 known as \u2018fundamental value efficiency,\u2019 which requires\n that a market respond to information not only quickly but accurately, such that the market price of\n a stock reflects its fundamental value.\u201d (emphasis added).\n 46\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/TLPFY/overview.\n 47\n \u201cDisclosure under Form F-6 relates only to the contractual terms of deposit under the deposit\n agreement and includes copies of the agreement, a form of ADR certificate, and legal opinions. A\n Form F-6 registration statement contains no information about the foreign private issuer. If a\n foreign private issuer with ADRs wishes to raise capital in the United States, it would separately\n file a registration statement on Form F-1, F-3 or F-4, as described earlier.\u201d See\n https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml.\n 48\n See https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1450682.\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 18 ofPage\n 62 20 of\n 238\n\n\n\n demonstrating SEC Rule 12g3-2b compliance.49 In the absence of SEC Rule 12g3-2b compliance,\n\n foreign issuers may still trade OTC under SEC Rule 15c2-1150 using the Large Company\n\n Exemption.51 My understanding is that Teleperformance is exempt from SEC registration and\n\n filing requirements yet trades OTC because, per OTC Markets Group, Teleperformance is\n\n considered to be a large, well-capitalized issuer with highly liquid securities \u201c\u2026that meet trading\n\n volume, asset and shareholder equity metrics, without complying with the information review\n\n requirement.\u201d 52 Furthermore, Teleperformance does not carry OTC Markets Group\u2019s \u201cCaveat\n\n Emptor\u201d designation, which, as mentioned above, is intended to warn investors of stocks that could\n\n be characterized as \u201cpenny stocks.\u201d\n\n 34. Hence, similar to other large and well-known international issuers traded in the U.S.\n\n OTC market on the Pink Exchange, Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs are not comparable to a typical\n\n \u201cpenny stock\u201d; rather, they are more comparable to a dual- or cross-stock listing from a well-\n\n established company trading on a major exchange that is widely-followed by investors and\n\n analysts. This is further evidenced by the fact that instead of holding Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs, an\n\n investor can choose to convert the ADR to its underlying security.\n\n\n\n 49\n \u201cThe exemption allows a foreign private issuer to have its equity securities traded in the U.S.\n over-the-counter market without registration under Section 12(g). The adopted rule amendments\n will eliminate the current written application and paper submission requirements under Rule 12g3-\n 2(b) by automatically exempting from Exchange Act Section 12(g) a foreign private issuer that\n meets specified conditions. Those conditions will require an issuer to maintain a listing of its equity\n securities in its primary trading market located outside the United States, and require it to publish\n electronically in English specified non-United States disclosure documents.\u201d Exemption from\n Registration Under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Foreign Private\n Issuers, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, September 2008, at p. 1.\n 50\n Publication or Submission of Quotations Without Specified Information, U.S. Securities &\n Exchange Commission, September 2020, at p. 121.\n 51\n International Reporting Standard: Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines, OTC Markets Group,\n March 2023, at p. 2.\n 52\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/glossary#large-company-exemption.\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 19 ofPage\n 62 21 of\n 238\n\n\n\n VI. Evaluation of Market Efficiency Factors for Teleperformance ADRs\n 35. I now turn to discuss the Cammer and Krogman factors and evaluate them in\n\n relation to Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs. To do so, I compare the factors\u2019 application to\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs against: (1) benchmarks established by courts; (2) scientific tests of\n\n statistical significance; and/or (3) findings from peer-reviewed, published academic research.\n\n 36. As discussed below, my analyses and findings on the various market efficiency\n\n factors support the conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market\n\n throughout the Class Period.\n\n 37. One academic study that I use for comparison purposes was published by Mola,\n\n Rau, and Khorana, which I refer to as the \u201cMRK Study.\u201d53 In this study, the authors examined two\n\n samples of firms. The first sample included companies that lost all analyst coverage (the \u201cMRK\n\n Sample\u201d firms); these firms had smaller market capitalizations, less trading volume, larger bid-ask\n\n spreads, and lower institutional ownership relative to analyst-covered firms, both before and after\n\n losing analyst coverage. The second sample included the analyst-covered firms (the \u201cMRK\n\n Covered\u201d firms), and the differences between the two samples in average and median market\n\n capitalization, trading volume, bid-ask spread, and institutional ownership were all statistically\n\n significant at the 99% level.54\n\n 38. The authors of the MRK Study summarize their findings as follows:\n\n This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms\n by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor\n interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at\n least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm\n both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm\u2019s\n future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for\n that firm\u2019s stock. . . . Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue\n\n\n 53\n Mola, S., Rau, P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\n Coverage? The Accounting Review 88, at pp. 667-705.\n 54\n MRK Study at 678, 681-682.\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 20 ofPage\n 62 22 of\n 238\n\n\n\n to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading\n volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant\n difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers.55\n\n 39. The authors describe these variables as reflective of investor interest: after losing\n\n analyst coverage, \u201cinvestor interest characteristics, such as market capitalization, trading volume,\n\n bid-ask spread, institutional holdings, and number of institutions, significantly worsen relative to\n\n [analyst-]covered peers.\u201d56 Therefore, I interpret the sample of MRK Covered firms as those\n\n eliciting high investor interest and reflect factors common to firms operating in efficient markets.\n\n 40. Below, I compare several of Teleperformance market efficiency factors to the\n\n samples of firms in the MRK Study to assess whether Teleperformance\u2019s characteristics are\n\n consistent with firms operating in efficient markets.\n\n C. Cammer Factor 1: Average Weekly Trading Volume\n 41. Trading volume refers to the number of shares of a security transacted between\n\n market participants. The greater the amount of buying and selling activity of a security, the more\n\n likely it is that new information will be quickly incorporated into the price of that security.57 Thus,\n\n trading volume is an indicator of how developed, liquid, and efficient the market is for a given\n\n stock.58 The first Cammer factor, stock trading volume, has been defined by the Cammer court\n\n using average weekly trading volume relative to shares outstanding. In setting a threshold of\n\n trading volume for the presumption of market efficiency, the court stated:\n\n Turnover measured by average weekly trading of 2% or more of the\n outstanding shares would justify a strong presumption that the\n\n 55\n MRK Study at 667.\n 56\n MRK Study at 681 (footnotes omitted).\n 57\n See, e.g., Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency\n Indicators for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review, at pp. 101-102. (the \u201cBhole\n Study\u201d); Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the\n Regulatory Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems 63, at p. 108; MRK Study at p. 681.\n 58\n Id.\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 21 ofPage\n 62 23 of\n 238\n\n\n\n market for the security is an efficient one; 1% would justify a\n substantial presumption.59\n\n\n 42. Exhibit 2 graphs Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 weekly trading volume as a fraction\n\n of ADRs outstanding throughout the Class Period.60 The average weekly trading volume was 2.1%\n\n of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs outstanding over the Class Period.61 This level of trading volume\n\n exceeds the 1% and 2% thresholds established by the Cammer court. I also note that investors\n\n could trade Teleperformance Common Stock on the Paris Stock Exchange (ticker: TEP.PA), with\n\n over 84 million shares traded during the Class Period.62 This indicates that the ADR trading volume\n\n represents only a small subset of the total trading opportunities for investors. As a result,\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s level of ADR trading volume throughout the Class Period supports the\n\n conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market throughout the Class\n\n Period.\n\n 43. Additionally, Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 daily turnover rate of 0.4% during the\n\n Class Period placed it above the 25th percentile of all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the\n\n NYSE from 2016-2018.63 (This represents a lower-bound comparison because it excludes the\n\n\n 59\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293 (quoting Bromberg, \u00a78.6).\n 60\n In this analysis, a \u201ctrading week\u201d consists of five consecutive trading days, which may not follow\n the calendar week.\n 61\n Throughout this report, I reasonably estimate the number of ADRs outstanding as the proportion\n of ADR dollar trading volume relative to the sum of ADR dollar trading volume and Common\n Stock dollar trading volume over the Class Period, which was 3.69%, multiplied by the number of\n Common Shares outstanding. Academic literature frequently measures the relative dollar trading\n volume of U.S. ADRs and foreign common stock. See, e.g., Chakravarty, S., Chiyachantana, C.,\n and Jiang, C., 2011. The Choice of Trading Venue and Relative Price Impact of Institutional\n Trading: ADRs vs. the Underlying Securities in their Local Markets. The Journal of Financial\n Research, at p. 541. I reserve the right to amend this report and my calculations if additional data\n becomes available regarding the number of ADRs outstanding throughout the Class Period.\n 62\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n 63\n Bhole Study at 102. The 25th percentile of daily turnover for the 2016-2018 sample period is\n 0.39%. The 2016-2018 subsample time period is the most recent period reported in this study.\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 22 ofPage\n 62 24 of\n 238\n\n\n\n significant trading volume of the Common Stock relative to the common stock trading measured\n\n in the Bhole Study). This further supports the conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in\n\n an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n D. Cammer Factor 2: Analyst Coverage\n 44. An analyst is someone, usually working for a financial institution such as a\n\n brokerage, bank, or investment bank, who studies financial information and trends for a specific\n\n company or industry. Analysts typically publish reports in which they assess recent company\n\n business developments, review historical financial performance and provide forecasts of future\n\n operating performance, or make investment recommendations, such as whether investors should\n\n buy, sell, or hold the company\u2019s stock.\n\n 45. Analyst coverage can be indicative of market efficiency since research analysts help\n\n to disseminate new important company-specific information to investors, thus impounding new\n\n information into stock prices quickly and efficiently. The Cammer court similarly stated:\n\n [I]t would be persuasive to allege a significant number of securities\n analysts followed and reported on a company\u2019s stock during the\n class period. The existence of such analysts would imply, for\n example, the [auditor] reports were closely reviewed by investment\n professionals, who would in turn make buy/sell recommendations to\n client investors.64\n\n\n 46. In Exhibit 3 I reviewed the analyst coverage of Teleperformance over the Class\n\n Period. I identified a total of at least 278 reports issued by analysts at 22 separate firms during that\n\n period.65 The list of analyst reports that I was able to identify includes reports by firms that\n\n conducted thorough and detailed research on Teleperformance and the industry within which it\n\n\n 64\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1286.\n 65\n These statistics represent a lower bound of the analyst coverage of Teleperformance because\n many analyst reports are provided directly to investors but are not captured by third-party data\n vendors.\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 23 ofPage\n 62 25 of\n 238\n\n\n\n operated, such as the reports prepared by analysts at Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, and Credit\n\n Suisse, among others. Collectively, this is a significant degree of analyst coverage which served\n\n to disseminate important new publicly available information to investors, including company\n\n news, financial performance, forecasts, and analyst commentary and recommendations.\n\n 47. This degree of analyst coverage compares favorably to that documented by\n\n academic research. For example, the MRK Study noted that 19% of U.S. firms covered by I/B/E/S\n\n received no analyst coverage in a given year.66 Further, Lee and So documented that, on average,\n\n firms were covered by between 0.765 and 7.614 analysts when ranking firms into deciles by the\n\n total number of analyst forecasts issued.67 In other words, many firms within the category of the\n\n least amount of analyst coverage in their sample were covered by only one or two analysts.\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s analyst coverage is consistent with the MRK Covered firms which elicited high\n\n investor interest.\n\n 48. Moreover, Teleperformance\u2019s high level of analyst coverage also placed it above\n\n the 90th percentile when compared with all companies listed on the NASDAQ and the NYSE from\n\n 2016-2018.68 The significant analyst coverage of Teleperformance during the Class Period\n\n supports the conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market throughout the\n\n Class Period.\n\n 49. In addition to the analyst coverage documented above, investors could access\n\n information about Teleperformance from a variety of other sources. For example, I conducted a\n\n search of press and news articles about Teleperformance using Factiva, a well-known provider of\n\n access to business news across a comprehensive set of publications. Factiva coverage includes\n\n\n 66\n MRK Study at 668.\n 67\n Lee, C., and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\n Proxies. Journal of Financial Economics 124, at 336. (see Table 1, Panel B \u2013 \u201cCOV\u201d).\n 68\n Bhole Study at 104 (90th percentile defined as 20.1 analysts).\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page ofPage\n 62 26 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Dow Jones Newswires, Reuters News, PR Newswire, Associated Press Newswires, Business Wire,\n\n and numerous other outlets. This search produced over 1,300 articles throughout the Class\n\n Period.69\n\n 50. As a result, the analyst coverage, number of analyst research reports produced, and\n\n substantial public dissemination of news and information about Teleperformance supports the\n\n conclusion that its ADRs traded in a well-developed and informationally efficient market\n\n throughout the Class Period.\n\n E. Cammer Factor 3: Market Makers\n 51. The third Cammer factor relates to securities trading outside of major exchanges,\n\n in over-the-counter markets without continuous reporting of trading volume. This factor examines\n\n market makers, which are firms that facilitate the buying and selling of shares among investors in\n\n a company\u2019s stock during trading hours.70 Market makers are present on major exchanges as well\n\n as over-the-counter markets. In particular, market makers can facilitate market efficiency in an\n\n over-the-counter market because they are:\n\n [P]resumably knowledgeable about the issuing company and the\n stocks\u2019 supply and demand conditions (i.e., the \u201corder flow\u201d).\n Therefore, it is believed the larger the number of market makers in\n a given security, the more information is available about it and the\n quicker its dissemination in the price.71\n 52. In evaluating market efficiency by looking at market makers, the Cammer court\n\n held:\n\n\n 69\n The articles were identified through a Factiva search of articles with Teleperformance\u2019s company\n tag from all available sources. After excluding potential duplicates, 912 unique news articles were\n identified by the search (which was limited to English language articles).\n 70\n \u201cA \u2018market maker\u2019 is a firm that stands ready to buy or sell a stock at publicly quoted prices.\u201d\n See https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/market-makers.\n 71\n Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators\n of Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law 19, at p. 291.\n\n\n 22\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 25 ofPage\n 62 27 of\n 238\n\n\n\n For over the counter markets without volume reporting, the number\n of market makers is probably the best single criterion. Ten market\n makers for a security would justify a substantial presumption that\n the market for the security is an efficient one; five market makers\n would justify a more modest presumption.72\n The court thus stated that market makers can be an important indicator of market efficiency for\n\n stock trading in an over-the-counter market without continuous trading volume reporting.\n\n 53. Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs had at least 32 market makers and brokers providing\n\n similar activity over the Class Period.73 The presence of more than 10 market makers thus supports\n\n the Cammer Court\u2019s \u201csubstantial presumption\u201d of the efficiency of the market for\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs throughout the Class Period.\n\n F. Cammer Factor 4: SEC Form S-3 Filing Eligibility\n 54. The fourth Cammer factor is SEC Form S-3 filing eligibility:\n\n [I]t would be helpful to allege the Company was entitled to file an\n S-3 Registration Statement in connection with public offerings or, if\n ineligible, such ineligibility was only because of timing factors\n rather than because the minimum stock requirements set forth in the\n instructions to Form S-3 were not met. Again, it is the number of\n shares traded and value of shares outstanding that involve the facts\n which imply efficiency.74\n\n\n 72\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1293; see also Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL\n 7406418, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (\u201cThe Court agrees that both the presence of a designated\n market maker and so many market makers in other trading venues weigh in favor of a finding of\n market efficiency.\u201d).\n 73\n See Bloomberg \u201cRANK\u201d function (\u201cRANK provides brokers\u2019 advertised trade volume\n on a post-trade basis, so you can analyze which brokers provide the greatest liquidity, assess how\n you rank against your peers, and evaluate the greatest liquidity providers in a corporation. RANK\n generates historical broker ranking reports, comparing broker activity in a single security or across\n an exchange, index, or portfolio, helping you trade with minimal market impact . . . RANK\n provides the equity market share data that is critical to helping buy-side firms identify which\n brokers potentially are the market makers in a stock in which they are interested, so that trading\n decisions can be made more accurately. Additionally, sell-side firms can demonstrate their\n historical ability to source liquidity for clients, while investment bankers can market their ability\n to manage their corporate finance clients\u2019 flow.\u201d).\n 74\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n\n\n 23\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 26 ofPage\n 62 28 of\n 238\n\n\n\n 55. Form S-3 filing eligibility allows companies to file a shortened form with the SEC\n\n in order to raise capital, by providing references to previous SEC filings as opposed to repeating a\n\n large quantity of information. This eligibility includes the following requirements: the registrant\n\n has a class of securities subject to the Exchange Act, the registrant has filed all necessary filings\n\n with the SEC in a timely manner for the past 12 months, the registrant has a float of at least $75\n\n million, and the registrant has not failed to pay any dividend or sinking fund installment on\n\n preferred stock or defaulted on any material debts or leases.75 The rationale behind this factor as\n\n discussed by the Cammer court is that a company which makes timely financial filings with\n\n regulators implies that investors have timely access to publicly available information about the\n\n issuer.\n\n 56. My understanding is that Teleperformance did not have a class of securities subject\n\n to the Exchange Act\u2019s filings requirements during the Class Period, and thus was not eligible to\n\n file SEC Form S-3. However, as discussed in Section V above, Teleperformance is considered to\n\n be a large, well-capitalized issuer with highly liquid securities \u201c\u2026that meet trading volume, asset\n\n and shareholder equity metrics, without complying with the information review requirement.\u201d76\n\n To the extent that S-3 registration eligibility reflects company characteristics that are correlated\n\n with market efficiency, based on my review of Teleperformance\u2019s financial reports,\n\n Teleperformance clearly possessed those characteristics throughout the Class Period.77 Thus, while\n\n this Cammer factor does not weigh in favor of market efficiency, Teleperformance\u2019s\n\n characteristics do not weigh against market efficiency in the context of S-3 eligibility\n\n characteristics.\n\n\n\n 75\n See SEC Form 3, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3.pdf.\n 76\n See https://www.otcmarkets.com/glossary#large-company-exemption.\n 77\n See https://www.teleperformance.com/en-us/investors/investors-homepage/.\n\n\n 24\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 27 ofPage\n 62 29 of\n 238\n\n\n\n G. Cammer Factor 5: Cause and Effect Relationship Between Company\n Information and Stock Prices\n 57. The fifth Cammer factor relates to whether a company\u2019s stock price quickly\n\n responds to and incorporates new value-relevant information. The Cammer court held:\n\n [O]ne of the most convincing ways to demonstrate [market]\n efficiency would be to illustrate, over time, a cause and effect\n relationship between company disclosures and resulting movements\n in stock price.78\n 58. I summarize my empirical analysis below, which finds that Teleperformance\u2019s\n\n ADRs exhibited the type of cause-and-effect relationship between company-specific information\n\n flow and price movement described in Cammer.\n\n i. Event Study Methodology\n\n 59. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\n disclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I ran empirical tests using the results of an\n\n event study. Event studies are widely used by economists to measure the reaction of a security to\n\n the disclosure of new, issuer-specific information, including in connection with assessments of\n\n market efficiency in securities litigation.79 As Professor Fama has explained:\n\n The cleanest evidence on market-efficiency comes from event\n studies, especially event studies on daily returns. When an\n information event can be dated precisely and the event has a large\n effect on prices, the way one abstracts from expected returns to\n measure abnormal daily returns is a second-order consideration. As\n a result, event studies can give a clear picture of the speed of\n adjustment of prices to information.\n\n There is a large event-study literature on issues in corporate finance.\n The results indicate that on average stock prices adjust quickly to\n information about investment decisions, dividend changes, changes\n in capital structure, and corporate-control transactions. This\n\n 78\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1291.\n 79\n See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\n Literature 13.\n\n\n 25\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 28 ofPage\n 62 30 of\n 238\n\n\n\n evidence tilts me toward the conclusion that prices adjust efficiently\n to firm-specific information. More important, the research uncovers\n empirical regularities, many surprising, that enrich our\n understanding of investment, financing, and corporate-control\n events, and give rise to interesting theoretical work.80\n\n 60. To determine whether Teleperformance\u2019s ADR price movements on any given date\n\n are statistically significant, I performed an event study using generally accepted economic\n\n methods, specifying a regression model over a selected time period to observe the typical\n\n relationship between the price of the relevant security and market and industry indices.\n\n 61. Through this regression model, an economist can model the predicted daily return\n\n of the relevant security, based on market and industry returns. By subtracting the predicted return\n\n from the actual return, an economist can calculate the \u201cabnormal\u201d return in the company\u2019s daily\n\n security price movement, which represents the component of the daily security price return that is\n\n not attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements, but rather is attributable to company-\n\n specific news. Finally, as part of an event study analysis, an economist tests whether the deviation\n\n from expected price movements (i.e., the \u201cabnormal return\u201d) is \u201cstatistically significant,\u201d i.e.,\n\n sufficiently large compared to the usual volatility in the company security price return such that\n\n simple random movement can be rejected as the cause.\n\n 62. I applied these widely used and generally accepted econometric methodologies to\n\n perform my event study here. Specifically, in order to isolate the impact of company-specific news\n\n on Teleperformance\u2019s ADR price during the Class Period, I performed regression analyses to\n\n measure the relationship between Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 price returns and: (1) changes in\n\n market-wide factors that would be expected to impact all stocks; and (2) changes in industry-wide\n\n factors that would be expected to impact stocks in Teleperformance\u2019s industry. By modeling how\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 price returns moved relative to an overall market index and an industry\n\n\n 80\n Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance 46, at p. 1607.\n\n\n 26\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 29 ofPage\n 62 31 of\n 238\n\n\n\n index, I was also able to measure the response of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs to announcements of\n\n company-specific news.\n\n 63. I conducted my regression analysis over the Class Period (February 20, 2020\n\n through August 3, 2022, inclusive). For each trading day, I constructed a regression model using\n\n data from the prior six months of trading days (the \u201cEstimation Window\u201d).81\n\n 64. To study the relationship between Teleperformance\u2019s ADR price returns and\n\n overall market factors, I used the S&P 500 Total Return Index (the \u201cMarket Index\u201d). To study the\n\n relationship between Teleperformance\u2019s ADR price returns and changes in industry-wide factors\n\n that would be expected to impact all stocks in Teleperformance\u2019s particular industry, I used the\n\n S&P 500 Information Technology Index (the \u201cIndustry Index\u201d).\n\n 65. I established the relationship between the daily return of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs,\n\n the daily return on the Market Index, and the daily return on the Industry Index over the Estimation\n\n Window.82 As shown in Exhibit 4, the event study models revealed an evolving relation between\n\n the daily returns of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs and those of the overall stock market and industry\n\n\n\n\n 81\n I utilized an Estimation Window of 120 trading days, which is approximately six calendar\n months. This allowed my regression approach to adapt to the changing volatility of stock returns\n over time. See, e.g., Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in\n Securities Fraud Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Business\n Lawyer 49; MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\n Literature 35, at p. 15. (\u201cGiven the selection of a normal performance model, the estimation\n window needs to be defined. The most common choice, when feasible, is using the period prior to\n the event window for the estimation window. For example, in an event study using daily data and\n the market model, the market model parameters could be estimated over the 120 days prior to the\n event. Generally, the event period itself is not included in the estimation period to prevent the event\n from influencing the normal performance model parameter estimates.\u201d).\n 82\n My use of this estimation model accounts for the relationship between the Company, market,\n and industry daily returns. This method has been accepted by academics in peer-reviewed\n literature. See MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of\n Economic Literature 35; Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News,\n Volatility, and Betas. Journal of Finance 50, at p. 1597.\n\n\n 27\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 30 ofPage\n 62 32 of\n 238\n\n\n\n indices throughout the Class Period. In other words, movements of the Market Index and the\n\n Industry Index help explain movements in Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 prices.\n\n 66. Consistent with generally accepted econometric methods, these observed\n\n relationships allowed me to construct a model to predict the expected daily return of the Company\n\n on any given date within the Class Period which controls for that day\u2019s market and industry returns.\n\n Again, in accordance with standard event-study methodology, I then subtracted this predicted\n\n return from the actual return to obtain the \u201cabnormal\u201d return, which represents the component of\n\n the return that is not attributable to market-wide or industry-wide movements.\n\n 67. Finally, I calculated the statistical significance of the abnormal return by comparing\n\n it to the usual volatility in Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 price return. An important statistic from a\n\n regression analysis is the standard deviation of the errors, which measures the degree of\n\n imprecision in the predictions from the regression model. In other words, the standard deviation\n\n of errors provides a measure for how much idiosyncratic company-specific volatility (or\n\n \u201crandomness\u201d) remains in the price movement of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs after controlling for\n\n the Market Index and the Industry Index. Exhibit 5 plots the standard deviation of the regression\n\n errors, also known as Root Mean Squared Error, over the Class Period.\n\n ii. Cause and Effect Analysis of Teleperformance Earnings Announcements\n 68. A generally-accepted and peer-reviewed approach to evaluating whether a stock\n\n price responds to news (including with regard to testing market efficiency in the securities class\n\n action context) is to evaluate earnings announcements over time.83 A showing that a security\u2019s\n\n price tends to respond to new, potentially value-relevant disclosures of earnings-related\n\n\n\n 83\n Bozanic, Z., Roulstone, D., and Van Buskirk, A., 2018. Management Earnings Forecasts and\n Other Forward-Looking Statements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65; Villanueva, M.O.\n and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements: The Role of the\n Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 57.\n\n\n 28\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 31 ofPage\n 62 33 of\n 238\n\n\n\n information is considered powerful evidence that the security responds promptly to news and,\n\n therefore, strongly supports a finding of efficiency.84\n\n 69. Importantly, research has shown that in an efficient market, it is possible for a\n\n security to exhibit some large price movements despite the absence of news and, conversely, for\n\n one to observe news without large price movements.85 For instance, a company may announce\n\n earnings (or a lack thereof) that are in line with investor expectations \u2013 and while such an expected\n\n announcement is clearly important to investors, it will often not alter the total mix of information\n\n significantly enough to elicit a statistically significant stock price movement. Likewise, a\n\n disclosure may contain a mix of positive and negative information, which may effectively offset\n\n each other, which again would result in no statistically significant price movement. Further, if a\n\n company\u2019s disclosure conceals important information, the effect of the concealment will generally\n\n not result in a significant stock price movement, but will instead simply maintain the price at its\n\n then-current level.\n\n 70. To assess the extent of a \u201ccause and effect relationship between company\n\n disclosures and resulting movements in stock price,\u201d I identified Teleperformance earnings\n\n releases posted on the Company\u2019s website during the Class Period. These types of announcements\n\n represent a potential opportunity for the public release of new, value-relevant Company\n\n information to investors. As shown in Exhibit 6, Teleperformance issued 11 earnings releases\n\n during the Class Period.\n\n 71. I then calculated the abnormal returns of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs around the\n\n earnings release disclosure windows. As noted in Section V above, research has shown that price\n\n\n 84\n Id.\n 85\n See Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S. and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading, and\n Volatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies 32, at p. 1004; Fair,\n R., 2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business 75, at pp. 713-714.\n\n\n 29\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 32 ofPage\n 62 34 of\n 238\n\n\n\n discovery initially occurs in the foreign issuer\u2019s domestic market and that ADRs trading in the\n\n U.S. frequently reflect information the trading day following price movements in the foreign\n\n issuer\u2019s domestic market. I therefore evaluate whether Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs demonstrated a\n\n statistically significant price movement on either the day of the earnings announcement (\u201cDay 0\u201d)\n\n or the next trading day (\u201cDay 1\u201d).86\n\n 72. Exhibit 6 reports the list of 11 earnings releases and corresponding disclosure\n\n windows. It also reports the results of my event study using Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 returns.\n\n The columns list abnormal returns and the p-value corresponding to statistical significance for\n\n each relevant trading day. Overall, 9 out of 11 (81.8%) of Teleperformance earnings releases\n\n caused stock price movements that were statistically significant at the 90% level or better. This\n\n proportion of significant price movements is itself statistically significant at the 1% level or better\n\n based on a test of proportions.87\n\n 73. These results provide strong evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between\n\n new information and Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 price movements. These results establish a clear\n\n cause-and-effect relationship between the release of new company-specific information and\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs\u2019 price movements. As a result, this Cammer factor five analysis supports\n\n the conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market during the Class Period.\n\n H. Krogman Factor 1: Market Capitalization\n 74. Beyond the five Cammer factors, I have also considered several additional factors\n\n articulated by the Krogman court. The first of these is the total value of stock outstanding, or\n\n market capitalization. The Cammer court acknowledged this factor as indicative of market\n\n 86\n Teleperformance held analyst and investor calls after the 5:30pm local Paris time market close\n (see Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, earnings releases). For example,\n Teleperformance announced 1Q2020 earnings on April 28, 2020 and held a conference call starting\n at 6:15pm CET. In Exhibit 6, I include April 28 as Day 0 and April 29 as Day 1.\n 87\n Using Stata\u2019s bitesti command with a null hypothesis of 0.1 yields a p-value of less than 0.001.\n\n\n 30\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 33 ofPage\n 62 35 of\n 238\n\n\n\n efficiency, holding that \u201cit is the number of shares traded and value of shares outstanding that\n\n involve the facts which imply efficiency.\u201d88 Similarly, the Krogman court stated that \u201c[m]arket\n\n capitalization, calculated as the number of shares multiplied by the prevailing share price, may be\n\n an indicator of market efficiency because there is a greater incentive for stock purchasers to invest\n\n in more highly capitalized corporations.\u201d89\n\n 75. Conversely, as noted previously, the MRK Study found that companies that lack\n\n analyst coverage are also companies that are generally associated with other factors \u2013 such as\n\n relatively small market capitalization \u2013 that indicate that their shares trade in less developed and\n\n efficient markets. The median market capitalization of the MRK Sample firms was $27.91\n\n million.90 By contrast, the MRK Covered firms had a median market capitalization of $243.97\n\n million.91 This study thus supports the view that firms with larger market capitalizations tend to\n\n trade in more efficient markets.\n\n 76. Exhibit 7 reports the market capitalization of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs throughout\n\n the Class Period.92 This market capitalization averaged $347.2 million over the Class Period.\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s total ADR market capitalization places it between the 25th and 50th percentiles\n\n of all companies listed on either the NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018.93\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADR market capitalization also exceeded the MRK Sample firms on an\n\n\n\n\n 88\n Cammer, 711 F. Supp. at 1287.\n 89\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n 90\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n 91\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n 92\n Calculated as ADR closing price multiplied by estimated number of ADRs outstanding each day.\n 93\n Bhole Study at 107 (25th percentile of market capitalization defined as $167 million; 50th\n percentile defined as $781 million).\n\n\n 31\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 34 ofPage\n 62 36 of\n 238\n\n\n\n inflation-adjusted basis.94 It also greatly exceeds the $75 million minimum float requirement under\n\n the SEC\u2019s S-3 eligibility requirements. I further note that this measurement of ADR market cap\n\n represents a lower bound of size, given that the Company\u2019s market capitalization of Common\n\n Stock was several billion dollars throughout the Class Period.\n\n 77. Teleperformance\u2019s market capitalization is thus consistent with the conclusion that\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market during the Class Period.\n\n I. Krogman Factor 2: Bid-Ask Spread\n 78. The Krogman court considered the bid-ask spread as another factor that can indicate\n\n market efficiency: \u201c[a] large bid-ask spread is indicative of an inefficient market, because it\n\n suggests that the stock is too expensive to trade.\u201d95\n\n 79. The bid-ask spread is the difference between the price at which an investor could\n\n purchase a stock (the ask) and the price at which an investor could sell the stock (the bid). This\n\n spread can be expressed as the difference between these prices in their quoted currency or as a\n\n percentage relative to the bid-ask midpoint. A narrow bid-ask spread indicates lower transaction\n\n costs to trade in a given stock and is indicative of a more informationally efficient market. A wider\n\n bid-ask spread indicates that investors will pay more to buy and sell a given stock, and these higher\n\n transaction costs can discourage trading and price discovery, thus indicating a less liquid and less\n\n efficient market.\n\n 80. I analyzed the bid-ask spread of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs during the Class Period.\n\n Exhibit 8 reports Teleperformance\u2019s bid-ask spread as a percentage of the bid-ask midpoint.96 This\n\n spread averaged 0.41% over the Class Period.\n\n\n 94\n U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator. See\n https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.\n 95\n Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n 96\n Bloomberg daily reported \u201cAVERAGE_BID_ASK_SPREAD_%\u201d variable.\n\n\n 32\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 35 ofPage\n 62 37 of\n 238\n\n\n\n 81. By way of comparison, the MRK Study found that MRK Sample firms had a\n\n median bid-ask spread of 4.55%, while MRK Covered firms had a median bid-ask spread of\n\n 1.69%.97 Teleperformance\u2019s bid-ask spread was significantly smaller than both of these values,\n\n indicating that investors could trade Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs at very low relative cost.\n\n Additionally, Teleperformance\u2019s average bid-ask spread over the Class Period places it between\n\n the 50th and 75th percentiles of all companies listed on NASDAQ and the NYSE from 2016-2018\n\n (lower percentile rankings correspond to smaller bid-ask spreads).98\n\n 82. As a result, Teleperformance\u2019s bid-ask spread also supports the conclusion that\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n J. Krogman Factor 3: Public Float\n 83. The Krogman court also considered the public float of a company in weighing\n\n market efficiency.99 The public float represents the number of shares outstanding that are available\n\n for trading and not held by corporate insiders. Even if a company has a large market capitalization,\n\n if the majority of the equity is held by its CEO and/or other insiders, then investors may be unable\n\n to trade the stock without exerting undue pricing pressure resulting from a lack of liquidity and\n\n supply/demand imbalances.\n\n 84. Teleperformance insiders did not report any ADR holdings during the Class\n\n Period.100 As a result, 100% of the ADRs were held and freely tradeable by outside investors.\n\n\n\n\n 97\n MRK Study at 678 (Table 3).\n 98\n Bhole Study at 105 (50th percentile of bid-ask spread defined as 0.14%; 75th percentile defined\n as 0.75%).\n 99\n \u201cIn determining efficiency, courts also consider the percentage of shares held by the public,\n rather than insiders.\u201d Krogman, 202 F.R.D. at 478.\n 100\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, Teleperformance\u2019s Investor Relations Website.\n\n\n 33\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 36 ofPage\n 62 38 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Hence, Teleperformance\u2019s float also supports the conclusion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded\n\n in an efficient market throughout the Class Period.\n\n VII. Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock Supports Market Efficiency of its ADRs\n 85. I also note that my analyses regarding Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs are conservative\n\n because investors were not limited to trading only Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs. For example, when\n\n new information was disclosed, investors could trade either the ADRs or the underlying common\n\n stock. As discussed in Section V, academic research has shown that this type of dual listing\n\n improves price efficiency. In this section, I briefly summarize the Cammer and Krogman factors\n\n of market efficiency for Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock listing on the Paris Stock Exchange\n\n during the Class Period. I conclude that market for Teleperformance Common Stock was efficient\n\n throughout the Class Period, and this efficiency further enhances the efficiency of the ADRs.\n\n\n \u2022 Cammer Factor 1: The average weekly trading volume was 1.2% of\n Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock shares outstanding over the Class Period.\n This level of trading volume exceeds the 1% threshold established by the\n Cammer court, as discussed in Section VI.A.\n\n \u2022 Cammer Factor 2: The sizeable analyst coverage was the same for all of\n Teleperformance\u2019s securities (at least 278 reports issued by analysts at 22\n separate firms), as discussed in Section VI.B.\n\n \u2022 Cammer Factor 3: Teleperformance\u2019s Common Stock had at least 86 market\n makers and brokers providing similar activity over the Class Period. 101 This\n level exceeds the Cammer court\u2019s benchmark of five or ten market makers\n (for OTC stocks), as discussed in Section VI.C.\n\n \u2022 Cammer Factor 4: This factor is the same as explained for the ADRs in\n Section VI.D above.\n\n \u2022 Cammer Factor 5: I conducted the same test of a cause-and-effect\n relationship between disclosures of information and resulting price\n movements as in Section VI.E above, but using the Common Stock price\n\n\n\n 101\n Source: Bloomberg RANK function.\n\n\n 34\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 37 ofPage\n 62 39 of\n 238\n\n\n\n movements instead of the ADR price movements.102 As shown in Exhibit 9,\n 8 out of 11 earnings announcements produced Common Stock price reactions\n that were statistically significant at the 90% level or better. This proportion\n itself is statistically significant at the 99% level or better.103\n\n \u2022 Krogman Factor 1: The Common Stock market capitalization averaged\n $17.5 billion during the Class Period, greatly exceeding the benchmarks\n described in Section VI.F.\n\n \u2022 Krogman Factor 2: The Common Stock had a bid-ask spread of 0.06%\n during the Class Period, below the benchmarks described in Section VI.G.\n\n \u2022 Krogman Factor 3: Teleperformance Common Stock had a market\n capitalization averaging $17.5 billion and between 58.72 million and 59.12\n million shares outstanding during the Class Period. Furthermore, insiders held\n less than 2.01% of outstanding shares during the Class Period,104 indicating\n that Teleperformance Common Stock had a sizeable float available for public\n trading throughout the Class Period.\n\n 86. Based on the foregoing, I conclude that market for Teleperformance Common\n\n Stock was efficient throughout the Class Period, and this efficiency further enhances the efficiency\n\n of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs.\n\n VIII. Ability to Calculate Damages on a Class-Wide Basis\n 87. I have also been asked to opine on whether per-share damages for traders of\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs can be assessed for all Class members based upon a methodology\n\n common to all Class members and consistent with Plaintiffs\u2019 theories of liability. As discussed\n\n\n\n\n 102\n The event study parameters remain the same (same Estimation Window, market and industry\n indices, and sample of 11 Class Period earnings announcements). As noted in Section VI.G,\n Teleperformance held analyst and investor calls after the 5:30pm local Paris time market close (see\n Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, earnings releases). For example, Teleperformance\n announced 1Q2020 earnings on April 28, 2020 and held a conference call starting at 6:15pm CET.\n In Exhibit 9, I include April 28 as Day -1 and April 29 as Day 0.\n 103\n Using Stata\u2019s bitesti command with a null hypothesis of 0.1 yields a p-value of less than 0.001.\n 104\n Source: Bloomberg. Minimum insider ownership = 1.68%; Average = 1.96%.\n\n\n 35\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 38 ofPage\n 62 40 of\n 238\n\n\n\n below, damages for each of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims can be calculated on a class-wide basis through a\n\n common methodology.\n\n A. Calculation of Damages for Violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\n Exchange Act\n 88. For the \u00a710(b) claims, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants\u2019 fraudulent scheme,\n\n misstatements, and omissions artificially inflated the market price of Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs,\n\n and caused Class members to purchase Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs at artificially inflated prices.105\n\n Plaintiffs also claim certain Defendants are liable as control persons under section 20(a).106\n\n 89. The \u201cout-of-pocket\u201d method of calculating damages represents a standard and well-\n\n accepted methodology under \u00a710(b) of the Exchange Act. This approach calculates investor\n\n damages formulaically as the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor\n\n purchase minus the artificial inflation in the stock price at the time of an investor sale. If shares\n\n are not sold prior to the full revelation of the fraud, then the difference is relative to a 90-day\n\n lookback period under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).107 This\n\n cap on damages is also applied class-wide.\n\n 90. The claims process produces information necessary for the calculation of damages\n\n for each Class member as inputs to the formula above, including the purchase and sale information\n\n\n 105\n Complaint, \u00b6\u00b6 12, 109.\n 106\n Id., \u00b6\u00b6 133-134. Section 20(a) provides that control persons shall be \u201cjointly and severally\n [liable] with and to the same extent\u201d as the controlled person(s) that violated the securities law. 15\n U.S.C. \u00a778t(a). Given \u00a720(a)\u2019s derivative nature, I understand that \u00a720(a) damages can be\n calculated using the same methodology for assessing \u00a710(b) damages.\n 107\n The PSLRA states: \u201cin any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to\n establish damages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the\n plaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as\n appropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security\n during the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the\n misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.\u201d 15 U.S.\n Code \u00a778u-4 (codifying language).\n\n\n 36\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 39 ofPage\n 62 41 of\n 238\n\n\n\n for the security (including transaction dates and quantity of shares traded). This information is\n\n available from brokerage statements, trade blotters, and/or other documentation of securities\n\n transactions. This information can also be used to identify eligible Class members meeting the\n\n relevant domesticity requirements (i.e., trades of U.S.-based CUSIP 87946F100 and ISIN\n\n US87946F1003).\n\n 91. Another input to the above formula, the quantification of artificial inflation per\n\n share, is based upon a detailed loss causation analysis. I have not been asked to perform a loss\n\n causation analysis at this time, and such analysis often incorporates information produced during\n\n discovery. Nonetheless, the method employed to calculate artificial inflation can be applied class-\n\n wide as an input to the out-of-pocket formula. For example, event studies are widely employed to\n\n calculate artificial inflation. Event studies measure stock price reactions to corrective disclosures\n\n which revealed the relevant truth that was concealed by alleged fraudulent schemes and\n\n misrepresentations.108\n\n 92. To the extent that reliable evidence is introduced to show that a significant portion\n\n of the difference in artificial inflation between the purchase and sale of securities may be attributed\n\n to non-fraud related factors, the impact of such \u201cconfounding information\u201d on the price of\n\n Teleperformance\u2019s securities can be determined on a common, class-wide basis using various\n\n accepted methodologies. The value of any confounding information can then be subtracted from\n\n the price impact of corrective disclosures in calculating inflation. This process may rely upon\n\n additional information learned during discovery and will be based on the specific set of facts and\n\n circumstances in a given case.\n\n\n\n\n 108\n In this report I conducted an event study to assist with the evaluation of market efficiency. My\n event study in this report was not intended to quantify artificial inflation.\n\n\n 37\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 40 ofPage\n 62 42 of\n 238\n\n\n\n 93. A loss causation analysis also documents how artificial inflation per share evolved\n\n throughout the Class Period. This determination depends on the specific set of facts and\n\n circumstances for a given case and also could incorporate information produced through discovery.\n\n 94. One frequent method for modeling the evolution of inflation is to assume \u201cconstant\n\n dollar inflation.\u201d This assumes that per share inflation equaled a constant dollar amount above the\n\n correct share price over the Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates\n\n artificial inflation based upon the abnormal dollar value of stock price decline from an event study\n\n around one or more corrective disclosures.\n\n 95. Alternatively, one can measure \u201cconstant percentage inflation,\u201d which assumes that\n\n each share price was inflated by a constant percentage amount above the correct stock price over\n\n the Class Period. This input to the out-of-pocket formula often calculates artificial inflation based\n\n upon the abnormal percentage return in stock price from an event study around one or more\n\n corrective disclosures.\n\n 96. In other instances, artificial inflation may have varied and could evolve throughout\n\n the Class Period based on the timing of specific information or statements. In any of these\n\n approaches, the calculations of artificial inflation and any potential disaggregation of confounding\n\n information are based on the specific set of facts and circumstances in a given case and can involve\n\n valuation techniques, event studies, published academic research studies, analyst research, or other\n\n case-specific documents.\n\n 97. All of these loss causation calculations can be performed on a class-wide basis and\n\n are not dependent upon individual Class member identities or circumstances.\n\n B. Damages Methodology is Flexible and can Incorporate Alternative Findings\n 98. The damages methodology I have laid out above is flexible and able to incorporate\n\n alternative findings of fact regarding the quantification, as well as the timing, of artificial inflation\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 41 ofPage\n 62 43 of\n 238\n\n\n\n and how it evolves over the Class Period. The methodology can be modified based on alternative\n\n findings the finder of fact may determine, including, but not limited to any: (1) confounding\n\n information versus corrective information; (2) how to back-cast inflation over the Class Period;\n\n and (3) the first actionable fraudulent conduct or misstatement.\n\n 99. First, irrespective of what the ultimate finder of fact, i.e., the jury, determines is the\n\n appropriate percentage of abnormal return that can be attributed to the release of corrective versus\n\n confounding information, this percentage can easily be inserted into the standard damages model\n\n that I have already described \u2013 the out-of-pocket formula. Regardless of how the jury weighs\n\n evidence, whether they find that any such disaggregation analysis I may conduct is the most\n\n appropriate, or they determine that based upon the evidence, a different amount is more\n\n appropriate, this finding can simply be incorporated into the damages calculation.\n\n 100. Second, should the jury determine that the true economic inflation evolved over the\n\n Class Period, my out-of-pocket damages model can still account for such a scenario and can\n\n mechanically calculate damages on a class-wide basis.\n\n 101. Third, should the jury decide that the first actionable misstatement or otherwise\n\n actionable fraudulent conduct happened at a date later than February 20, 2020, prior to such date,\n\n inflation could simply be set to zero.\n\n 102. If the jury determines that a change to inflation would be necessary over the Class\n\n Period, any such change can easily be incorporated into the model.\n\n 103. To summarize, I have not been asked to calculate damages in this matter. Such\n\n analysis would depend on information produced in discovery and development of the case record.\n\n Based on my experience, qualifications, and understanding of the nature of the claims in this\n\n matter, I conclude that ADR damages in this case can, however, be calculated using a standard and\n\n well-established methodology, and can be applied on a class-wide basis.\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 42 ofPage\n 62 44 of\n 238\n\n\n\n IX. Conclusion\n 104. In conclusion, based on my analysis of the market efficiency factors considered by\n\n courts and in academia, it is my opinion that Teleperformance\u2019s ADRs traded in an efficient market\n\n throughout the Class Period. Moreover, it is my opinion that damages in this matter under Sections\n\n 10(b) and 20(a) can be calculated on a class-wide basis utilizing a common methodology.\n\n\n\n I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n Zahn Bozanic, Ph.D.\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 43 ofPage\n 62 45 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Appendix A\n\n\n ZAHN BOZANIC\n Florida State University Telephone: (850) 645-1521\n College of Business E-mail: zahn.bozanic@fsu.edu\n 821 Academic Way, RBA 522 URL: business.fsu.edu/person/zahn-bozanic\n Tallahassee, FL 32306\n\n\n\n ACADEMIC INTERESTS\n Research: My primary research interests are in the areas of corporate disclosure, financial reporting\n misconduct, regulation, and enforcement.\n\n Teaching: I teach financial statement analysis (MAcc level) with an emphasis on data analytics\n and an accounting seminar (PhD level) which focuses on empirical research methods.\n\n EDUCATION\n Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University\n\n M.A., The University of Michigan \u2013 Ann Arbor\n\n B.A., The University of California \u2013 Berkeley\n\n ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE\n Full Professor, Florida State University (2023-present)\n William Hillison Professor of Accounting\n Introduction to Accounting Research Seminar \u2013 PhD Level\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc Level\n\n Director of the PhD Program in Accounting (2019-2023)\n\n Associate Professor, Florida State University (2019-2023)\n\n Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University (2012-2019)\n Financial Statement Analysis with Data Analytics \u2013 MAcc, MBA, and SMF Levels\n Financial Statement Analysis \u2013 Undergraduate Level\n\n Research Fellow, The National Center for the Middle Market (2012-2016)\n\n Instructor, The Pennsylvania State University (2008-2009)\n Intermediate Financial Accounting\n Introduction to Financial and Managerial Accounting\n\n\n\n\n A-1\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 44 ofPage\n 62 46 of\n 238\n\n\n PUBLICATIONS\n 17. \u201cManaging Expectations through Budgetary Slack: Evidence from Project Financing\u201d with\n Andrew Ferguson and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich. European Accounting Review, 2024, in-press.\n\n 16. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Credit Analysts\u2019 Soft Rating Adjustments\u201d with Pepa Kraft and\n Andrea Tillet. European Accounting Review, 2023, Vol. 32(4), 779-807. [Lead Article]\n\n 15. \u201cHave SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 Improved the Financial Reporting for Securitizations?\u201d with\n Minkwan Ahn, Sam Bonsall, Yiwei Dou, Gordon Richardson, and Dushyant Vyas. d, 2020, Vol.\n 47(7-8), 821-857. [Lead Article]\n\n 14. \u201cAnalyst Contrarianism\u201d with Jing Chen and Michael Jung. Journal of Financial Reporting, 2019, Vol.\n 4(2), 61-88.\n\n 13. \u201cSecurities Law Expertise and Corporate Disclosure\u201d with Preeti Choudhary and Ken Merkley.\n The Accounting Review, 2019, Vol. 94(4), 141-172.\n\n 12. \u201cFinancial Reporting Fraud and Other Forms of Misconduct: A Multidisciplinary Review of\n the Literature\u201d with Dan Amiram, James Cox, Quentin Dupont, Jon Karpoff, and Richard Sloan.\n Review of Accounting Studies, 2018, Vol. 23(2), 732-783.\n Ranked Top 10 by RAST for both downloads and citations\n\n 11. \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d with Maria\n Loumioti and Florin Vasvari. Journal of Accounting Research, 2018, Vol. 56(1), 45-83.\n\n 10. \u201cSoft Information in Loan Agreements\u201d with Lin Cheng and Tzachi Zach. Journal of Accounting,\n Auditing and Finance, 2018, Vol. 33(1), 40-71.\n\n 9. \u201cManagement Earnings Forecasts and Other Forward-Looking Statements\u201d with Darren\n Roulstone and Andy Van Buskirk. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2018, Vol. 65(1), 1-20. [Lead\n Article]\n\n 8. \u201cSEC Comment Letters and Firm Disclosure\u201d with J. Richard Dietrich and Bret Johnson.\n Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2017, Vol. 36(5), 337-357.\n\n 7. \u201cIRS Attention\u201d with Jeff Hoopes, Jake Thornock, and Brady Williams. Journal of Accounting\n Research, 2017, Vol. 55(1), 79-114. [Data]\n\n 6. \u201cThe Ex-Ante Monitoring Role of Accounting Covenants in Public Debt\u201d Journal of Business\n Finance & Accounting, 2016, Vol. 43(7), 803-829. [Lead Article]\n\n 5. \u201cFinancial Statement Errors: Evidence from the Distributional Properties of Financial\n Statement Numbers\u201d with Dan Amiram and Ethan Rouen. Review of Accounting Studies, 2015, Vol.\n 20(4), 1540-1593. [Data]\n Winner of the Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award and FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award;\n Featured in Audit Analytics\u2019 Accounting Quality and Risk Matrix (AQRM) and Bloomberg Terminal\u2019s AQRM App\n\n 4. \u201cQualitative Disclosure and Changes in Sell-Side Financial Analysts\u2019 Information\n Environment\u201d with Maya Thevenot. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2015, Vol. 32(4), 1595-1616.\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 45 ofPage\n 62 47 of\n 238\n\n\n 3. \u201cWhat Do Management Earnings Forecasts Convey About the Macroeconomy?\u201d with Sam\n Bonsall and Paul Fischer. Journal of Accounting Research, 2013, Vol. 51(2), 225-266. [Lead Article]\n\n 2. \u201cThe Social Constitution of Regulation: The Endogenization of Insider Trading Laws\u201d with\n Mark Dirsmith and Steve Huddart. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 2012, Vol. 37(7), 461-481.\n\n 1. \u201cManagerial Motivation and Timing of Open Market Share Repurchases\u201d Review of\n Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2010, Vol. 34(4), 517-531.\n\n WORKING PAPERS\n 7. \u201c(Unwanted) SEC Attention and Voluntary Disclosure\u201d with Andrea Down and Chris Williams\n\n 6. \u201cNegative Externalities of Media Coverage for Economically Linked Firms\u201d with Bruce\n Billings, Alyssa Moore, and Spencer Pierce\n\n 5. \u201cSystemic Risk and Bank Disclosure\u201d with Christina Synn and Chris Williams\n\n 4. \u201cThe Relative Persistence of Earnings Components\u201d with Paul Fischer and Gabriel P\u00fcndrich\n\n 3. \u201cNot All Critical Audit Matters (CAM) Are the Same: Anti-Herding Behavior in CAM\n Disclosures\u201d with Will Anding and Allen Blay (JBFA, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 2. \u201cThe Regulatory Observer Effect: Evidence from SEC Investigations\u201d with Terrence\n Blackburne, Bret Johnson, and Darren Roulstone (RAST, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n 1. \u201cSelective Information Channels for Investment Research\u201d with Dan Amiram, Mark Bradshaw,\n and Oded Rozenbaum (RAST, Revise and Resubmit)\n\n PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\n Wells Fargo Bank 2004-2005\n Financial Consultant - Internal consultant to retail banking segment which focused on distribution\n planning. Maintained financial models and databases; conducted ad-hoc research projects to measure\n the profitability of various strategies pre- and post-implementation.\n Product Manager - Managed several retail products which generated annual fee revenues in excess of\n $80MM. Responsible for establishing strategic marketing programs for product enhancement and new\n products including identification of market segments, product positioning, pricing and profitability.\n\n Linsco / Private Ledger (LPL) Brokerage 2003-2004\n Investment Advisor - Solidified relationships with client base through full-service financial planning;\n managed back office financial operations, including cultivation of broker/dealer and wholesaler\n relationships.\n\n The William Davidson Institute 2001-2003\n Center Administrator - Responsible for establishing, implementing, and streamlining the data center\u2019s\n operations. Collected, archived, and disseminated data on transition and emerging market economies.\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 46 ofPage\n 62 48 of\n 238\n\n\n Tozzi Financial Research and Trading Center 2002-2003\n Programmer Analyst - Maintained the trading room\u2019s daily activities, assisted users with their financial\n data/modeling needs, and trained users on a variety of valuation and risk management software\n platforms.\n\n INVITED PRESENTATIONS\n INSEAD (2024, Scheduled) University of Toronto (2016)\n HEC (2024, Scheduled) Tilburg University (2016)\n University of Cyprus (2024, Scheduled) ESMT (2016)\n Virginia Tech (2023) FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2015)\n University of Arizona (2023) Georgetown University (2015)\n Tokyo Keizai University (2023) Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2015)\n Kobe University (2023) The University of California - Berkeley (2014)\n University of Buffalo (2023) The Securities and Exchange Commission (2014)\n University of Pittsburgh (2022) Florida Atlantic University (2014)\n University of Memphis (2022) Singapore Management University (2014)\n University of Florida (2022) Nanyang Technological University (2014)\n Iowa State University (2022) Dartmouth College (2014)\n Vanderbilt University (2021) Syracuse University (2014)\n The Pennsylvania State University (2020) CFEA (2010-2011, 2013-2014)\n The University of Rochester (2018) HKUST Accounting Symposium (2013)\n London School of Economics (2018) CUNY - Baruch (2013)\n IESE Business School (2018) The University of Texas - Austin (2013)\n Florida State University (2018) The University of California - Irvine (2012)\n West Virginia University (2018) The University of Miami (2012)\n University of Louisville (2018) The University of Michigan (2012)\n William & Mary (2018) Journal of Accounting Research Conference (2012)\n Texas A&M University (2017) Carnegie Mellon University (2011)\n Rice University (2017) Cornell University (2011)\n University of Missouri (2017) The Ohio State University (2011)\n University of Florida (2017) Purdue University (2011)\n University of Illinois (2017) The University of Utah (2011)\n GWU Cherry Blossom Conference (2017) Washington University (2011)\n University of Notre Dame (2016) Midwest Accounting Conference (2010)\n Columbia Business School (2016)\n\n\n CONFERENCES\n Contemporary Accounting Research Conference (2012-2013, 2015, 2020-2024, Scheduled)\n Review of Accounting Studies Conference (2015, 2017-2018, 2020-2023)\n Rotman Accounting Research Conference (2023)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2018, 2023)\n LBS Private Equity Symposium (2022)\n USC Emerging Tech in Accounting Conference (2022)\n Deloitte Foundation Faculty Consortium (2022)\n FSU SunTrust Beach Conference (2022)\n AAA Audit Mid-Year Meeting (2022)\n\n\n\n\n A-4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 47 ofPage\n 62 49 of\n 238\n\n\n Tilburg Accounting Winter Camp (2020-2021)\n European Accounting Review Conference (2020-2021), discussant\n Florida Accounting Symposium (2021)\n CAFR Fundamental Analysis Symposium (2020)\n KPMG Ph.D. Project ADSA Conference (2020), panelist\n Accounting Horizons Data Analytics Conference (2019)\n KPMG Faculty Symposium (2019)\n LBS Accounting Symposium (2017, 2018)\n Harvard Business School IMO Conference (2018)\n Penn State Accounting Research Conference (2007-2011, 2014, 2018)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2014, 2017)\n Accounting, Organizations, and Society Conference (2017)\n BYU Accounting Research Symposium (2017)\n EAA Annual Congress (2017)\n NYU Accounting Summer Camp (2014, 2016)\n Minnesota Empirical Conference (2012, 2015-2016)\n Utah Winter Accounting Conference (2013, 2014, 2016)\n Colorado Summer Accounting Research Conference (2015)\n CARE Conference (2010, 2012-2013)\n FASB/IASB Financial Reporting Issues Conference (2012)\n Conference on Financial Economics & Accounting (2012)\n JAR \u2013 NY FED Conference (2012)\n AAA New Faculty Consortium (2012)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2010), moderator and discussant\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2010), doctoral consortium\n CFRM Conference on Financial Reporting (2009)\n Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (2009)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2009), discussant\n\n EXTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award Committee (2024)\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference, Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2023-2024)\n Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Advisory Committee Member (2020-2022)\n EAA Annual Congress, Scientific Committee Member (2020-2021)\n FARS Nominating Committee (2018-2019)\n COSO/ACFE Fraud Risk Management Guide, Advisory Panel Member and Contributor (2016)\n CARE Conference Co-Organizer (2016)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting, Editorial Committee and Track Chair (2015)\n\n Editorial Boards\n The Accounting Review\n European Accounting Review\n Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting & Public Policy\n The International Journal of Accounting (Editor)\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 48 ofPage\n 62 50 of\n 238\n\n\n Ad-hoc Journal Referee\n Journal of Accounting Research Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\n Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\n\n The Accounting Review Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance\n Review of Accounting Studies Journal of Accounting and Public Policy\n Contemporary Accounting Research The International Journal of Accounting\n Management Science Journal of Corporate Finance\n Accounting, Organizations and Society Journal of Empirical Finance\n Journal of Management Accounting Research Regulation and Governance\n Journal of Financial Reporting Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting\n European Accounting Review Journal of International Business Studies\n Accounting Horizons Pacific-Basin Finance Journal\n Journal of Accounting Literature\n\n Ad-hoc Conference Referee\n Hawaii Accounting Research Conference (2022)\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting (2011-2014, 2016-2017, 2019, 2021-2023)\n AAA Annual Meeting (2013)\n AAA Ohio Regional Meeting (2012)\n\n INTERNAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES\n Florida State\n Strategic Planning Committee\n Promotion and Tenure Committee\n Recruiting Committee\n Accounting Doctoral Program Committee\n Professional Development Seminar Co-Coordinator (2020-2022)\n Accounting PhD Program Director (2019-2023)\n Doctoral Program Policy Committee (2019-2023)\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Andrea Tillet, 2022 (Chair, Initial Placement: University of Wisconsin - Madison)\n Will Anding, 2024, Expected (Committee Member)\n\n Ohio State\n Faculty Senate\n Recruiting Committee\n PhD Program Committee\n MAcc Program Committee\n KPMG MAcc Data Analytics Initiative\n MIS Program Committee\n Accounting MBA Program Committee\n PhD Student Dissertation Committees\n Danyang Jiang, 2019 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Intl. Business and Economics)\n Aaron Nelson, 2018 (Member, Initial Placement: University of Georgia)\n Bret Johnson, 2015 (Member, Initial Placement: George Mason University)\n Burns Research Colloquium Coordinator\n PhD Student Pre-Colloquium Coordinator\n Summer Brown Bag Workshop Coordinator\n Graduate Faculty Representative\n Graduate Studies Committee\n\n\n\n A-6\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 49 ofPage\n 62 51 of\n 238\n\n\n OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES\n Economic Litigation Consulting\n I provide economic litigation consulting and support on cases related to financial reporting misconduct,\n including, but not limited to, misleading corporate disclosures, accounting fraud, and insider trading.\n\n ACADEMIC AWARDS & HONORS\n FARS Best Dissertation Supervision Award\n EAR Excellence in Reviewing Recognition\n William Hillison Professorship\n Faculty Leadership Development Program\n Deloitte Foundation Wildman Medal Award\n FARS Mid-Year Meeting Best Paper Award\n The National Center for the Middle Market Research Fellowship\n Ossian R. MacKenzie Doctoral Teaching Award\n Smeal Competitive Dissertation Award\n G. Kenneth Nelson Scholarship\n Smeal Doctoral Research Grant\n Jane O. Burns Graduate Scholarship\n Center for the Study of Finance Graduate Fellowship\n\n MEDIA MENTIONS\n \u201cExxonMobil, Impairments, and the SEC\u201d \u2013 Audit Analytics, January 2021\n \u201cCorporate Loan Securitization and the Standardization of Financial Covenants\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law\n School Blue Sky Blog, June 2018\n \u201cUsing Benford\u2019s Law to Assess Financial Reporting Quality\u201d \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog,\n February 2016\n \u201cThe SEC Never Reads 74% of Filings, Putting Investors at Risk\u201d \u2013 Marketwatch.com, October 2015\n \u201cOn the Role of Companies\u2019 External Securities Law Advisors \u2013 Facilitators or Gatekeepers?\u201d\n \u2013 Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog, October 2015\n \u201cAccountants Increasingly Use Data Analysis to Catch Fraud\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, December 2014\n \u201cIRS Pays Attention to Corporate Filings, Study Shows\u201d \u2013 Compliance Week, November 2014\n \u201cIRS Scanning 10-Ks for Tax Data, Report Finds\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, November 2014\n \u201cA New Tool to Detect Financial Reporting Irregularities\u201d\n \u2013 The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, July 2014\n \u201cThe Simple Mathematical Law That Financial Fraudsters Can\u2019t Beat\u201d \u2013 Forbes, May 2014\n \u201cFinancial Fraud Detection Now as Simple as 1, 2, 3\u201d \u2013 PR Newswire, May 2014\n \u201cThe Search for Suspect Accounting\u201d \u2013 CFO.com, April 2014\n \u201cEarnings Bode Ill for Stocks\u201d \u2013 Wall Street Journal, June 2012\n\n\n\n\n A-7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 50 ofPage\n 62 52 of\n 238\n\n\n POLICY MENTIONS\n U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Arksansas Teacher Retirement\n System, et al., March 2021\n Comment to the SEC re Concept Release on Regulation S-K Disclosures by U.S. Senate Permanent\n Subcommittee on Investigations, July 2016\n Capital Unbound: Remarks at the Cato Summit on Financial Regulation by SEC Commissioner Michael\n S. Piwowar, June 2015\n\n IMPACT METRICS\n SSRN Downloads: ~12,500 (~900 per downloadable paper)\n Google Scholar (BYU) Citations: 2,161 (2,004)\n h-index (i10-index): 15 (18)\n\n PERSONAL INTERESTS\n Running, Yoga, Swimming, Weightlifting, Tennis\n\n LINKS\n BYU Rankings Google Scholar SSRN\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 51 ofPage\n 62 53 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Appendix B\n\n Documents Considered\n\n Court Documents:\n\n \u2022 Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws\n (Doc. 71)\n \u2022 Order, dated Aug. 28, 2024 (Doc. 75)\n\n Court Decisions and Securities Law:\n\n \u2022 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 (1988).\n \u2022 Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1989).\n \u2022 Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 283-84 (2014).\n \u2022 Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal. 2016).\n \u2022 In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2005).\n \u2022 Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467 (N.D. Tex. 2001).\n \u2022 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, December 1995.\n \u2022 Exemption from Registration Under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934\n for Foreign Private Issuers, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, September 2008\n \u2022 Publication or Submission of Quotations Without Specified Information, U.S. Securities &\n Exchange Commission, September 2020\n\n Academic Literature:\n\n \u2022 Alsayed, H. and McGroarty, F., 2012. Arbitrage and the Law of One Price in the Market\n for American Depository Receipts. Journal of International Financial Markets,\n Institutions and Money\n \u2022 Ang, A., Shtauber, A., and Tetlock, P., 2013. Asset Pricing in the Dark: The Cross-Section\n of OTC Stocks. The Review of Financial Studies\n \u2022 Aquino, K., and Poshakwale, S., 2006. Price Determinants of American Depositary\n Receipts (ADR): A Cross-sectional Analysis of Panel Data. Applied Financial Economics\n \u2022 Barber, B., Griffin, P., and Lev, B., 1994. The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the\n Indicators of Common Stocks\u2019 Efficiency. Journal of Corporate Law\n \u2022 Bhole, B., Surana, S. and Torchio, F., 2020. Benchmarking Market Efficiency Indicators\n for Securities Litigation. University of Illinois Law Review\n \u2022 Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., Kogan, S., and Richardson, M., 2019. Information, Trading,\n and Volatility: Evidence from Firm-Specific News. Review of Financial Studies\n\n\n\n B-1\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 52 ofPage\n 62 54 of\n 238\n\n\n\n \u2022 Bozanic, Z., Roulstone, D., and Van Buskirk, A., 2018. Management Earnings Forecasts\n and Other Forward-Looking Statements. Journal of Accounting and Economics\n \u2022 Braun, P., Nelson, D., and Sunier, A., 1995. Good News, Bad News, Volatility, and Betas.\n Journal of Finance\n \u2022 Chakravarty, S., Chiyachantana, C., and Jiang, C., 2011. The Choice of Trading Venue and\n Relative Price Impact of Institutional Trading: ADRs vs. the Underlying Securities in their\n Local Markets. The Journal of Financial Research\n \u2022 Ely, D. and Salehizadeh, M., 2001. American Depositary Receipts An Analysis of\n International Stock Price Movements. International Review of Financial Analysis\n \u2022 Fair, R., 2002. Events That Shook the Market. Journal of Business\n \u2022 Fama, E., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II. Journal of Finance\n \u2022 Figueiredo, A. and Parhizgari, A., 2018. Contemporaneous ADR pricing: intraday\n dynamics during overlapping trading hours. The European Journal of Finance\n \u2022 Gagnon, L. and Karolyi, G., 2010. Multi-Market Trading and Arbitrage. Journal of\n Financial Economics\n \u2022 Howe, J. and Ragan, K., 2002. Price Discovery and the International Flow of Information.\n Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money\n \u2022 Kim, M., Szakmary, A., and Mathur, I, 2000. Price Transmission Dynamics Between ADRs\n and Their Underlying Foreign Securities. Journal of Banking & Finance\n \u2022 Lee, C. and So, E., 2017. Uncovering Expected Returns: Information in Analyst Coverage\n Proxies. Journal of Financial Economics\n \u2022 MacKinlay, A., 1997. Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic\n Literature\n \u2022 Mitchell, M. and Netter, J., 1994. The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud\n Cases: Applications at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Business Lawyer\n \u2022 Mehanaoui, M., 2017. Financial Market Integration: Evidence from Cross-Listed French\n Firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management\n \u2022 Mola, S., Rau. P., and Khorana, A., 2013. Is There Life After the Complete Loss of Analyst\n Coverage? The Accounting Review\n \u2022 Thomas, R. and Cotter, J., 2000. Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the Regulatory\n Setting. Law and Contemporary Problems\n \u2022 Villanueva, M. and Feinstein, S., 2021. Stock Price Reactivity to Earnings Announcements:\n The Role of the Cammer/Krogman Factors. Review of Quantitative Finance and\n Accounting\n \u2022 White, J., 2016, Outcomes of Investing in OTC Stocks, U.S. Securities & Exchange\n Commission, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) White Paper\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 53 ofPage\n 62 55 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Data Sources:\n\n \u2022 Bloomberg Terminal\n \u2022 Factiva News\n \u2022 Teleperformance Earnings Releases\n\n Other:\n\n \u2022 International Reporting Standard: Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines, OTC Markets Group,\n March 2023.\n \u2022 Investor Bulletin: American Depositary Receipts, U.S. Securities & Exchange\n Commission, August 2012.\n \u2022 Testing the Waters: Tapping U.S. Capital Markets without SEC Registration by Cross-\n Trading on OTCQX International, Seward & Kissel LLP, July 2021.\n \u2022 Low-Priced Stocks Can Spell Big Problems, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority\n (FINRA), January 2024.\n \u2022 Can You Swim in a Dark Pool?, FINRA, November 2023.\n \u2022 https://www.teleperformance.com\n \u2022 https://www.bls.gov\n \u2022 https://www.investor.gov\n \u2022 https://www.sec.gov\n \u2022 https://www.otcmarkets.com\n \u2022 All data and documents cited throughout this report\n\n\n\n\n B-3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 54 ofPage\n 62 56 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 1\n Teleperformance ADRs Closing Stock Price and Daily Volume\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n\n\n\n Data source: Bloomberg.\n\n\n E-1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 55 ofPage\n 62 57 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 2\n\n Teleperformance Weekly Trading Volume\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n 18.0%\n\n\n 16.0%\n Class Period: February 20, 2020 -\n August 3, 2022\n 14.0%\n Average Weekly Volume: 2.1%\n 12.0%\n\n\n 10.0%\n\n\n 8.0%\n\n\n 6.0%\n\n\n 4.0%\n\n\n 2.0%\n\n\n 0.0%\n\n\n\n\n Weekly Volume as % of Shares Outstanding\n\n\n Data source: Bloomberg. Note: Average weekly trading volume is calculated by analyzing each group of\n five consecutive trading days (rather than calendar weeks) starting with the first day of the Class Period.\n\n E-2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 56 ofPage\n 62 58 of\n 238\n\n\n\n Exhibit 3\n\n Analyst Coverage\n Class Period: February 20, 2020 - August 3, 2022\n\n Contributor Name Reports Issued\n [1] Morgan Stanley 52\n [2] Societe Generale 37\n [3] Credit Suisse 28\n [4] Kepler 23\n [5] Gilbert Dupont 19\n [6] HSBC 17\n [7] Deutsche Bank 16\n [8] Bank of America 15\n [9] JP Morgan 14\n [10] UBS 14\n [11] Market Grader 10\n [12] Exane 7\n [13] Sadif 6\n [14] Portzamparc 5\n [15] BNP Paribas 4\n [16] CIC ESN 3\n [17] finnCap/Cavendish109 2\n [18] RBS 2\n [19] Berenberg 1\n [20] Business Research Co. 1\n [21] theScreener 1\n [22] William O\u2019Neil 1\n Total 278\n Source: Counsel.\n\n\n\n\n 109\n Per https://www.finncap.com, \u201cfinnCap Group plc has successfully merged with Cenkos\n Securities plc, to form a new group known as Cavendish.\u201d\n\n E-3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 57 ofPage\n 62 59 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 4\n Coefficients from Rolling Event Study Regressions\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n\n\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, Complaint.\n Note: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 6.\n E-4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 58 ofPage\n 62 60 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 5\n\n Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) from Rolling Event Study Regressions\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n\n\n\n Data sources: Bloomberg, Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, Complaint.\n Note: Regression models described in notes below Exhibit 6.\n E-5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 59 ofPage\n 62 61 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 6\n Teleperformance Earnings Announcements and ADRs Abnormal Returns\n Day 0 Day 1\n Statistically\n Disclosure Event Disclosure Window Abnormal Abnormal\n p-value p-value Significant\n Return Return\n [1] 4Q 2019 Earnings Release Feb. 20-21, 2020 -0.8% 0.599 0.5% 0.763 No\n [2] 1Q 2020 Earnings Release Apr. 28-29, 2020 1.1% 0.636 7.1% 0.002 Yes\n [3] 2Q 2020 Earnings Release Jul. 29-30, 2020 -0.3% 0.907 7.9% 0.005 Yes\n [4] 3Q 2020 Earnings Release Nov. 3-4, 2020 1.7% 0.336 3.2% 0.076 Yes\n [5] 4Q 2020 Earnings Release Feb. 25-26, 2021 2.2% 0.139 3.9% 0.010 Yes\n [6] 1Q 2021 Earnings Release Apr. 12-13, 2021 2.6% 0.070 1.3% 0.361 Yes\n [7] 2Q 2021 Earnings Release Jul. 28-29, 2021 0.3% 0.792 0.9% 0.365 No\n [8] 3Q 2021 Earnings Release Nov. 3-4, 2021 -0.8% 0.447 -2.5% 0.020 Yes\n [9] 4Q 2021 Earnings Release Feb. 17-18, 2022 0.2% 0.886 5.9% 0.000 Yes\n [10] 1Q 2022 Earnings Release Apr. 19-20, 2022 -1.5% 0.351 4.5% 0.005 Yes\n [11] 2Q 2022 Earnings Release Jul. 27-28, 2022 -2.2% 0.120 -5.2% 0.000 Yes\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, Complaint. The event study estimations are based on rolling\n regressions of the 120 trading days preceding each date of analysis. The regression models control for the S&P 500 Total Return\n Index (\u201cMarket Index\u201d) and the S&P Information Technology Index (\u201cIndustry Index\u201d). The estimations exclude the alleged\n corrective disclosure window and the earnings announcement disclosure windows.\n\n\n\n\n E-6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 60 ofPage\n 62 62 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 7\n\n Teleperformance ADR Market Capitalization\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n $500\n\n $450\n\n $400\n Market Capitalization (in millions)\n\n\n\n\n $350\n\n $300\n\n $250\n Class Period: February 20, 2020 -\n $200 August 3, 2022\n\n Average Market Cap\n $150\n $347.2 million\n\n $100\n\n $50\n\n $0\n\n\n\n\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n\n E-7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 61 ofPage\n 62 63 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 8\n\n Teleperformance ADRs Average Bid-Ask Spread\n February 20, 2020 \u2013 August 3, 2022\n\n\n\n\n Data Source: Bloomberg.\n\n\n E-8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-24580-CMA\n Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP\n Document\n Document\n 87-1 Entered\n 108-10 on Filed\n FLSD12/12/25\n Docket 12/05/2024\n Page 62 ofPage\n 62 64 of\n 238\n\n\n\nExhibit 9\n Teleperformance Earnings Announcements and Common Stock Abnormal Returns\n\n Day -1 Day 0 Statistically\n Disclosure Event Disclosure Window\n Abnormal Return p-value Abnormal Return p-value Significant\n [1] 4Q 2019 Earnings Release Feb. 20-21, 2020 -1.1% 0.375 0.2% 0.877 No\n [2] 1Q 2020 Earnings Release Apr. 28-29, 2020 -0.8% 0.757 8.5% 0.001 Yes\n [3] 2Q 2020 Earnings Release Jul. 29-30, 2020 -1.3% 0.658 6.4% 0.036 Yes\n [4] 3Q 2020 Earnings Release Nov. 3-4, 2020 0.7% 0.664 5.4% 0.002 Yes\n [5] 4Q 2020 Earnings Release Feb. 25-26, 2021 1.2% 0.395 6.0% 0.000 Yes\n [6] 1Q 2021 Earnings Release Apr. 12-13, 2021 1.9% 0.161 1.4% 0.296 No\n [7] 2Q 2021 Earnings Release Jul. 28-29, 2021 -0.6% 0.545 1.1% 0.235 No\n [8] 3Q 2021 Earnings Release Nov. 3-4, 2021 -0.8% 0.407 -2.6% 0.006 Yes\n [9] 4Q 2021 Earnings Release Feb. 17-18, 2022 0.9% 0.529 5.5% 0.000 Yes\n [10] 1Q 2022 Earnings Release Apr. 19-20, 2022 -3.8% 0.039 5.9% 0.001 Yes\n [11] 2Q 2022 Earnings Release Jul. 27-28, 2022 -0.1% 0.939 -4.9% 0.005 Yes\n\n\n Data Sources: Bloomberg, Teleperformance Investor Relations Website, Complaint. The event study estimations are based on rolling\n regressions of the 120 trading days preceding each date of analysis. The regression models control for the S&P 500 Total Return\n Index (\u201cMarket Index\u201d) and the S&P Information Technology Index (\u201cIndustry Index\u201d). The estimations exclude the alleged\n corrective disclosure window and the earnings announcement disclosure windows.\n\n\n\n\n E-9\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:13:36.637712-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727948","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit J - Expert Report of Dr. Zahn Bozanic for Case Number 1_23-cv-24","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528963/","id":484528963,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/11/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:12:00.389693-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:22:21.191292-07:00","sha1":"408038ac54e82a5bedcc08468d39fda4d9d51d0e","page_count":21,"file_size":2268732,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.11.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.11.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page1of21\n\nEXHIBIT K\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2of21\n\nCULPER RESEARCH\n\nDisclaimer\n\nBy downloading from or viewing material on this website you agree to the following Terms of Service. Use of Culper Research's (\"Culper\")\nresearch is at your own risk. In no event should Culper or any affiliated party be liable for any direct or indirect trading losses caused by any\ninformation on this site. You further agree to do your own research and due diligence, consult your own financial, legal, and tax advisors\nbefore making any investment decision with respect to transacting in any securities covered herein. You should assume that Culper (possibly\nalong with or through our members, partners, affiliates, employees, and/or consultants) along with our clients and/or investors has a\nposition in any securities covered herein. Following publication of any research, we intend to continue transacting in the securities covered\nherein, and we may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of our initial recommendation, conclusions, or opinions.\nResearch is not investment advice nor a recommendation or solicitation to buy securities. To the best of our ability and belief, all\ninformation contained herein is accurate and reliable, and has been obtained from public sources we believe to be accurate and reliable,\nand who are not insiders or connected persons of the securities covered herein or who may otherwise owe any fiduciary duty or duty of\nconfidentiality to the issuer. However, such information is presented \u201cas is,\u201d without warranty of any kind \u2014 whether express or implied.\nCulper makes no representation, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or with regard\nto the results to be obtained from its use. Research may contain forward-looking statements, estimates, projections, and opinions with\nrespect to among other things, certain accounting, legal, and regulatory issues the issuer faces and the potential impact of those issues on\nits future business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as more generally, the issuer\u2019s anticipated operating performance,\naccess to capital markets, market conditions, assets and liabilities. Such statements, estimates, projections and opinions may prove to be\nsubstantially inaccurate and are inherently subject to significant risks and uncertainties beyond Culper's control. All expressions of opinion\nare subject to change without notice, and Culper does not undertake to update or supplement this report or any of the information\ncontained herein. You agree that the information on this website is copyrighted, and you therefore agree not to distribute this information\n(whether the downloaded file, copies / images / reproductions, or the link to these files) in any manner other than by providing the following\nlink \u2014 http://www.culperresearch.com The failure of Culper to exercise or enforce any right or provision of these Terms of Service shall\nnot constitute a waiver of this right or provision. If any provision of these Terms of Service is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to\nbe invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties\u2019 intentions as reflected in the provision\nand rule that the other provisions of these Terms of Service remain in full force and effect, in particular as to this governing law and\njurisdiction provision. You agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising out of or related\nto use of this website or the material herein must be filed within one (1) year after such claim or cause of action arose or be forever barred.\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3of21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nCleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can\n\nWe are short CleanSpark, Inc. (\u201cCleanSpark\u201d, \u201cCLSK\u201d, \u201cthe Company\u201d) as we believe the Company is an insider\nenrichment scheme which, at every turn of its promotion, has vastly overstated or simply fabricated key elements\nof its business, including purported customers and contracts. We also find that CleanSpark is rife with undisclosed\nrelated party transactions that we believe have effectively siphoned capital from shareholders to the pockets of\ninsiders. We believe CEO Zach Bradford and Chairman S. Matthew Schultz have habitually lied to investors and\ncannot be trusted, and CleanSpark stock is uninvestible.\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s promotional charade has spanned marijuana, clean energy, \u201cSaaS\u201d, electric vehicles, and, most\nrecently, bitcoin. On December 10, 2020, the Company acquired a single data center in College Park, GA \u2014 ATL\nData Centers, LLC. CleanSpark touts that cost to mine is under $6,000 per coin, yet we believe the Company\nhasn\u2019t disclosed the potentially catastrophic information that this artificially low power cost may be set to\nexpire in less than 3 years. In August 2020, miner Marathon Patent Group announced its intention to acquire ATL,\nthen known as Fastblock Mining. Marathon abandoned the acquisition in September 2020, after stating that it\nwas \u201cnot economically feasible\u201d to buy the asset due to its soon-expiring power agreement. In our view, this\nsuggests that CleanSpark has simply rebranded an otherwise failed, podunk operation in service of a gutless\npromotion attempt. Indeed, ATL\u2019s website wasn\u2019t even created until just two days prior to its acquisition by\nCleanSpark. CleanSpark\u2019s apparent lies and omissions aside, we think investors buying the stock for the Company\u2019s\nmining capabilities are paying Porsche 911 prices for what amounts to a broken-down Toyota Corolla. ATL\u2019s\ncurrent capacity of just 3,471 ASICs, or 245 PH/s, is less than 10% of the mining power claimed by RIOT Blockchain\n(RIOT) or Marathon Patent Group (MARA). We view the Company\u2019s claims to future energy savings at ATL as\nempty promises which read eerily similar to those made regarding its once-touted fake customer, Green Dragon.\n\nIndeed, we think CleanSpark\u2019s entire \u201cbusiness\u201d has been built upon lies and deceit, and its real business is not in\nfabricating energy savings for customers, but in selling dreams to promote its worthless stock to investors. In\nAugust 2020, CleanSpark announced it would provide microgrids to \u201cmore than 400 unique residential resort\nproperties,\u201d of which 252 are at Valle Divino, Mexico. We visited Valle Divino, and despite these claims, the site\nwas an empty wasteland:\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page4of21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s partner in this supposed venture, International Land Alliance Inc (ILAL), is a penny stock with less\nthan one quarter worth of cash, a going concern warning, and California records show a record of default in\nSeptember 2020. We think CleanSpark\u2019s relationship with ILAL is nothing more than an incestuous promotional\nstunt with zero attempt to ground their statements in reality.\n\nSimilarly, in January 2020, CleanSpark signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Shoreline Schools\nwhich analysts claim could lead to $2 million to $3 million in revenues. We simply reached out to Shoreline, whose\ncontact told us that the current plans contemplate just 3 switchgear units, or about ~$300,000 in potential\nrevenue to CleanSpark, a mere 10-15% of analyst claims, even if the contract is eventually awarded.\n\nThese fabrications and overstatements are nothing new; CleanSpark once claimed that it \u201cdesigned a \u2018best-in-\nclass\u2019\u201d microgrid solution for a cannabis operator, Green Dragon, yet we reached out to Green Dragon, which\nstated that it never saw the press release and has never paid CleanSpark for any services whatsoever. We also\ninclude those emails in this report.\n\nApart from the contracts that CleanSpark appears to have fabricated out of thin air, we\u2019ve found multiple\nundisclosed related party transactions which have effectively funneled investor capital to the pockets of\ninsiders.\n\nOn October 13, 2020, the Company stated it executed a $1M contract with LAWCLERK. CleanSpark Chief Revenue\nOfficer Amer Tadayon stated that \u201cThis contract renewal shows that not only can we [CleanSpark] attract new\nbusiness, but we have also proven our value as a trusted partner with our clients.\u201d However, Tadayon himself is\nnot only CleanSpark\u2019s CRO, but is also listed as LAWCLERK\u2019s Chief Product Officer, which makes this a farcically\negregious undisclosed related party transaction.\n\nWe see the entire February 2020 acquisition of p2k Labs, Inc. as another undisclosed related party transaction, as\nCleanSpark\u2019s CFO Lori Love is found on p2k\u2019s corporate documents since at least November 2018, well before\njoining CleanSpark and the p2k acquisition. In effect, CleanSpark appears to have purchased the side business of\nits CFO, with zero relevance to the Company\u2019s supposed clean energy mission.\n\nFinally, p2k lists \u201ccustomer case studies\u201d on its website, yet these \u201ccustomers\u201d appear to exist only on paper, while\nCleanSpark\u2019s CRO Amer Tadayon and CleanSpark\u2019s CFO Lori Love control the entities. We believe this web of\nundisclosed relationships explains why CleanSpark decided to acquire this seemingly useless business.\n\nWe think CleanSpark is a perpetual promotion which serves primarily to enrich insiders. Management humors\ninvestors with so-called \u201cconservative estimates,\u201d yet just 3 years ago, CleanSpark promised $131 million of 2020\nrevenues vs. the $10 million it produced, or an abhorrent 7.6% of this supposedly \u201cconservative\u201d figure.\nNevertheless, this didn\u2019t stop CleanSpark executives from taking home $6.2 million in compensation in 2020, while\nthe Company also paid out $6.5 million in \u201cprofessional fees.\u201d\n\nDespite management protestations that the Company will not further dilute shareholders, actions have spoken\nlouder than words, as over the past 5 years, share count has exploded over 8.5x, while ATL Data Centers was\nacquired with a new $19.4 million in capital above and beyond the $40 million, October 2020 raise.\n\nMeanwhile, undisclosed to current CleanSpark investors, CEO Zachary Bradford is paid handsomely for being\napparently only a part-time CEO, as he also remains employed at Blue Chip Accounting, where he is the audit\npartner of a $7 million cannabis-growing penny stock. Bradford has zero previous public company CEO experience.\n\n3\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page5of21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nHe did, however, serve as CFO of a thrift store operation, Epic Stores, which went bankrupt. Moreover, Bradford\u2019s\ncompany-provided biography conspicuously omits the names of accounting firms he has worked for and founded,\nrespectively: De Joya Griffith and Blue Chip Accounting. De Joya Griffith had an SEC enforcement action brought\nagainst it related to materially deficient audits of micro-cap mining shell companies \u201cripe for pump-and-dump,\u201d\nresulting in a 5-year SEC ban and De Joya surrendering its Nevada license. For Chairman Matthew Schultz\u2019s part,\nwe were unable to verify that he obtained an undergraduate degree, despite his biography stating he \u201cstudied\nmanagement and finance at Weber State University.\u201d We\u2019ve found Schultz\u2019s professional career to be riddled with\ngrandiose claims to shareholders that have ultimately resulted in a wake of losses. We don\u2019t think CleanSpark will\nend any differently.\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s auditor, MaloneBailey LLP, was one of the largest auditors of Chinese reverse merger schemes, and\nhas received numerous deficient PCAOB inspection reports. It recently audited CMG Holdings Group, Inc., which\nallegedly had over $20 million stolen from its books. Finally, CleanSpark\u2019s former IR contact, who now runs\npromotional \u201cconferences\u201d for the Company, settled with the SEC in February 2020 for improperly disclosing his\ncompensation tied to promotion of another penny stock. We think CleanSpark\u2019s executives, board, and backers\nlack any shred of credibility, this cash-burning company is worthless, and we are short.\n\nWe Think the Acquisition of ATL Data Centers is another Gutless Promotion Attempt\n\nCleanSpark acquired ATL Data Centers, LLC on December 10, 2020. In the press release, CEO Zachary Bradford\nstated that: \u201cWe began early-stage analysis of ATL in February 2020 to evaluate expanding the facility's energy\ncapacity and reducing energy costs.\u201d However, ATL wasn\u2019t created until April 13, 2020, per the State of Georgia:\n\nATL Data Centers LLC\n\na Domestic Limited Liability Company\n\nhas been duly organized under the laws of the State of Georgia on 04/ 13/2020|by the filing of articles of\norganization in the Office of the Secretary of State and by the paying of fees as provided by Title 14 of the\nOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated.\n\nThe press release also notes ATL\u2019s website, www.atl-data.com, which we find was registered on December 8,\n2020, just two days prior to CleanSpark announcing the acquisition:\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6of21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nName: ATL-DATA.COM\nRegistry Domain ID: 2577179177_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN\n\nDomain Status:\nclientDeleteProhibited\nclientRenewProhibited\n\nclientTransferProhibited\nclientUpdateProhibited\n\nNameservers:\nNS13.DOMAINCONTROL.COM\nNS14.DOMAINCONTROL.COM\n\nDates\n\nRegistry Expiration: 2021-12-08 00:19:05 UTC\n\n| Created: 2020-12-08 00:19:05 UTC |\n\nThe data center itself was previously held by Virtual Citadel, Inc. which initiated bankruptcy proceedings upon the\ndeath of its founder. Out of the bankruptcy process, the assets then appear to be owned by \u201cFastblock Mining,\u201d\nwhose principals were also listed principals of ATL Data Centers, LLC. See that ATL\u2019s merely days-old website uses\nthe same branding as Fastblock:\n\nFastblock Mining vs. ATL Data Centers\n\nA) ee oor a oP eed ee oles wee) ee) Para iba eo ae one\n\nms l=16 8) (@]el 4\n\nHy) ete er a DFS eed a ae Ota ew en) be) ole7) Re-V ean\nb\n\npee) rel, bate\n\nTo us, this hasty rebranding was an attempt to dissociate ATL from its checkered history. In August 2020, Marathon\nmade an offer to acquire Fastblock / ATL. However, in September 2020, Marathon backed out of the deal, citing\nthe upcoming expiration of its power agreement:\n\n\u201cDuring its due diligence process, the Company discovered that the Power Agreement pursuant to which\nFastblock would provide power at a subsidized rate of $0.0285KwH, would expire in three years. The\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nCompany and Fastblock were unsuccessful in attempts to extend the term of that agreement with the\npower provider to the 7-10 year Window which the Company would need for this acquisition to be\neconomically feasible.\u201d\n\nIn numerous press releases and promotional interviews, CleanSpark has touted that ATL\u2019s mining operations are\nprofitable with bitcoin prices above $6,000. However, CleanSpark has not disclosed to investors if it faces the\nsame rate hike that made Marathon walk away. CleanSpark\u2019s potential lies of omission aside, we think investors\nbuying CleanSpark for the Bitcoin-related hype are getting a broken-down Toyota Corolla, while CleanSpark claims\nit has a Porsche 911. ATL\u2019s single measly warehouse has present capacity of just 3,471 ASIC miners and 245 PH/s,\na fraction of miners such as RIOT Blockchain (RIOT) and Marathon Patent Group (MARA). At its valuation of $1.0\nbillion, we find CleanSpark overvalued by 6x to 9x:\n\neller Tah) oy-le a Cm OM -TaYClielsveM o\\\"m o> ace m) 4\n\ney niyer tab] EVEL edie 1) mele AS CW ey-ya Witte\n\nMarathon 1,464 103,000 3,560 $14,214 $411,236\nRIOT 1,613 37,640 3,800 $42,853 $293,684\nCleanSpark? 1,005 4,971 351 $202,172 $2,863,248\n\nCleanSpark claims that ATL will act to demonstrate the Company\u2019s clean energy capabilities, as it plans to build a\nmicrogrid \u201con top of\u201d the data center, hence lowering its costs. To us, CleanSpark\u2019s promises regarding this yet-\nto-be-constructed microgrid at ATL ring reminiscent of its short-lived foray into marijuana, when the Company\nalso claimed to provide tremendous value to a cannabis operator, Green Dragon. As profiled later in this report,\nwe believe CleanSpark\u2019s Green Dragon claims were bold-faced-lies that have merely been recycled for ATL:\n\nEM @lC=F-Tasyey-Ta ee yianl hm aereae lata aal-Ms ye talem MUS ce) aCe ote] cw Loleg\n\nCTg-t-JaM Dl e-s Ae) eee (Oleic) ela 40) WA\n\niN HRD Dye: el-Vel elem de olen i exsem (BY-\\e-)0 1] e\\-)ar 40 P40)\n\n\u201cThe first phase of the Green Dragon microgrid will\nemploy solar, energy storage, and advanced controls\nto immediately reduce the monthly electricity bill of\nthe indoor grow facility by 82%. Key to the system's\naggressive payback schedule is CleanSpark's mPulse\nsoftware that will virtually eliminate the demand\ncharges which previously accounted for almost 50% of\nGreen Dragon's monthly bill.\u201d\n\n\u201cCleanSpark plans to deploy its software technologies\nand trade secrets to maximize energy savings, expand\ntotal power capacity, provide resilient electricity, and\nreduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Company\nanticipates that this will involve the design and\ninstallation of multiple microgrids at the facility.\u201d\n\nATL Data Centers Was Acquired with New Equity, Further Diluting Shareholders\n\n1 CleanSpark currently has 3,471 ASICs, while it has claimed to have ordered an additional 1,500. We have scaled up ATL\u2019s\ncurrent 245 PH/s to 351 PH/s to reflect these new orders. Valuations as of close 1/13/2021\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8of21\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\nFinally, we think CleanSpark has intentionally deceived investors regarding the Company\u2019s capital raises.\nSpecifically, the release stated that: \u201cThis transaction represents the first strategic acquisition as part of a larger\ngrowth plan following CleanSpark's recent $40M institutional investment.\u201d This language implies that the $40\n\nmillion raise was used to acquire ATL, in keeping with the Company\u2019s line that capital raises are only used for\nM&A. However, ATL was acquired with an entirely new share issuance, hence further diluting shareholders.\n\nCleanSpark Habitually Fabricates and Overstates Claimed \u201cCustomers\u201d and \u201cContracts\u201d\n\nCleanSpark Claims Microgrids at 252 Homes in Valle Divino. We Visited; It\u2019s a Wasteland\n\nCleanSpark has touted contracts with International Land Alliance (OTC:ILAL), a $13 million penny stock that we\nbelieve to be total vapor. CleanSpark signed its initial agreement with ILAL in November 2019 in which it claimed\n\u201c1,500 deployment sites ... will start later this year [2019] with two Villa\u2019s to be used as model home units ... the\nCompany expects to realize revenues ranging from approximately $2,000 to in excess of $100,000 per property.\u201d\n\nCEO Bradford referred to the agreement as \u201ca game changer for us\u201d and concurrent with the release, CleanSpark\ninvested up to $500,000 in ILAL. However, despite the claim of a \u201cinitial roll-out this year,\u201d so far as we can tell,\nCleanSpark has not yet deployed a single microgrid to any ILAL properties. Instead, in August 2020, CleanSpark\nannounced that it was, \u201cpleased to announce project deployments to be executed as part their exclusive [ILAL]\nagreement ... Under this phase International has agreed that CleanSpark will provide microgrid power solutions\nto more than 400 unique residential resort properties,\u201d of which 252 are cabins at Valle Divino and 152 are \u201cluxury\nvillas within the Plaza Bajamar project.\u201d\n\nFor its part, ILAL has twice stated that it has broken ground on Valle Divino, both in May 2019 and in July 2020:\n\nInternational Land Alliance Announces\nGroundbreaking at Valle Divino\n\n| May 22, 2019 09:00 ET | Source: International Land Alliance, Inc. |\n\nInternational Land Alliance Announces\nGroundbreaking at Valle Divino\n\n| July 14, 2020 09:00 ET | Source: International Land Alliance, Inc. |\n\nHowever, today, ILAL\u2019s website still offers only computer-generated renditions of the future development. Curious\nto see the progress that ILAL had made since the supposed July 2020 (or was it May 2019?) groundbreaking, we\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page9of21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nvisited the site of the supposed Valle Divino development ourselves, led by ILAL\u2019s own representatives. What\nwe saw was zero construction, merely empty desert, representative of the Company\u2019s many empty promises:\n\nMEV OR eT ET Cay &\n\n1 aE CCRT\nLUM E:3-3:) doy 2)\nPoe eeu elm\n\nAANA CH Tse UP VAL a mele) |\n\nWe question under what conditions CleanSpark claimed that it has begun \u201cproject deployments\u201d given that these\nhomes are not even yet being built. These theoretical future developments also require capital, of which ILAL has\nalmost none. ILAL has been consistently late on its filings since Q2 2018, and as of Q3 2020, has just $16,221 in\ncash on its balance sheet. ILAL also holds a going concern warning, and in September 2020, two Notices of Default\nwere filed against ILAL in Riverside County, California (document numbers 2020-0447477 and 2020-0412619).\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nIt appears to us that CleanSpark and ILAL are partnering not in building anything of value, but in recycling vapid\npress releases and grandiose claims with little grounding in reality.\n\nWe Also Think CleanSpark Analysts Overstate Shoreline Schools Potential By 6x to 10x\n\nIn January 2020, CleanSpark announced it had executed an MOU with Shoreline Unified School District \u201cto\nestablish grid resiliency.\u201d The release indicated that CleanSpark provided a feasibility study to the school,\nevaluating the potential of a microgrid. CleanSpark frequently touts its feasibility studies as a source of revenues,\nyet individuals familiar with the discussions indicated to us that in fact CleanSpark was only not paid for a study,\nbut paid third party consultants to conjure a study on its behalf. CleanSpark then hopes that, armed with the\nstudy, the school will decide to construct a microgrid, wherein the Company can then sell its controllers and\nassociated software.\n\nTo that end, HC Wainwright analysts wrote that \u201cthis project, if awarded and deployed, could generate around\n$2-3M in revenues over the next few years.\u201d However, our conversations with individuals involved on the project\nrevealed that even if the school were to move forward with a project, the current discussions contemplate just\ndeploying just 3 mPulse controllers at a cost of approximately $100,000 each. Thus, the potential revenue to\nCleanSpark is closer to $300,000, a mere 10-15% of these estimates.\n\nGreen Dragon Cannabis Relationship Was Apparently Fabricated: \u201cI\u2019m Stunned\u201d\n\nIn October 2017, CleanSpark claimed that \u201cGreen Dragon, a Controlled Distribution Agriculture cannabis company\nbased in North Hollywood, Calif., has contracted CleanSpark as their microgrid solutions provider.\u201d CleanSpark\nfurther claimed that it could \u201cimmediately reduce the monthly electricity bill of the indoor grow facility by 82%.\u201d\nThen in the Company\u2019s December 2018 annual update, it claimed that it had \u201cdesigned a \u2018best-in-class\u2019 solution\nfor the Cannabis market to meet the significant and growing energy demands of the industry.\u201d We reached out to\nGreen Dragon, hoping to learn more about their experience with CleanSpark and this supposed \u201cbest-in-class\nsolution.\u201d Instead, Green Dragon\u2019s founder told us that he was never a customer of CleanSpark\u2019s, and was\n\u201cstunned\u201d to learn that he had been named as such by the Company:\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 11 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nto info +\nHello,\nI'm reaching out in reference to the following press release:\n\nhttps://www. prnewswire.com/news-releases/cleanspark-provides-a-best-in-class-microgrid-solution-ta\nthe-marijuana-industry-300529473.htm\n\nI'm hoping to learn about your experience with the microgrid solution and with CleanSpark. Any\ninformation you're willing to offer is much appreciated. thank you!\n\nManuel Semerdjian ee 1:48 PM (49 minutes ago) yer @~\n\ntome \u00a5\n\nthey never moved forward with us, requested some of our LA DWP bills/statements and went quiet.\n\nManuel Semerdjian ee 1:51PM (46 minutes ago) FR\n\ntome *\n\nim stunned i never even seen the press release\n\neee\n\nee 2:26 PM (12 minutes ago) YY\n\nto Manuel ~\u00bb\n\nThanks Manuel. Just to confirm, did you ever pay them for anything?\n\nManuel Semerdjian 2:35PM (3 minutes ago) yy @&\ntome ~\n\nNo, | didn't.\n\nNevertheless, press releases such as these allowed CleanSpark to attach itself to the cannabis sector, and led stock\npromoters to make claims such that CleanSpark is \u201cthe best cannabis play you\u2019ve never heard of\u201d and that\nCleanSpark is \u201cset to explode with cannabis demand.\u201d These promotional articles ring eerily familiar to those\nwhich now herald CleanSpark as a clean energy and bitcoin darling.\n\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11\n\nCulper Research\n\nCleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK)\n\nFiled 12/12/25 Page 12 of 21\n\nJanuary 14, 2020\n\np2k Labs: An Undisclosed Related Party Acquisition Which Appears to Fake Customers\n\nWe think CleanSpark has pulled the wool over investors\u2019 eyes in its February 2020 acquisition of p2k Labs, which\nwe\u2019ve found is an undisclosed related party transaction that has apparently fabricated its customers. p2k provides\noutsourced web and app design and marketing services, what we view as commodity low-margin businesses far\nafield of the Company\u2019s stated mission. p2k\u2019s website lists customer logos, including Monster Shield and Cirrina\nActivewear, shown below. However, Monster Shield, LLC is an Arizona corporation which lists CleanSpark Chief\n\nRevenue Officer Amer Tadayon as its sole member since February 2015. Tadayon was Founder and CEO of p2k\n\nLabs itself and is now CleanSpark\u2019s Chief Revenue Officer:\n\np2K Labs Website:\n\n>y MONSTER\nOS SHIELD\n\n/ NIGHT LIGHT & APP\n\nThe Monster Shield app is designed to\nhelp empower children to overcome their\nfears of the dark. Children and parents\ncan used the app to scan the room for\nmonsters, then turn on the wireless night\nlight.\n\nCorporate Registration:\n\nMONSTER SHIELD, LLC\n\nCompany Number L19855842\nIncorporation Date 18 February 2015 (over 5 years ago)\nCompany Type DOMESTIC L.L.C.\nJurisdiction Arizona (US)\n\nRegistered Address 9274 E VIADE VAQUERO DR\nSCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255\n\nUnited States\n\n| Agent Name_AMER TADAYON |\n\nWe were unable to locate Monster Shield\u2019s supposed night light app on either the Android store or the Apple\nStore, while the company\u2019s Facebook page was last updated over 2 years ago. We also find Cirrina, Inc., a\npurported p2k customer, is run by Amer Tadayon and Lori Love, who is now CleanSpark\u2019s Chief Financial Officer:\n\np2K Labs Website:\nCIRRINA\n\nActivewear\n\nCirrina is a cutting edge activewear line\nwhere shoppers can choose to design\nand order apparel with custom designs,\ncolor and size. the p2klabs team\ndesigned the corporate identity and\nbrand including brand name and logo.\nWe also designed and built an enterprise\nclass mobile app that is tied into a\ncustom ecommerce enqine and\n\nCorporate Registration:\n\nCIRRINA, INC.\n\nCompany Number E\u00a30116712016-6\nNative Company Number \u00a30116712016-6\n\nStatus\nIncorporation Date\nCompany Type\nJurisdiction\nAgent Name\nAgent Address\n\nDissolved\n\n11 March 2016 (over 4 years ago)\nDomestic Corporation\n\nNevada (US)\n\nGTG LLP\n\n650 WHITE DR STE 100, LAS VEGAS, NV, 89119\n\nInactive Directors / Officers\n\n, president\n, director\n, agent\n\n, secretary\n\ntreasurer\n\u2014\n\n11\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 13 of 21\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\nSimilarly, were unable to find any independent Cirrina web presence apart from p2k\u2019s website. Highly dubious\n\n\u201ccustomers\u201d aside, we feel this begs the question of why CleanSpark acquired p2k Labs, which has zero relation\nto the Company\u2019s supposed focus in \u201cclean energy software.\u201d\n\nMoreover, p2k Labs corporate documents registered in Nevada in November 2018 list current CleanSpark CFO\nLori Love as an officer of the business well before she arrived at CleanSpark in October 2019, and well before\nCleanSpark closed on the acquisition of p2k Labs in February 2020:\n\nLori Love Lori Love CleanSpark\nfirst listed as announced closes\np2k Officer \u2014\u2014\u2014 CFO of CleanSpark _\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014= > acquisition of p2k Labs\nNovember 12, 2018 October 2, 2019 February 6, 2020\n\nAs such, we view CleanSpark\u2019s acquisition of p2k Labs to be yet another undisclosed related party transaction\nwhich essentially funneled capital from the Company to the pockets of insiders.\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s LAWCLERK Contract Is Another Undisclosed Related Party Transaction\n\nOn October 13, 2020, CleanSpark claimed to have executed a contract with LAWCLERK.LEGAL \u201cvalued in excess of\n$1 million.\u201d The press release included a quote from CleanSpark\u2019s CRO and p2klabs founder Amer Tadayon, which\nstated, in part, \u201cThis contract renewal shows that not only can we attract new business, but we have also proven\nour value as a trusted partner with our clients.\u201d We find this laughable, as on LAWCLERK\u2019s own website, Tadayon\nis shown as the company\u2019s Chief Product Officer:\n\nAmer Tadayon\nChief Product Officer\n\nA seasoned executive and entrepreneur JAmer Tadayon is co-founder and CEO of p2k Labs, |p design, technology\n\nand marketing agency. } As CPO of LAWCLERK, Amer brings more than 25 years of experience fp all facets of\n\nbusiness including technology, marketing, sales and design. He has held leadership positions at Fortune 500\ncompanies including IBM, Cognizant and Frog Design. He has also worked with major global brands such as\nNike, MTV and Mattel.\n\n} Amer has led the development and technolagy team at LAWCLERK from its conception fo the creation of its\n\nonline marketplace. As the company expands into new markets, he oversees the crossover of design,\ntechnology, function and user experience to make sure the LAWCLERK marketplace is positioned to revolutionize\nthe practice of law.\n\nAs such, it appears that when Tadayon refers to \u201cour clients,\u201d he\u2019s referring to himself in the third person, as this\ncontract is a blatantly obvious undisclosed related party transaction.\n\n12\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 14 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nCleanSpark Claims to Make Conservative Estimates, Yet Falls Woefully Short\n\nThese either entirely fabricated or massively overstated contracts are the bedrock of CleanSpark\u2019s claims to soon\nproduce hockey stick-like revenue growth. For example, Chairman Shultz claimed at the September 2020 LD Micro\nconference that CleanSpark \u201ctends to under-promise and over-deliver\u201d on its estimates:\n\n\u201cWe believe that our forecasted numbers, that we published even on this presentation, are very\nconservative. And as evidenced by our most recent quarterly filings, we generally tend to under-promise\nand over-deliver on those numbers.\u201d\n\nDespite Schultz\u2019s protestations, CleanSpark has fallen laughably short of its long-term goals. For example, in its\nJanuary 2017 presentation (page 21), CleanSpark touted a projected $133 million in 2020 revenues. However, the\nCompany recently announced just $10 million in 2020 revenues, a groan-inducing 7.5% of the original claim:\n\nRevenues (S$ millions)\n$140 $133.0\n\n$120\n\n$101.2\n$100\n\n80 $65.4\n$60\n$40\n\n$29 915.2 $10.0\n\n4.5\n0.4 0.6 :\n50 \u00b0 \u00b0 a\n2017 2018 2019 2020\nCLSK Estimates Actual Results\n\nNevertheless, CleanSpark once again patronizes investors with grandiose claims as to future revenues:\n\n13\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 15 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nBUGIS\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Core Business is Low-Margin Commodity Hardware Sales, Not Software\nWe also think CleanSpark\u2019s continual promotion of itself as a clean energy software darling are laughable at best.\nSee for example an August 7, 2020 interview conducted by a 19-year-old, apparently out of his basement, in which\n\nChairman Matt Schultz claimed numerous times that CleanSpark was a software story:\n\n\u201cWhat is CleanSpark? We\u2019re a software and technology company. And we\u2019ve evolved to become a more\npure software play out of necessity.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat we\u2019re really good at is software. Software and controls, as well as data analytics and modeling.\u201d\n\n\u201cOur core competency is this disruptive software and technology approach, that will literally, in our\nopinion, change the face of the energy markets globally.\u201d\n\nIn its 2020 Form 10-K, \u201cSoftware\u201d is mentioned 92 times. In its September 2020 investor presentation, CleanSpark\nclaims to be shifting to a SaaS business, leading to \u201cprofit expansion.\u201d\n\narelaUiitsl ass\n\nSSA\n\nate ae hl)\n\narea heli ss\n\nUnfortunately, CleanSpark cannot simply fabricate its own financial statements in the same way the Company\nappears to be doing for its customers and contracts. In 2020, the Company generated just 21% gross margins,\nwhich more closely resembles a commodity hardware business than a high-flying software company. The\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 16 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nCompany also spent just $163,918 in product development expenses, while in 2019 it recorded a $6.9 million\nimpairment (see pg. F-14) of both its mVSO and mPulse software assets.\n\nWhile CleanSpark claims to be becoming a software company, its financial statements demonstrate it simply\nsells low-margin commodity hardware. Indeed, here are the products themselves:\n\nal}\n\nTransfer Switch\nSwitchboard\n\nPanelboards\n(UL 67)\n\nMV Metal |\nEnclosed Switchgear\n\nManagement Omits Previous Business Failures and Current Questionable Relationships\n\nCleanspark\u2019s CEO Zachary K. Bradford joined the Company in 2014 as CFO, and took the reins as CEO in October\n2019. Prior to Cleanspark, the Company states of Bradford that: \u201cHe has also served as a partner in a public\naccounting and consulting firm in Henderson, Nevada since June 2013.\u201d Curiously, the name of Bradford\u2019s \u201cpublic\n\naccounting and consulting firm\u201d is never disclosed, though his LinkedIn profile states that he was Co-Founder of\n\u201cBlue Chip Accounting, LLC\u201d from February 2015 to the Present.\n\nCEO Zachary Bradford Moonlights as the Auditor of a Microcap Cannabis Company\n\nWe find Blue Chip Accounting as listed as accountant for \u201cLiveWire Ergogenics Inc.\u201d (OTC:LVVV) also located in\nHenderson, Nevada. The stock trades at $0.006 per share and holds a $7.2 million valuation. LiveWire\u2019s website\nrefers to the Company as \u201cfocused on acquiring special purpose real estate properties conducive to producing\nhigh-quality handcrafted cannabis products for commercial medicinal and adult-use in California.\u201d LiveWire\u2019s\nrecent 2020 offering documents reveal that the company\u2019s auditor is none other than Zach Bradford himself:\n\nAccountant or Auditor\n\nName: Zach Bradford,\n\nFirm: BLUECHIP ACCOUNTING, LLC\nAddress 1:\n\nAddress ?: Henderson,\n\nPhone: 702.625.6406\n\nEmail: zach@consultbe.com\n\nThough Bradford\u2019s LinkedIn profile lists that he is remains presently employed at Blue Chip, Cleanspark\u2019s current\ndisclosures refer to Bradford\u2019s relationship with Blue Chip in the past tense, and never disclose that Bradford is\ncurrently moonlighting as an auditor of a penny stock cannabis company.\n\n15\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page17 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nBradford\u2019s Prior Firm, De Joya Griffith, Was Banned from SEC Practice\n\nBradford was also an auditor, at least in name, at De Joya Griffith & Company (\u201cDJG\u201d). The SEC brought an\nenforcement action against DJG in September 2015 related to materially deficient audits, which, per the SEC,\n\u201camounted to no audits at all.\u201d These related to numerous microcap issuers, primarily purported mining\ncompanies which were in effect shells which were \u201cripe for pump-and-dump schemes.\u201d De Joya was thus banned\nfor 5 years from SEC practices, and surrendered its Nevada license in December 2015.\n\nBradford was Previously CFO of Epic Stores, a Reverse Merger Which Went Bankrupt\n\nBradford was also CFO of Epic Stores, formerly \u201cBe At EV, Inc.\u201d which went public through a reverse merger. Epic\nStores operated at least 12 secondhand retail stores in 4 states. We find it a glaringly obvious conflict of interest\nthat Epic Stores, where Bradford was CFO, was audited by Bradford\u2019s firm, Blue Chip Accounting. Nevertheless,\nEpic liquidated in July 2016 \u201cdue to a lack of funds necessary to continue operations...\u201d\n\nAn Apparent College Dropout, Chairman Schultz is Desperate for Any Airtime He Can Get\n\nWe found it curious that Chairman S. Matthew Schultz\u2019s biography says nothing as to Schultz ever obtaining a\ncollege degree, unlike other board members. Instead, it states only that \u201che studied management and finance at\nWeber State University.\u201d\n\nS. MATTHEW SCHULTZ\nCHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR\n\nMatthew served as the Company's Chief\nExecutive Officer from 2014 through\nOctober 2019 and has been involved in\nmany capacities with several publicly\ntraded companies. He served as the\nPresident and CEO of Amerigo Energy, Inc.,\ncreating multiple syndicated offerings of\ndevelopmental oil production programs,\nas well as overseeing the operations from\npermitting through production. Since\n1999, he has assisted numerous\ndevelopment and early stage companies\nto secure financing and experience\nsignificant growth. As the President of\nWexford Capital Ventures, Inc, he was\ninstrumental in funding companies both\ndomestically and abroad. While serving as\nthe Chairman of Pali Financial Group, Inc.,\nhe assisted in market development of\ndozens of public corporations. He was a\nfounding member and the Vice President\nf the Pita ty Cee i\n\nAssociation. A native of Lander, WY, he\nstudied management and finance at\nWeber State University.\n\nLARRY MCNEILL\n\nDIRECTOR\n\nCHAIRMAN COMPENSATION COMMITTEE\nAUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBER\n\nDR. THOMAS L. WOOD\nDIRECTOR\n\nCOMPENSATION COMMITTEE MEMBER\nAUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBER\n\nROGER P. BEYNON\n\nDIRECTOR\nCHAIRMAN AUDIT COMMITTEE\n\nLarry has a master's degree in Business\nAdministration from Armstrong University, a\nBA in Business Administration, Economics,\nand Russian language from Minnesota State\nUniversity. Larry served as the Director of\n\nWay, \u00a5 : u\nSales, and Store Location research\ndepartments where he was responsible for\nthe expansion of Safeway in Europe,\nAustralia and Canada. The Director of\nMarket Research for A&P where he was\nresponsible for the Company's expansion\ninto Saudi Arabia. An Executive Officer of\nSmiths Food and Drug Centers for 17 years;\nmost recently as the Senior Vice President\nof Corporate Development overseeing the\nResearch, Real Estate, and Legal\nDepartments. Mr. McNeill retired from\nSmith's Food & Drug Stores in 1996 after\nthe Fred Meyer merger was completed\n\nDr. Thomas L. Wood has a_ bachelor's\ndegree in Civil Engineering, from Union\nCollege and master's degree in Civil\n\nEngineering from University of Maryland,\nCollege Park. Dr. Wood then obtained _a\n\noctor of Business Administration degree\nfrom Argosy University, Honolulu. He has\nover 33 years of highly successful\nexperience n operations, policy\ndevelopment, implementation, construction\nmanagement, acquisition and budgeting.\nDr. Wood previously served in the U.S. Navy\nrising to the role of Deputy Operations for\nthe Navy's Pacific Engineering Command in\nwhich he was responsible for ensuring the\nsuccessful execution through nine field\noffices of nearly $1 billion annually in\nconstruction and services contracts. After\neaving the U.S. Navy, Dr. Wood served as a\nSubject Matter Expert (SME) supporting the\nU.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) Joint\nc tion Group (IACG) as a\nnd continued as a civil\nservant in senior roles thereafter\n\nRoger P. Beynon, has a bachelor degree in\naccounting and a minor in banking and\nfinance from Weber State University. He is\n\na a atte a\nof Beynon & Associates, a public accounting\nfirm through which he has _ provided\naccounting and tax services to businesses\nsince 1984. Mr. Beynon is a Certified Public\nAccountant (CPA) and Certified Fraud\nExaminer (CFE) and is a past president of\nthe Utah Association of CPA's. Mr. Beynon is\ncurrently the chairman of the board of\ndirectors of Transwest Credit Union.\n\nWe checked with the National Student Clearinghouse, which reported that they were unable to verify any degrees\nobtained. Schultz\u2019s business career is also far from illustrious, as we find his dealings show a pattern of grandiose\npromises that have been left by the wayside along with shareholder-dollars.\n\nSchultz joined the board of Granite Energy in December 2005 onward, serving as CEO from August 2006 to\n\nDecember 2008. Again, we see grandiose claims from Granite. For example, in May 2007, Schultz\u2019s Granite Energy\nacquired \u201cN-Tek\u201d, with Schultz claiming that:\n\n16\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 18 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\n\u201cN-Tek shares our passion and complements our strengths: technology leadership and investor\nsatisfaction ... Bringing these two companies together will allow us to transcend what we have\naccomplished as individual businesses, enabling us to create a foundation to grow and evolve into one of\nthe leading oil and gas companies that is differentiated by solutions and choice.\u201d\n\nGranite also acquired CleanSpark\u2019s now supposedly legendary \u201cgasifier\u201d technology in May 2007 and claimed that\n\u201cCombined with Granite Energy\u2019s recently acquired \u201cGreen Start\u201d subsidiary, the potential exists to literally create\nfuels from municipal solid waste.\u201d Despite these pie-in-the-sky assertions, the SEC revoked GreenStart\u2019s\nregistration status:\n\nGreenstart, Inc. (CIK No. 1414630), is a Nevada corporation located in Bountiful, Utah,\nwith a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g).\nThe company is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any\nperiodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, which reported\na net loss of over $172,000 for the prior nine months.\n\nIn December 2008, Schultz was then appointed CEO of Amerigo Energy, Inc. His Company-provided bio boldly\nproclaims that he created \u201cmultiple syndicated offerings of developmental oil production programs, as well as\noverseeing the operations from permitting through production.\u201d\n\nAgain unfortunately for Amerigo shareholders, this oil production program never bore fruit, as Amerigo was forced\nto concede in March 2011 that: \u201cDue to the dismal performance from the company's oil and gas properties,\nAmerigo's management is currently evaluating multiple opportunities to increase shareholder value...\u201d\n\n(0) (0 kon Oo ne Os an oe he es ee echt Ppa kl\n1% cine bees Roe A\") Se: (00 OE: = Sh] eta ee ee) Vet eo ks:= 206)\nUI) Golan) or] a=) acer nels team) im me | | aes int=m Oat) a a\nCoe ae | ota hd =) 8 | et\ncee a) a ee A a BE) =) (3 ac ges) Sat-la c*\n\nir: 4 alts Loy Pie ea)\n\nEN ae eee ae bey TT ies 0] eT es tans os ae ed\nPin\n\nWe also find that Amerigo\u2019s principals include Jason Griffith, of the aforementioned De Joya Griffith, the SEC-\nbanned auditor where CleanSpark CEO Zach Bradford worked. Indeed, it appears that Schultz, Bradford, and\nGriffith have been involved in chicanery for years:\n\n17\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 19 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nAMERIGO\n\nCompany Number \u00a30027592008-3\nNative Company Number \u00a90027692008-8\nStatus Permanently Revoked\nIncorporation Date 11 January 2008 (about 13 years ago)\nCompany Type Domestic Corporation\nJurisdiction Nevada (US)\nAgent Name DE JOYA GRIFFITH, LLC\nAgent Address _2580 ANTHEM VILLAGE DR. HENDERSON, NV, 89052\n\nInactive Directors / Officers , agent\n, secretary\n, treasurer\n, director\n, president\n\ndirector\n\nWe also note that Amerigo also ties to OMNIQ Corp, Global Gaming & Technology Inc, Left Right Marketing\nTechnology Inc, Quest Solution, and Strategic Gaming Investments, Inc.:\n\nOMNIQ Corp. GiK#: 0000278165 (see all company filings)\nSIC: 7373 - SERVICES-COMPUTER INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DESIGN\n\nState location: UT | State of Inc.: DE | Fiscal Year End: 1234\n\nformerly: AMERIGO ENERGY, INC. (filings through 2074-05-22)\n\nformerly: GLOBAL GAMING & TECHNOLOGY INC (flings through 2003-05-13)\nformerly: LEFT RIGHT MAKETING TECHNOLOGY INC (filings through 2003-10-01)\nformerly: LEFT RIGHT MARKETING TECHNOLOGY INC (filings through 2006-04-24)\nformerly: Quest Solution, Inc. (filings through 2079-11-18)\n\nformerly: STRATEGIC GAMING INVESTMENTS, INC. (filings through 2008-11-12)\n\n(Office of Technology)\n\nHowever, despite the various forms that Schultz-affiliated promotions has taken through the years, it\u2019s evident\nto _us that Schultz hasn\u2019t created any substantial public markets value, only a string of hollow promises which\nhave left shareholders in the dust. We don\u2019t believe that CleanSpark will be any different, and we don\u2019t think it\u2019s\nany coincidence that Schultz has already stepped aside as CEO of CleanSpark and moved to a Chairman role.\n\nWe find it incredibly telling that CleanSpark management, who now claim to be \u201cchanging the face of the energy\nmarkets globally,\u201d take time out of their busy schedules of fabricating customers and contracts to be interviewed\nby a 19-year-old on his YouTube channel:\n\n18\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 20 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\n| nL J. |) eee\n\n#STOCKS #CLSKSTOCK #CLEANSPARK\n*NEW* CleanSpark Interview! | Stock Market Investing\n\n7,108 views + Nov 2, 2020 1@ 443, Blo A SHARE =} SAVE\n\nRexFinance\n@ 17.6K subscribers JOIN RU sssielrd |]\n\nApparently, Chairman Schultz is so desperate to pump CleanSpark stock that he\u2019ll take any airtime he can get. In\nkeeping with this promotional mantra, the same 19-year-old \u201cinterviewer\u201d has also made unsubstantiated rumors\nthat the Company is going to be acquired by Tesla:\n\nDic\nINEW TESLA BUYOUT RUMOR! CLSK Stock Update.. | Stock Market Investing |\n\n10,114 views + Nov 30, 2020 id 590 M23 SHARE =} SAVE\nRexFinance\n@ 17.6K subscribers JOIN Setter sia\n\nCleanSpark has also paid Water Tower Research for promotional services. Water Tower is run by Sean Severson,\nwho received an SEC administrative proceeding in February 2020 for alleged violations regarding his promotional\n\n19\n\fCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-11 Filed 12/12/25 Page 21 of 21\n\nCulper Research CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK) January 14, 2020\n\nservices. We think if CleanSpark had a legitimate story to tell, it could do so without the services of a 19-year-old\nor an agent with SEC run-ins.\n\nCleanSpark\u2019s Cash Burning Charade Constantly Relies on Capital Raises\n\nIn 2020, CleanSpark executives took home $6.2 million in disclosed compensation, while the Company also has\n\u201cconsulting agreements\u201d with executives. Total \u201cprofessional fees\u201d were $6.5 million in 2020, while the Company\nrecorded $6.8 million in payroll expenses and $10.45 million in interest expenses. In our view, these are ridiculous\nsums in light of the Company\u2019s paltry $10.0 million in revenues. CleanSpark\u2019s charade has burned over $15 million\nin the last twelve months. As such, the Company consistently relies on the capital markets.\n\nOperating Losses (\u00a7 millions) Share Count (millions)\n\n2016 2017 2018 2019 LT\u2122M 25\nso\n$2 LI 20\n-$4\n\n15\n\n-$6\n-$8 10\n$10\n-$12 5 i\n$14\n$ , a & U\n\u201c$16 Dec-15 Dec-16 Jan-18 Dec-19 May-20 Jul-20 Dec-20\n\nWe think CleanSpark is a shameless stock promotion drummed up by Chairman Matthew Schultz and CEO Zach\nBradford, who have consistently lied to investors so as to line their own pockets at the expense of everyday\ninvestors. While CleanSpark continues to burn cash, we don\u2019t think Schultz, Bradford, or any of the Company\u2019s\nempty promises can be relied upon, and we are short.\n\n20\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-29T22:13:49.545043-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"127038727949","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit K - 2020.01.14 - Culper Research Report","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484528964/","id":484528964,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/31444248/108/12/hasthantra-v-cleanspark-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T22:12:00.655693-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-30T06:28:45.362006-07:00","sha1":"4825ac6d343e2b79a714b4e4287001f178407454","page_count":2,"file_size":1345290,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.12.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577/gov.uscourts.nysd.552577.108.12.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-12 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT L\n\f Post\nCase 1:21-cv-00511-LAP Document 108-12 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 2 Newto .X.?\n Culper &\n @CulperRe--,=,e3rch\n G Sign up with Google\n Clea Spark \u2022 ClS K has decli ed to respond to o r report.\n emaited S q es \u2022ons d kectly o c airman Matthew Sch ltz,\n S Sign up wit h Apple\n ll dersta d is al'n'ays eager to respo d to shareholde.s. If\n nothing \u2022 o, hrde, we expec public ,a w ers to the fu llo wrng q esi:ions.\n Creale acanm,t\n\n 8 Questions for CleanSpark ei, ~ up )'00 ~,:,er pay OcwSpa:rl;; for a . senices\n wrui.troc,,; ~r? If oo ilicn wh. \u2022 did the Compan_ i5sue\n What's happening\n p~ s :rel se drumrng 11 contact with Green Dmgon?\n 2. - vb_ did Cle~ - 1ml.Ol.\\llCC \u00abp:rojcc deployments\" Q.\n Vtlle Di,'ino, ga'el'.l zero omes con~tru.cted ia.t me si ;;\n S.incl!! th~ p r13.s rdotlllie 5 months ll\u20ac;0., how Dlllny\n ~ d s bas CJean.Spack deployed ar Valle Divin _ Tr~:n;i m Uniii!d Sta12s\n ,3_ Whr hat the Company not disdosro thllt Lori LoV<:: \\1.~s /Hien\\\\'\n 5408 p c-$\n me.moo of p2k Labs,. making this Q.cqwsu:ion a relared\n pru:ty ttmns11.ctioru Tre-nd\" i n Uni\".ed State:;\n Gaetz\n \\\\.'ny has !he Company not disclo~ed tla . e:i:T:l!w. on \u00b7s\n 16JKp,om.\n tl1e Chief Product Officcr at LA.W aERK, pucpomd\n custom(:r of OttnSp[rk? TrBlllr.g in Ur1ite::I State;\n 5_ .Jonathan Rir:1d\u00b7erlc:necht\n You. pi 1'l.ousl)' s,md O elm pArl:. could prnduc,e B3\" l m\n Tr~ \\\\Ttll P.atisade; Fire.\n 2020 r.\u00b7enucs. \u2022 i:i: wen so hor:riblf \\'\\\" oag so M to\n 6..366 ~ .\n c~;use, the Comp , 1 to UllS'!: . \u2022 e-s~te bv 0\\1U 90%?\n Politics \u00b7 -rm:irr,g\n Plea cxpl'.lin why Il.. Dat:1 C.enters1 weihsite w\u00b7a.s aecated\n NO!GUILTV\n \u2022ust l:\\.vo, d!lJS prior to its acqU'iS\".ilion b ~ Oean,S~ Wi!r~\n 2-lliiKp,osts\n F:t t'block1s ::1:b11.11d'oncd 'llS'Scts $impl . tthr:m