Reynolds v. Citadel Securities LLC — Entry #39: MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Jordan Dario Primo by Jordan Dario Primo

Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 18


                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                              Case No. 1:26-24485-Civ-ALTMAN


  ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on          CLASS ACTION
  behalf of all others similarly situated,

                               Plaintiff,

                   v.

  CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU
  AMERICAS LLC,

                               Defendants.


    MOTION OF MOVANT JORDAN DARIO PRIMO FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD
   PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF
                           LAW IN SUPPORT


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 18


                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

  MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1

  MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 2

  I.         PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 2

  II.        STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 3

  III.       ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5

             A.         PRIMO SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF ..................................... 5

                        1.         Primo Is Willing to Serve as Class Representative and Has Timely Filed
                                   This Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff .............................................. 7

                        2.         Primo Has the “Largest Financial Interest” ................................................ 7

                        3.         Primo Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23’s Requirements ................................... 8

                        4.         Primo Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class
                                   and Is Not Subject to Unique Defenses .................................................... 10

             B.         LEAD PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE
                        APPROVED ......................................................................................................... 11

  IV.        CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 12

  CERTIFICATE REGARDING GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE ................................................ 12

  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 14


                                                                          i


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 18


                                                 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

                                                                                                                                 Page(s)

  Cases

  Bishop v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev.,
     141 F.R.D. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ...............................................................................................9

  Brustein v. Lampert,
     No. 04-61159-CIV, 2005 WL 8154797 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005) ............................................8

  Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc.,
     272 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...............................................................................................9

  Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P.,
     311 F.R.D. 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................11

  Miller v. Dyadic Int’l, Inc.,
     No. 07-80948-CIV, 2008 WL 2465286 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008) ............................................9

  Mulvaney v. Geo Grp., Inc.,
     No. 16-CV-81494, 2016 WL 10519276 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2016) ........................................11

  Piven v. Sykes Enters.,
     137 F.Supp.2d 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2000) .......................................................................................8

  Prado-Steinman ex rel. Prado v. Bush,
     221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................8

  Tran v. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc.,
     No. 15-CV-24440, 2016 WL 7438833 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2016) ...............................................8

  Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharm. Holdings, Inc.,
     589 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................11

  Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.,
     216 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...............................................................................................9

                                                                 Statutes

  15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 .................................................................................................................. passim

  Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ................................................................. passim

  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 .......................................................................................1, 2, 9, 13


                                                                      ii


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 18


                                                                    Rules

  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .................................................................................................................2, 6, 8, 9

  Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3) ..............................................................................................................12


                                                                       iii


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 18


                                             MOTION

         Movant, Jordan Dario Primo (“Primo”), by and through his counsel, hereby moves this

  Court pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange

  Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of

  1995 (the “PSLRA”), for an Order: (1) appointing Primo as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of a class

  (the “Class”) consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired, or sold or otherwise

  disposed of, securities of Genius Group Limited (“Genius” or the “Company”) between April 12,

  2022 and May 30, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”); and (2) approving proposed Lead

  Plaintiff’s selection of Pomerantz LLP (“Pomerantz”) as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah LLP

  (“Miller Shah”) as Liaison Counsel for the Class.1

         This Motion is supported by the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith, the

  Declaration of Nathan C. Zipperian in Support of Motion (“Zipperian Decl.”), and all exhibits

  thereto.


  1
    Primo is aware that on August 4, 2026, the Court entered an Order, inter alia, administratively
  closing and staying the above-captioned action (the “Action”) pending resolution of a motion to
  transfer the Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  See Dkt. No. 36. Here, pursuant to the PSLRA, the statutory deadline to file a motion for
  appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this Action is August 28, 2026, on which date any member of
  the putative Class may so move. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). At the time of this
  filing’s submission, the Court has yet to administratively open the Action. Thus, Primo, having
  no open docket in which to file the present motion, is at risk of forfeiting his right under the
  PSLRA to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff within the 60-day deadline set by the PSLRA.
  See id. For the foregoing reasons and because this is the only docket in which he can timely file
  his motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, although he is aware that the Court has
  administratively closed and stayed this Action, Primo respectfully submits the present motion to
  the Court to preserve his statutory right discussed above.


                                                  1


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 18


                                     MEMORANDUM OF LAW

  I.     PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

         The complaint (“Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 1) in the Action alleges that Citadel Securities

  LLC (“Citadel”) and Virtu Americas LLC (“Virtu” and, together with Citadel, “Defendants”)

  defrauded investors, as well as engaged in a series of manipulative transactions in Genius

  securities, during the Class Period in violation of the Exchange Act. Genius investors, including

  Primo, incurred significant losses in connection with their transactions in Genius securities

  during the Class Period as a result of the Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct, damaging Primo

  and other Genius investors.

         Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court is to appoint as Lead Plaintiff the movant or group of

  movants that possesses the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and that

  satisfies the relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). 15 U.S.C.

  § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Primo believes that he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption favoring

  his appointment because, to his knowledge, he has the largest financial interest in the relief

  sought by the Class in this Action among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff by virtue of,

  inter alia, his having cumulatively purchased and sold a total of 345,875.90955 shares of Genius

  stock during the Class Period. See Zipperian Decl., Exhibits (“Exs.”) A-B. Accordingly, Primo

  believes that he has the largest financial interest in the relief sought in this litigation among those

  seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Beyond his considerable financial interest, Primo also meets

  the applicable requirements of Rule 23 because his claims are typical of those of absent Class

  members and he will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class.

         To fulfill his obligations as Lead Plaintiff and vigorously prosecute this Action on behalf

  of the Class, Primo has selected Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel


                                                    2


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 18


  for the Class. These firms’ attorneys are highly experienced in the areas of securities litigation

  and class actions, and have successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities

  fraud class actions on behalf of investors, as detailed in the firms’ respective resumes.

         Accordingly, Primo respectfully requests that the Court enter an order appointing him as

  Lead Plaintiff for the Class and approving his selection of Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller

  Shah as Liaison Counsel for the Class.

  II.    STATEMENT OF FACTS

         As alleged in the Complaint, this Action arises from the Defendant broker-dealers’

  manipulative and illegal trading in the securities of Genius, an educational technology company

  that delivers AI-powered training and tools to six million students in more than 100 different

  countries. For years, Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale, placed and executed

  manipulative trades that were designed to, and did, artificially deflate the price of Genius stock

  and expand its bid-ask spread, thereby causing investors to sell their shares at artificially

  depressed prices while also inflating their transaction costs. This fraudulent scheme, known as

  “spoofing,” enriched Defendants while devastating Primo and other Genius investors.

         As the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has explained,

  “spoofing” is a manipulative and illegal trading practice that involves submitting and then

  cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these

  “baiting orders” is to mislead other market participants about the level of supply and/or demand

  for a security, or about the degree of its price volatility, thereby influencing market prices for that

  security. For instance, a large quantity of baiting orders on the “sell-side” misleads investors

  into believing that there is excess supply for a security, thereby lowering market prices.

  Similarly, a manipulator may place and cancel orders on both sides of the order book to create


                                                    3


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 18


  the appearance of excessive volatility, and therefore excessive risk, driving prices downwards.

  As numerous financial economists have recognized, this latter form of spoofing in particular can

  have especially long-term and persistent effects on the prices of the manipulated security, while

  also increasing transaction costs for investors by inflating its bid-ask spread. With respect to the

  analyses of trading in Genius securities presented in the Complaint, “Baiting Orders” are defined

  as those orders canceled within 100 milliseconds of placement; this definition is conservative

  and is employed in the Complaint in an effort to identify Defendants’ most egregious and

  obvious misconduct.

         By manipulating the market price in this manner, the spoofer seeks to benefit his own

  positions in the security. For instance, the spoofer may place a large quantity of sell-side Baiting

  Orders that move the market price down; that downward price movement may benefit the

  spoofer’s pre-existing short positions, or the spoofer may place a number of new buy orders so

  that he can acquire the stock at the prices artificially depressed by his manipulative conduct.

         Additionally, if the spoofer is a large broker-dealer and market maker, like Defendants, it

  can also use spoofing to manufacture mini “arbitrage opportunities” on incoming order flow in

  order to profit at its customers’ expense. For example, suppose a customer seeks to sell shares of

  Genius stock. A broker-dealer/market-maker could flash sell-side Baiting Orders in a market

  with faster price feeds to drive the price down, while flashing buy-side orders in a market with a

  slower price feed to drive the price up. The broker-dealer/market-maker executes its customer’s

  trades at an inferior price in the market with the faster feed, absorbing the trades as inventory; it

  then sells the inventory generated from the customer’s trade at the higher “spoofed” price in the

  parallel market for its own account. Indeed, as discussed in the Complaint, the SEC fined

  Citadel $23 million for engaging in this type of misconduct. Moreover, the head of institutional


                                                    4


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 18


  equity sales at Virtu nicknamed this particular flavor of spoofing the “Three Tick Boogie.” As

  discussed further in the Complaint, market data indicates that Defendants engaged in this type of

  manipulation with respect to Genius stock; for example, within one minute of certain spoofing

  events discussed in the Complaint, an astonishing 35% of all off-exchange short trades in Genius

  were executed.

          In all cases, the spoofer’s misconduct leaves innocent market participants, who must

  trade into a distorted market—both in terms of depressed share prices and inflated transaction

  costs—holding the bag.

          During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly entered thousands of Baiting Orders

  designed to create the false impression that there was both excess supply and excess volatility in

  Genius stock. These manipulative orders were calculated to (and successfully did) deceive or

  induce other investors to sell their holdings at artificially deflated prices.

          Significantly, prior to and during the Class Period, regulators had specifically warned

  Defendants that the trading platforms they had developed and operated could be—and in fact had

  been—used to facilitate unlawful trading activity such as spoofing. For instance, in 2023, the

  SEC fined Citadel $7 million for “abusive short selling practices.” And in 2017, even prior to

  the start of the Class Period, the SEC fined Citadel $22.6 million for “misleading [its retail

  customers] about the way it priced trades.” Unsurprisingly, Citadel CEO Ken Griffin has

  repeatedly resisted efforts by the SEC to create greater transparency into trading activity,

  including into short-selling.

  III.    ARGUMENT

          A.       PRIMO SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF

          Primo should be appointed Lead Plaintiff because he has timely filed a motion for

  appointment as Lead Plaintiff, to the best of his knowledge has the largest financial interest in


                                                     5


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 18


   this litigation among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff, and otherwise strongly satisfies the

   requirements of Rule 23.

           The PSLRA requires a plaintiff who files an action governed by its provisions to publish

   a notice (the “Notice”) to the class within 20 days of filing the action, informing putative class

   members of: (1) the pendency of the action; and (2) their right to file a motion for appointment as

   lead plaintiff within 60 days after publication of the Notice. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

   4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I)-(II). Additionally, the PSLRA directs courts to consider any motion to serve as

   lead plaintiff filed by class members in response to the Notice, and to do so by the later of (1) 90

   days after the date of publication or (2) as soon as practicable after the Court decides any

   pending motion to consolidate. See id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)-(ii).

           Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court “shall appoint” the “most adequate plaintiff” to serve

   as lead plaintiff. Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA provides a “[r]ebuttable presumption” that

   “the most adequate plaintiff . . . is the person or group of persons that”:

           (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . . ;

           (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief
           sought by the class; and

           (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
           Procedure.

   Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).

           As set forth below, Primo satisfies all three of these criteria and thus is entitled to the

   presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff of the Class and, therefore, should be

   appointed Lead Plaintiff for the Class.


                                                      6


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 18


                   1.      Primo Is Willing to Serve as Class Representative and Has Timely Filed
                           This Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff

           On June 29, 2026, counsel for the plaintiff in the Action caused the statutorily required

   Notice to be published via Business Wire pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the PSLRA,

   announcing that a securities class action had been filed on behalf of investors in Genius

   securities, and advising such investors that they had until August 28, 2026—i.e., 60 days from

   the date of the Notice’s publication—to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. See

   Zipperian Decl., Ex. C.

           Primo has filed the instant motion pursuant to the Notice, and he has submitted a sworn

   Certification attesting that he is willing to serve as a representative for the Class, and to provide

   testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary. See id., Ex. B. Accordingly, Primo satisfies the

   first requirement to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Class.

                   2.      Primo Has the “Largest Financial Interest”

           The PSLRA requires a court to adopt a rebuttable presumption that “the most adequate

   plaintiff . . . is the person or group of persons that . . . has the largest financial interest in the

   relief sought by the class[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). To the best of his

   knowledge, Primo has the largest financial interest of any Genius investor or investor group

   seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff, having cumulatively purchased and sold a total of

   345,875.90955 shares of Genius stock during the Class Period. See Zipperian Decl., Exs. A-B.

   As such, Primo believes that he possesses the largest financial interest in the outcome of this

   litigation within the meaning of the PSLRA among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff. 15

   U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb).


                                                        7


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 18


                  3.        Primo Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23’s Requirements

           Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the PSLRA further provides that, in addition to

   possessing the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, a lead plaintiff must

   “otherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rule

   23(a) generally provides that a class action may proceed if the following four requirements are

   satisfied:

            (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
            (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
            defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
            class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
            interests of the class.

   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

           In determining whether a lead plaintiff movant satisfies Rule 23’s requirements, the

   Court need not raise its inquiry to the level required in ruling on a motion for class certification.

   Instead, a prima facie showing that a movant satisfies Rule 23’s requirements is sufficient. See

   Brustein v. Lampert, No. 04-61159-CIV, 2005 WL 8154797, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005);

   Tran v. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., No. 15-CV-24440, 2016 WL 7438833, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8,

   2016). In addition, typicality and adequacy of representation are the only provisions of Rule 23

   relevant to a determination of lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. See Brustein, 2005 WL 8154797,

   at *7; Tran, 2016 WL 7438833, at *1. Further, the Complaint in the Action sufficiently pleads

   Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity and Rule 23(a)(2) common questions in a manner common to all Class

   members, including Primo.

           The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied where the named representative’s

   claims have the “same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.” Prado-

   Steinman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Piven v. Sykes


                                                     8


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 18


   Enters., 137 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1306 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (same). “[T]he claims of the class

   representative need not be identical [to] those of all members of the class. ‘[T]he typicality

   requirement may be satisfied even if there are factual dissimilarities or variations between the

   claims of the named plaintiffs and those of other class members, including distinctions in the

   qualifications of the class members.’” Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 113, 120

   (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Bishop v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 141 F.R.D. 229, 238

   (S.D.N.Y. 1992)).

          Primo’s claims are typical of those of the Class. Primo alleges, like other Class members,

   that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate

   the market for Genius securities. Primo, like other Class members, purchased and sold shares of

   Genius stock during the Class Period, and was damaged as a result of the Defendants’ alleged

   wrongful conduct. These shared claims, which are based on the same legal theory and arise from

   the same events and course of conduct as the Class’s claims, satisfy the typicality requirement of

   Rule 23(a)(3).

          The adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) “is satisfied where . . .: ‘(1)

   class counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; (2) the class

   members’ interests are not antagonistic to one another; and (3) the class [representative] has

   sufficient interest in the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy.’” Miller v. Dyadic

   Int’l, Inc., No. 07-80948-CIV, 2008 WL 2465286, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008) (quoting

   Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

          Primo is an adequate representative for the Class. As set forth in greater detail below, in

   Pomerantz and Miller Shah, Primo has retained counsel highly experienced in vigorously and

   efficiently prosecuting securities class actions such as this Action, and submits his choice of


                                                     9


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 18


   Pomerantz and Miller Shah to the Court for approval as Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel,

   respectively, for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). There is no evidence of

   antagonism or conflict between Primo’s interests and those of the Class. Moreover, Primo has

   submitted a sworn Certification declaring his commitment to protecting the interests of the Class

   (see Zipperian Decl., Ex. B), and his significant financial interest demonstrates that he has a

   sufficient interest in the outcome of this litigation to ensure vigorous advocacy on behalf of the

   Class.

            Further demonstrating his adequacy, Primo has submitted a Declaration attesting to, inter

   alia, his background, his investing experience, his understanding of the responsibilities of a Lead

   Plaintiff appointed pursuant to the PSLRA, his decision to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff,

   and the steps that he is prepared to take to prosecute this litigation on behalf of the Class. See

   id., Ex. D.

                    4.     Primo Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class
                           and Is Not Subject to Unique Defenses

            The presumption favoring Primo’s appointment as Lead Plaintiff may be rebutted only

   upon proof “by a member of the purported plaintiff class” that the presumptively most adequate

   plaintiff:

            (aa)    will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or

            (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of
            adequately representing the class.

   15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

            Primo’s ability and desire to fairly and adequately represent the Class has been discussed

   above. Primo is not aware of any unique defenses the Defendants could raise that would render

   him inadequate to represent the Class. Accordingly, Primo should be appointed Lead Plaintiff

   for the Class.


                                                      10


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 18


          B.      LEAD PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE
                  APPROVED

          The PSLRA vests authority in the Lead Plaintiff to “select and retain counsel to represent

   the class[,]” subject to the approval of the Court. Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). “The Court should

   interfere with lead plaintiff’s selection only when necessary ‘to protect the interests of the

   class.’” Mulvaney v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. 16-CV-81494, 2016 WL 10519276, at *3 (S.D. Fla.

   Nov. 21, 2016) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)); see also Kaplan v. S.A.C.

   Capital Advisors, L.P., 311 F.R.D. 373, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“The PSLRA ‘evidences a strong

   presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff’s decisions as to counsel

   selection and counsel retention.’” (quoting Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharm. Holdings, Inc.,

   589 F. Supp. 2d 388, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2008))).

          Here, Primo has selected Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel

   for the Class. Pomerantz is highly experienced in the areas of securities litigation and class

   actions, and has successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities fraud class

   actions on behalf of investors, as detailed in its firm resume submitted herewith. See Zipperian

   Decl., Ex. E. In overview, Pomerantz is a premier firm in the area of securities litigation based

   in New York, with offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, France, London, the U.K., and Tel

   Aviv, Israel. See id. For more than 85 years, Pomerantz has represented defrauded investors.

   See id. As Lead Counsel in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-09662 (S.D.N.Y.),

   Pomerantz secured a recovery of $3 billion on behalf of investors in the securities of Petrobras,

   the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer and the fifth-largest class

   action settlement ever achieved in the United States. See id. Petrobras is part of a long line of

   record-setting recoveries led by Pomerantz, including the $225 million settlement in In re

   Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:06-cv-01825 (E.D.N.Y.), in June 2010.


                                                    11


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 18


   See id. More recently, as Lead Counsel on behalf of a class of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.

   investors, Pomerantz reached a $110 million settlement on behalf of the class. See id.

          Likewise, Miller Shah is well-qualified to serve as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Miller

   Shah maintains an office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which is located in this District, and, as its

   firm resume reflects, the firm specializes in securities class action matters, among other practice

   areas. See id., Ex. F. Miller Shah’s attorneys have experience in achieving substantial

   recoveries in class actions, and they have extensive familiarity with the Local Civil Rules and

   practice norms of this District.

          As a result of their extensive experience in litigation involving issues similar to those

   raised in the instant Action, Primo’s choice of counsel, with Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and

   Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel, have the skill, knowledge, expertise, and experience that will

   enable these firms to prosecute this Action effectively and expeditiously. Thus, the Court may

   be assured that by approving Primo’s selection of Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as

   Liaison Counsel, the members of the Class will receive the best legal representation available.

   IV.    CONCLUSION

          For the foregoing reasons, Primo respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order: (1)

   appointing Primo as Lead Plaintiff for the Class; and (2) approving his selection of Pomerantz as

   Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel for the Class.

                  CERTIFICATE REGARDING GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

          Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3), counsel for Primo state that they could not confer

   with counsel for the opposing movants prior to filing the instant motion. The statutory

   framework of the PSLRA requires all motions seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff to be filed

   within 60 days of the publication of the notice of pendency of the action—here, on or before


                                                    12


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 18


   August 28, 2026. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). No such motions were filed

   meaningfully in advance of Primo’s motion, and it was not possible to confer with counsel for

   the other movants to determine whether the instant motion would be opposed or to attempt to

   resolve the issues raised by the motion.

   Dated: August 28, 2026                      Respectfully submitted,

                                               MILLER SHAH LLP

                                               By: /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian
                                               Nathan C. Zipperian
                                               Jayne A. Goldstein
                                               2103 N. Commerce Parkway
                                               Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
                                               Telephone: (954) 515-0123
                                               Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
                                               [email protected]
                                               [email protected]

                                               Counsel for Jordan Dario Primo and Proposed
                                               Liaison Counsel for the Class

                                               POMERANTZ LLP
                                               J. Alexander Hood II
                                               (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
                                               600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
                                               New York, New York 10016
                                               Telephone: (212) 661-1100
                                               Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
                                               [email protected]

                                               Counsel for Jordan Dario Primo and Proposed
                                               Lead Counsel for the Class


                                                 13


Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 18


                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          I hereby certify that on August 28, 2026, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of

   the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the

   foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record via CM/ECF.

                                                /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian
                                                Nathan C. Zipperian


                                                   14