{"cached_at":"2026-10-21T10:41:22.685473+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69555752","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","id":69555752,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/casd/","court_id":"casd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10317929/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-17T10:03:34.776669-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:44.967081-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jinsook Ohta","referred_to_str":"David D. Leshner","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-01-15","date_terminated":"2026-04-07","date_last_filing":"2026-10-10","case_name_short":"Kassam","case_name":"Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc","docket_number":"3:25-cv-00113","docket_number_core":"2500113","docket_number_raw":"3:25-cv-00113","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JO","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"DDL","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"802528","cause":"15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"160 Stockholders Suits","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Diversity","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":"2025-01-17T10:03:34.772200-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15281453/","id":15281453,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238000/","attorney_id":10238000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238000/","attorney_id":10238000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238000/","attorney_id":10238000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238001/","attorney_id":10238001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238001/","attorney_id":10238001,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-07T00:14:49.449546-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-07T00:14:49.449556-07:00","name":"Brandon Paulson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979590/","id":14979590,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060221/","attorney_id":10060221,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.663177-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.663192-08:00","name":"Roger Jones","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979589/","id":14979589,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237998/","attorney_id":10237998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237998/","attorney_id":10237998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10802215/","attorney_id":10802215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10802215/","attorney_id":10802215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237999/","attorney_id":10237999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.611404-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.611412-08:00","name":"Charles A Scheiwe","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979588/","id":14979588,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060220/","attorney_id":10060220,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060220/","attorney_id":10060220,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237995/","attorney_id":10237995,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237996/","attorney_id":10237996,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237997/","attorney_id":10237997,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.600052-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.600059-08:00","name":"Ronald F Dutt","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979587/","id":14979587,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060220/","attorney_id":10060220,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060220/","attorney_id":10060220,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":8},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237994/","attorney_id":10237994,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237995/","attorney_id":10237995,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237996/","attorney_id":10237996,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237997/","attorney_id":10237997,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.564914-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.564921-08:00","name":"Flux Power Holdings, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979586/","id":14979586,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237993/","attorney_id":10237993,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10237993/","attorney_id":10237993,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060219/","attorney_id":10060219,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10238000/","attorney_id":10238000,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.511831-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.511839-08:00","name":"Thomas Frank Clark","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14979585/","id":14979585,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060216/","attorney_id":10060216,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060216/","attorney_id":10060216,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060218/","attorney_id":10060218,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10060217/","attorney_id":10060217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","docket_id":69555752,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.190104-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-18T22:03:06.190113-08:00","name":"Asfa Kassam","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814732/","id":481814732,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572626/","id":497572626,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/83/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:46.060280-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:46.060291-07:00","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":"83","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:46.037970-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:46.044548-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":83,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On September 16, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for disbursement of settlement funds. Dkt. 79. Because no party has filed an opposition by the October 1, 2026 deadline, the Court vacates the October 15, 2026 hearing and takes the motion under submission without oral argument on that date. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 10/10/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(gsw) (Entered: 10/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814731/","id":481814731,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572625/","id":497572625,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/80/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.980000-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.980015-07:00","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":"80","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.956503-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.962856-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":80,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On September 16, 2026, Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs filed a motion for disbursement of funds from the class action settlement. Dkt. 79. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for October 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 13B before Judge Jinsook Ohta. Oppositions to the motion, if any, are due October 1, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 9/16/2026. (mk) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814730/","id":481814730,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572624/","id":497572624,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/76/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.830798-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.830810-07:00","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":"76","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.803508-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.814051-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":76,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Final Approval Hearing and Motion Hearing held on 4/2/2026 re 71 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs filed by Brandon Paulson, Thomas Frank Clark, 70 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation filed by Brandon Paulson, Thomas Frank Clark. Order to follow. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Joshua Baker; Melissa Fortunato). (Defendant Attorney Benjamin Matthew Crosson; Alexis Mustell). (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 04/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814729/","id":481814729,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572623/","id":497572623,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/75/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.779016-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.779034-07:00","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":"75","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.746199-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.757647-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":75,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Given that no objections have been filed with the Court, the parties may attend the April 2, 2026 hearing by videoconference. The courtroom deputy will provide videoconference details prior to the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/30/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814728/","id":481814728,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572622/","id":497572622,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/72/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.676491-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.676503-07:00","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":"72","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.644010-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.651207-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":72,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 5, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class action settlement and plan of allocation (Dkt. 70) and motion for attorney's fees (Dkt. 71). The Court sets a hearing on these motions or April 2, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. As stated in the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 68, para. 27, 31), any oppositions are due March 12, 2026, and any replies are due March 26, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/9/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814727/","id":481814727,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572621/","id":497572621,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/67/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.434678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.434691-07:00","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":"67","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.409305-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.416029-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Motion Hearing held on 12/4/2025 re 60 MOTION for Settlement Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Brandon Paulson, Thomas Frank Clark. Final Approval Hearing set for 4/2/2026 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Joshua Baker). (Defendant Attorney Benjamin Crosson; Nathan Walter Bear). (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 12/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481814726/","id":481814726,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497572620/","id":497572620,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/64/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.287561-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.287575-07:00","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":"64","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":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.248960-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.256934-07:00","date_filed":"2025-10-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Motion Hearing held on 10/23/2025 re 60 MOTION for Settlement Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Brandon Paulson, Thomas Frank Clark. Motion Hearing continued to 12/4/2025 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. The Court permits counsel to appear by videoconference. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Phillip Kim ). (Defendant Attorney Benjamin Matthew Crosson; Nathan Walter Bear). (no document attached) (smy) Modified on 10/23/2025 to correct attorney names (smy). (Entered: 10/23/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481184002/","id":481184002,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496909953/","id":496909953,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-10T10:53:36.329212-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-10T10:53:36.329236-07:00","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":"Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-10T10:53:36.318087-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-10T10:53:36.318104-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-10","time_filed":"10:24:58","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480285333/","id":480285333,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495985018/","id":495985018,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/82/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-02T07:53:32.703808-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T07:53:32.714011-07:00","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":"82","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037023168041","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-02T07:53:32.666885-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:46.009579-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-02","time_filed":"07:28:56","entry_number":82,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":275,"description":"RESPONSE in Support re 79 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds from Class Action Settlement Notice of Non-Opposition and Waiver of Oral Argument filed by Thomas Frank Clark, Brandon Paulson. (Baker, Joshua)(gsw) (Entered: 10/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480163752/","id":480163752,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495858248/","id":495858248,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/81/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-01T10:29:20.471158-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-01T10:29:20.482257-07:00","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":"81","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037023161897","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Non Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-01T10:29:20.442866-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.989072-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-01","time_filed":"10:11:22","entry_number":81,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":272,"description":"NON Opposition re 79 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds from Class Action Settlement filed by Ronald F Dutt, Flux Power Holdings, Inc.. (Crosson, Benjamin)(gsw) (Entered: 10/01/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478276626/","id":478276626,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493898307/","id":493898307,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-16T15:09:23.367997-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T15:09:23.368021-07:00","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":"Minute Order (No Time)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T15:09:23.351775-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T15:09:23.351799-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"14:35:24","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478264918/","id":478264918,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493886209/","id":493886209,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/79/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-16T14:11:39.792875-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T14:11:39.800669-07:00","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":"79","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037023097584","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Disbursement of Funds","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T14:11:39.766029-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.897507-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"13:18:23","entry_number":79,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":266,"description":"MOTION for Disbursement of Funds from Class Action Settlement by Thomas Frank Clark, Brandon Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Class Distribution Order, # 2 Declaration of Josephine Bravata Concerning the Results of the Claim Administration Process)(Baker, Joshua)(gsw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459965753/","id":459965753,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475010532/","id":475010532,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/77/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-07T12:17:54.006550-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-07T12:17:54.013808-07:00","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":"77","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037022447446","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Settlement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T12:17:53.970754-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.839167-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-07","time_filed":"11:57:51","entry_number":77,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":259,"description":"ORDER Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement [Dkt. 70]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/7/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459965749/","id":459965749,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475010528/","id":475010528,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/78/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-07T12:17:53.441936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:27:56.248339-07:00","sha1":"fc68e593c0aae3e63d13b236c393675b4c345c26","page_count":3,"file_size":173186,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.78.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.78.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 78 Filed 04/07/26 PageID.896 Page 1 of\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n ASF A KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3 :25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 4 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5 CLASS ACTION\n Plaintiff,\n 6 Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 7 V.\n\n 8\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n 9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n 10 SCHEIWE,\n\n 11\n 12\n 13\nI 14 ~ SED] ORDER A WARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES,\n REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.1 AND AWARD TO PLAINTIFFS\n 15\n 16\n 17 11 WHEREAS, the Court has granted final approval of the Settlement of the\n 18 11 above-referenced class action;\n 19 11 WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein having the meanings defined in\n 20 11 the Stipulation of Settlement, dated August 27, 2025 (\"Stipulation\") (Dkt. No. 60-\n 21 111);\n 22 11 WHEREAS, Lead Counsel have petitioned the Court for an award of\n 23 II attorneys' fees in compensation for services Plaintiffs' Counsel provided to\n 24 11 Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, reimbursement of expenses incurred in\n 25 11 connection with prosecuting this action, and an award to Plaintiffs, to be paid out\n 26 11 of the Settlement Fund established pursuant to the Settlement;\n 27\n 28\n 1\n 1P ll:. lWU~ hUI ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS ' FEES , REIMBURSEMENT OF\n EXPENSES, AND AW ARD TO PLAINTIFFS\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 78 Filed 04/07/26 PageID.897 Page 2 of\n 3\n\n\n\n 1 11 WHEREAS, notice of Lead Counsel ' s anticipated requests for an award of\n 2 11 attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and award to Plaintiffs was given to all\n 3 Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The form\n 4 and method of notifying the Settlement Class satisfied the requirements of Rule 23\n 5 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all other applicable law\n 6 11 and rules, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and\n 7 11 constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto; and\n 8 11 WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the fee application and the supporting\n 9 11 materials filed therewith, and due consideration having been had thereon.\n 10 11 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered:\n 11 11 1. Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys ' fees of one-third of the\n 12 II Settlement Amount, or $583 ,333.33, together with a proportionate share of the\n 13 11 interest earned on the fund at the same rate as earned by the balance of the fund\n 14 II from the date of the establishment of the fund to the date of payment, which amount\n 15 11 the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Lead Counsel shall allocate the attorneys'\n 16 II fees awarded amongst Plaintiffs' Counsel in a manner which they, in good faith,\n 17 11 believe reflects the contributions of such counsel to the institution, prosecution and\n 18 settlement of the Action.\n 19 2. Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded reimbursement of expenses in the total\n 20 11 amount of $65,904.07, with interest as described above.\n 21 3. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $7,500 each, as reimbursement for their lost\n 22 11 time and expenses in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class\n 23 11 in the prosecution of this Action.\n 24 II 4. Except as otherwise provided herein, the attorneys ' fees ,\n 25 11 reimbursement of expenses, and award to Plaintiffs shall be paid in the manner and\n 26 11 procedure provided for in the Stipulation.\n 27\n 28\n 2\n r--- --t'PKU\u00a5U<:Sb\u00b1J I ORDER A WARDING ATTORNEYS ' FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF\n EXP ENSES , AN D AW ARD TO PLAINTIFFS\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 78 Filed 04/07/26 PageID.898 Page 3 of\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 5. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court' s approval regarding\n 2 11 any attorneys ' fees and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the\n 3 11 finality of the Judgment.\n 4 6. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the parties and the\n 5 11 Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to this Action, including the\n 6 11 administration, interpretation, effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation and\n 7 11 this Order.\n 8 7. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of\n 9 11 the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this Order shall be rendered null and void\n 1O 11 to the extent provided by the Stipulation.\n 11 8. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and\n 12 II immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.\n 13\n 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 15\n 16 Dated: ~ , 2026\n 17 OK OHTA\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 3\n ORDER AWARD ING ATTORNEYS ' FEES, REIMB URSEMENT OF\n EXPENSES , AND AW ARD TO PLAINTI FFS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:58.960710-07:00","document_number":"78","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037022447460","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Attorney Fees","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T12:17:53.412965-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.871349-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-07","time_filed":"11:59:47","entry_number":78,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-07.002","pacer_sequence_number":261,"description":"ORDER Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses [Dkt. 71]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/7/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459513122/","id":459513122,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474542224/","id":474542224,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-02T11:49:57.604987-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-02T11:49:57.611890-07:00","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":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-02T11:49:57.586888-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-02T11:49:57.586905-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-02","time_filed":"11:04:09","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459074393/","id":459074393,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474091688/","id":474091688,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-30T15:23:05.288204-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-30T15:23:05.295152-07:00","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":"Minute Order (No Time)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-30T15:23:05.272262-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-30T15:23:05.272274-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-30","time_filed":"14:29:55","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458690225/","id":458690225,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473699412/","id":473699412,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/74/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-26T12:31:15.834765-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T13:06:06.224338-07:00","sha1":"4410241da59a11805d698bf14aa1442694020564","page_count":8,"file_size":255582,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.74.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.74.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.858 Page 1 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN 219683)\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 2\n 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 4 Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n Facsimile: (213) 226-4684\n 5 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 6\n Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\n 7\n 8 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]\n 9\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 11\n 12 ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 13 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 14 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF\n Plaintiff,\n POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n 15 IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF (1)\n v.\n 16 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION FOR\n FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 17 FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., PROPOSED CLASS ACTION\n RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A. SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF\n 18\n SCHEIWE,\n ALLOCATION; AND (2) LEAD\n 19\n COUNSEL\u2019S MOTION FOR AN\n 20 Defendants.\n AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019\n 21 FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF\n EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO\n 22 PLAINTIFFS\n 23\n CLASS ACTION\n 24\n 25 Date: April 2, 2026\n Time: 9:30 a.m.\n 26\n Courtroom: 4C\n 27 Judge: Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 28\n 29\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.859 Page 2 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 Lead Plaintiff Brandon Paulson and named Plaintiff Thomas Frank Clark\n 2 (collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), and Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., submit\n 3 this reply memorandum in further support of (i) Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for final approval\n 4 of the proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation and final certification of the\n 5 proposed Settlement Class (Dkt. No. 70); and (ii) Lead Counsel\u2019s Motion for an\n 6 award of attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs (Dkt.\n 7 No. 71) (together, the \u201cMotions\u201d).1\n 8 I. INTRODUCTION\n 9 Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order Granting Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Preliminary\n 10 Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 68; \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d),\n 11 the Court-appointed Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d)\n 12 disseminated approximately 18,981 copies of the Court-approved Postcard Notice,\n 13 or email links to the Notice and Claim Form, to potential Settlement Class Members\n 14 and the largest brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other nominees. Craig Suppl.\n 15 Decl. \u00b64. In addition, SCS (i) published the Summary Notice in Investor\u2019s Business\n 16 Daily and transmitted it over GlobeNewswire on January 19, 2026, (ii) created a\n 17 Settlement-specific website including links to the Notice, Proof of Claim form,\n 18 Stipulation, Preliminary Approval Order, and the Complaint, among other important\n 19 case-related documents; and (iii) maintained a toll-free telephone number for\n 20 potential Settlement Class Members. See Dkt. No. 70-3 (Declaration of Margery\n 21 Craig (\u201cCraig Decl.\u201d)) \u00b6\u00b610-12, & Ex. D. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary\n 22 Notice, and Settlement website informed Settlement Class Members of the March\n 23\n 24 1\n All capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, have the meanings set forth\n 25 in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d; Dkt. No. 60-\n 1), or the Declaration of Joshua Baker (Dkt. No. 70-2, \u201cBaker Decl.\u201d). Internal\n 26\n citations and quotations are omitted and emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.\n 27 Citations to \u201cCraig Suppl. Decl.\u201d are to the Supplemental Declaration of Margery\n 28 Craig, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto.\n\n 29 1\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.860 Page 3 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 12, 2026 deadline to: (i) submit an objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation,\n 2 and/or Fee and Expense Application; or (ii) request exclusion from the Settlement\n 3 Class. See id. \u00b6\u00b610-14 and Exs. A, C, and D.\n 4 On March 5, 2026, Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel filed their opening papers in\n 5 support of their Motions. Dkt. Nos. 70-71. The Motions are supported by the\n 6 declarations of Plaintiffs, Lead Counsel, the Claims Administrator, and the mediator.\n 7 See Baker Decl., Exs. 2-5, 8.\n 8 The March 3, 2026 claims filing deadline and the March 12, 2026 deadline\n 9 for objections and requests for exclusion have each passed. To date, potential\n 10 Settlement Class Members have submitted 3,466 claims. Craig Suppl. Decl. \u00b611.\n 11 There have been no objections to the Settlement or to either of the Motions. Id. \u00b69.\n 12 SCS has received only one request for exclusion from the Settlement from a\n 13 Settlement Class Member. Id. \u00b68.\n 14 The Settlement is conditioned on the entry of the [Proposed] Order and Final\n 15 Judgment. See Stipulation \u00b610.5(b) and Ex. B. A conformed version of the\n 16 [Proposed] Order and Final Judgment, which incorporates the relevant dates and\n 17 the one request for exclusion, is submitted concurrently herewith\u2014via email,\n 18 pursuant to the Court\u2019s Civil Chambers Rules \u00a7 II(B)\u2014along with a proposed order\n 19 granting Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application.\n 20 II. ARGUMENT\n 21 A. The Positive Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports Approval\n of the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation\n 22\n 23 In this Circuit, \u201cthe reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement\u201d\n 24 is one of the factors to consider in analyzing whether a settlement is fair, reasonable,\n 25 and adequate. See, e.g., Linney v. Cellular Alaska P\u2019ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th\n 26 Cir. 1998); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (same).\n 27 \u201cThe absence of a single objection to the Proposed Settlement provides further\n 28 support for final approval of the Proposed Settlement.\u201d Nat\u2019l Rural Telecomms\n 29 2\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.861 Page 4 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (\u201cIt is established\n 2 that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement\n 3 raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are\n 4 favorable to the class members\u201d); see also Ching v. Siemens Indus., Inc., 2014 WL\n 5 2926210, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014) (\u201cthe Court may appropriately infer that a\n 6 class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable when few class members\n 7 object to it.\u201d).\n 8 Likewise, the absence of any valid requests for exclusion from the Settlement\n 9 further demonstrates the Settlement Class\u2019s positive reaction to the Settlement and\n 10 supports final approval. See Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 577\n 11 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming settlement with 0.56% of eligible class members\n 12 requesting exclusion); Maine State Ret. Sys. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2013 WL\n 13 6577020, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) (69 exclusion requests in response to\n 14 mailing of over 50,000 notices supports settlement); Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods\n 15 Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 848, 852 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (\u201coverwhelming positive reaction\n 16 of the class members\u201d including 16 exclusion request representing 4.86% of class\n 17 supports settlements\u2019 approval.); Destefano v. Zynga, Inc., 2016 WL 537946, at *14\n 18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) (16 valid exclusion requests representing 0.176% of public\n 19 shares, supported settlement approval).\n 20 Here, the lack of a single objection and only one request for exclusion\n 21 demonstrates that the proposed Settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and\n 22 adequate. See, e.g., Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 2021 WL 5632673, at *7\n 23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) (\u201cConsidering the number of Notice Packets mailed to\n 24 potential Class Members and the fact that zero objections have been filed, the Court\n 25 finds that the reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement weighs in favor of\n 26 approving the Settlement.\u201d); In re Apollo Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 2012 WL 1378677,\n 27 at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2012) (\u201cThere have been no objections from Class Members\n 28\n 29 3\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.862 Page 5 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 or potential class members, which itself is compelling evidence that the Proposed\n 2 Settlement is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate.\u201d); In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,\n 3 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (\u201cBy any standard, the lack of objection\n 4 of the Class Members favors approval of the Settlement.\u201d).2\n 5 Moreover, the fact that no institutional investors or other large shareholders\n 6 have objected to the proposed Settlement further underscores its reasonableness.\n 7 See, e.g., In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2019 WL 3290770, at *9 (N.D.\n 8 Cal. July 22, 2019) (\u201cMany potential class members are sophisticated institutional\n 9 investors; the lack of objections from such institutions indicates that the settlement\n 10 is fair and reasonable.\u201d); In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litig., 296 F.R.D. 147, 156\n 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding \u201cclass\u2019s reaction weighs heavily in favor of approval\u201d\n 12 where \u201cnot one of the objections or requests for exclusion was submitted by an\n 13 institutional investor.\u201d).\n 14 Settlement Class Members\u2019 affirmative participation in the Settlement by\n 15 submitting claims also indicates a positive reaction to the Settlement. The claims\n 16 filing deadline was March 3, 2026, and to date, approximately 3,466 claims have\n 17 been submitted by potential Settlement Class Members seeking to participate in the\n 18 Settlement. Craig Suppl. Decl. \u00b611.3\n 19 B. The Favorable Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports\n Approval of the Plan of Allocation\n 20\n 21 The favorable reaction of the Settlement Class also supports approval of the\n 22 Plan of Allocation. See In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 WL 1594403, at *12 (C.D.\n 23\n 24 2\n \u201c[T]he fact that the overwhelming majority of the class willingly approved the\n 25 offer and stayed in the class presents at least some objective positive commentary\n as to its fairness.\u201d Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998).\n 26 3\n Once the claims administration process is complete, SCS will submit a declaration\n 27 in connection with Plaintiffs\u2019 anticipated motion for a Class Distribution Order,\n 28 which will set forth the final accepted and rejected claim numbers.\n\n 29 4\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.863 Page 6 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 Cal. June 10, 2005) (\u201cIn light of the lack of objectors to the plan of allocation at\n 2 issue, and the competence, expertise, and zeal of counsel in bringing and defending\n 3 this action, the Court finds the plan of allocation as fair and adequate.\u201d); Mauss v.\n 4 NuVasive, Inc., 2018 WL 6421623, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (concluding that\n 5 the proposed plan of allocation was fair and reasonable after noting \u201c[t]he Plan of\n 6 Allocation was described in detail in the notice and no class member objected.\u201d);\n 7 Khoja, 2021 WL 5632673, at *8 (\u201cFurther lending support to this conclusion [that\n 8 the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate] is the fact that zero Class\n 9 Members have requested exclusion from or filed objections to the Settlement.\u201d).\n 10 C. The Favorable Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports\n Approval of the Fee and Expense Application\n 11\n 12 Finally, the reaction of the Settlement Class should be considered with respect\n 13 to Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of\n 14 expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs. See In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Sec.\n 15 Litig., 2024 WL 3643393, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024) (\u201cthe existence or\n 16 absence of objectors to the requested attorneys\u2019 fee is a factor is determining the\n 17 appropriate fee award.\u201d); Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1048 (\u201cThe reaction of the\n 18 class may also be a determining factor in \u2026 determining the fee award.\u201d).\n 19 Here, the absence of any objections from Settlement Class Members to the\n 20 Fee and Expense Application supports a finding that the requests are fair and\n 21 reasonable. See In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177\n 22 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2007) (\u201cthe lack of objection from any Class Member supports\n 23 the attorneys\u2019 fees award.\u201d); Khoja, 2021 WL 5632673, at *9-11 (\u201cthe\n 24 reasonableness of Lead Counsel\u2019s fee request is bolstered by the reaction of the\n 25 Settlement Class and the fact that not a single Class Member has objected,\u201d finding\n 26 lack of objections supported requests for attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of expenses,\n 27 and award to plaintiff); Nunez v. BAE Sys. San Diego Ship Repair Inc., 292 F. Supp.\n 28 3d 1018, 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (citing Singer v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2010 WL\n 29 5\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.864 Page 7 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 2196104, at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010) (noting that the fee request of one-third of\n 2 settlement fund was \u201cespecially\u201d warranted \u201cin light of the fact that not a single class\n 3 member objected to\u201d the request)); Tan v. Quick Box, LLC, 2025 WL 1837737, at\n 4 *6 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2025) (lack of objections to request for one-third of settlement\n 5 as attorneys\u2019 fees supported request); Ziegler v. GW Pharmaceuticals, PLC, 2024\n 6 WL 1470532, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (same); Ali v. Franklin Wireless Corp.,\n 7 2024 WL 5179910, at *17 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2024) (awarding lead plaintiff $7,500\n 8 from the settlement fund in securities class action \u201c[c]onsidering ... the lack of\n 9 objections\u201d); In re ImmunityBio, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2025 WL 1686263 , at *16 (S.D.\n 10 Cal. June 16, 2025) (\u201cthe lack of any objections to the proposed [$10,000] award to\n 11 Lead Plaintiff also supports the reasonableness of the award\u201d). The lack of requests\n 12 for exclusion from Settlement Class Members further demonstrates the positive\n 13 reaction of the Settlement Class and thus supports awarding the requested fee and\n 14 expense amounts. See Chun-Hoon, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 852. Accordingly, the\n 15 Settlement Class\u2019s overwhelmingly positive reaction strongly supports the fairness\n 16 and reasonableness of these requests.\n 17 III. CONCLUSION\n 18 For the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in Plaintiffs\u2019 and Lead Counsel\u2019s\n 19 opening memoranda, the Court should grant the Motions, approve the Settlement\n 20 and Plan of Allocation as fair, reasonable, and adequate, award attorneys\u2019 fees to\n 21 Lead Counsel in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus Plaintiffs\u2019\n 22 Counsel\u2019s out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $65,904.07, and award $7,500\n 23 each to Plaintiffs for their time spent representing the Settlement Class.\n 24\n 25 Respectfully submitted,\n\n 26 Dated: March 26, 2026 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 27\n By: /s/Joshua Baker\n 28\n 29 6\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.865 Page 8 of\n 8\n\n\n\n 1 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN 219683)\n 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n 2 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 3 Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n Facsimile: (213) 226 4684\n 4 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 5\n Phillip Kim (pro hac vice)\n 6 Joshua Baker (pro hac vice)\n 7 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor\n New York, NY 10016\n 8\n Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n 9 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n 10 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n Email: jbaker@rosenlegal.com\n 11\n 12 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the\n Settlement Class\n 13\n 14 BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.\n Melissa A. Fortunato (SBN 319767)\n 15\n fortunato@bespc.com\n 16 Marion C. Passmore (SBN 228474)\n 17 passmore@bespc.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800\n 18 Los Angeles, California 90071\n 19 Telephone: (213) 612-7735\n Facsimile: (212) 214-0506\n 20\n 21 Additional Counsel for Plaintiff\n Thomas Frank Clark\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29 7\n REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF\n 30 SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:54:36.784981-07:00","document_number":"74","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037022397710","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804858/","id":479804858,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/74/1/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:32.560648-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:09:43.563797-07:00","sha1":"aca94ff154be5c16279036a9245f5954f1a98405","page_count":20,"file_size":2065378,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.74.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.74.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.866 Page 1\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.867 Page 2\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n 4 ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5\n Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 6 Plaintiff,\n 7 CLASS ACTION\n v.\n 8\n 9 FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n10 SCHEIWE,\n11\n Defendants.\n12\n13\n14 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n CONCERNING: (A) MAILING OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE\n15 AND EMAILING OF LONG NOTICE AND PROOF OF CLAIM; (B)\n16 REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS; AND\n (C) CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 1\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.868 Page 3\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 I, Margery Craig, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am a Project Manager at Strategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d), a\n 3\n nationally recognized class action administration firm. I have over nineteen years of\n 4\n 5 experience specializing in the administration of class action cases. SCS was\n 6\n established in April 1999 and has administered over five hundred and seventy-five\n 7\n 8 (575) class action cases since its inception. I have personal knowledge of the facts\n 9 set forth herein, and if called on to do so, I could and would testify competently\n10\n thereto.\n11\n12 2. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order Granting Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for\n13\n Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, dated December 10, 2025 (Dkt.\n14\n15 No. 68, the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), SCS was appointed and approved as the\n\n16 Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the\n17\n processing of claims in connection with the above-captioned Action.1\n18\n19 3. I submit this as a supplement to my previously filed Declaration of\n20\n Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Mailing of the Postcard Notice and Emailing of Long\n21\n22 Notice and Proof of Claim; (B) Publication of the Summary Notice; (C) Report on\n23 Requests for Exclusion and Objections; and (D) Claims Received to Date, dated\n24\n March 5, 2026 (Dkt. No. 70-3, the \u201cInitial Mailing Declaration\u201d), to provide the Court\n25\n26\n 1\n27 All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined have the\n meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement, filed August 27, 2025\n28 (Dkt. No. 60-1, the \u201cStipulation\u201d).\n 2\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.869 Page 4\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 and the Parties with updated information regarding the notifications to potential\n 2 Settlement Class Members, as well as updates concerning other aspects of the\n 3\n Settlement administration process.\n 4\n 5 UPDATE ON MAILING OF POSTCARD NOTICE AND EMAILING OF\n LINKS TO LONG NOTICE AND PROOF OF CLAIM\n 6\n 7 4. As noted in the Initial Mailing Declaration, SCS had mailed or emailed\n 8\n 2,463 letters to the Nominee Account Holders and Institutional Groups contained on\n 9\n10 SCS\u2019s master mailing list, and 6,326 Postcard Notices had been mailed and 12,6552\n11 emails with the link to the Long Notice and Proof of Claim were sent to potential\n12\n Settlement Class Members or nominees to inform them of the Settlement, for a total\n13\n14 of 18,981 combined Postcard Notices and email notices sent. Out of the 12,655 links\n15\n to the Long Notice and Proof of Claim that were emailed, 429 bounced back to SCS\n16\n17 as undeliverable. A Postcard Notice was then mailed to each of these 429 potential\n18 Settlement Class Members at the mailing address that SCS had been provided.\n19\n 5. Since the Initial Declaration, no additional Postcard Notices have been\n20\n21 requested and no additional links to the Long Notice and Proof of Claim on the\n22\n Settlement webpage have been requested or emailed.\n23\n24\n25 2\n As noted in the Initial Mailing Declaration, SCS received two requests from\n26 potential Settlement Class Members for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim to be\n27 mailed to them. SCS immediately mailed the Long Notice and Proof of Claim to the\n potential Settlement Class Members. Since the Initial Declaration, no additional\n28 copies of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim have been requested.\n 3\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.870 Page 5\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 UPDATE ON TOLL-FREE PHONE LINE\n 2 6. The Initial Mailing Declaration noted that SCS maintains a toll-free\n 3\n telephone number (1-866-274-4004) for Settlement Class Members to call and obtain\n 4\n 5 information about the Settlement and/or also request a Long Notice and Proof of\n 6\n Claim to be mailed to them. SCS continues to promptly respond to each telephone\n 7\n 8 inquiry and will continue to respond to Settlement Class Member inquiries via the\n 9 toll-free telephone line.\n10\n UPDATE ON SETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n11\n12 7. As noted in the Initial Mailing Declaration, on December 23, 2025, SCS\n13\n established a webpage for this Settlement on its website at\n14\n15 www.strategicclaims.net/flux. The webpage is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a\n\n16 week. The webpage contains the current status; the case deadlines; the online claim\n17\n filing link; and the important case documents including the Long Notice and Proof\n18\n19 of Claim, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Stipulation with exhibits; and\n20\n documents for Representative Filers, including the letter sent to nominees, the\n21\n22 electronic filing instructions, and the electronic filing template. SCS will continue to\n23 maintain and update the Settlement webpage with relevant case information through\n24\n the administration process. To date, the webpage has received 2,110 views from 831\n25\n26 unique users.\n27\n28\n 4\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.871 Page 6\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 UPDATE ON REPORT ON EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS\n 2 8. The Postcard Notice, Long Notice, Summary Notice, and Settlement\n 3\n webpage informed potential Settlement Class Members that written requests for\n 4\n 5 exclusion were to be mailed to SCS such that they were received no later than March\n 6\n 12, 2026. SCS has been monitoring all mail delivered for this case. Since the Initial\n 7\n 8 Mailing Declaration, SCS has received one request for exclusion. A copy of this\n 9 request for exclusion, with personal information redacted, is attached as Exhibit A\n10\n hereto.\n11\n12 9. According to the Long Notice, Postcard Notice, and Summary Notice,\n13\n Settlement Class Members seeking to object to the Settlement, any part of the\n14\n15 Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and\n\n16 expenses or application for an award to Plaintiff, and/or who think the Court should\n17\n not approve the Settlement, must be submitted to Lead Counsel and counsel for\n18\n19 Defendants, as well as filed with the Clerk of the Court, no later than March 12,\n20\n 2026. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has not received any objections, nor\n21\n22 has SCS been notified that any objections were submitted.\n23 UPDATE ON CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n24\n 10. The Postcard Notice, Long Notice, Summary Notice, and Settlement\n25\n26 webpage informed Settlement Class Members that the deadline for claims\n27\n submission was March 3, 2026.\n28\n 5\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.872 Page 7\n of 20\n\n\n\n 1 11. Below is a preliminary estimate of the total recognized losses to date,\n 2 calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation. The numbers below will be adjusted\n 3\n following SCS\u2019s efforts to notify claimants about deficiencies and conditions of\n 4\n 5 ineligibility and SCS\u2019s quality assurance procedure, which are currently in process.\n 6\n 7 Number Dollar Amount of\n Claims Status of claims Recognized Losses Shares\n 8\n Valid 1,158 $ 2,602,987.25 3,412,402\n 9\n10 Deficient Claims with limited proof 21 $ 33,318.43 43,679\n\n11 Rejected (no losses/gains/wrong market) 2,287 n/a n/a\n\n12 3,466 $2,636,305.68 3,456,081\n13\n14 12. The claims received to date are subject to further review, analysis, and\n15\n quality control measures. Many of the claims received to date contain deficiencies\n16\n17 (such as inadequate or no supporting documentation), which will be addressed\n18\n during the normal course of the administration. Claims that do not meet the\n19\n20 submission requirements after being given an opportunity to cure deficiencies may\n21 ultimately be rejected.\n22\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n23\n24 Signed this 26th day of March 2026, in Media, Pennsylvania.\n25\n26 _____________________________\n27 Margery Craig\n28\n 6\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 EXHIBIT\n PageID.873 PageA8\n of 20\nMargery Craig\n\nFrom: Claims Analyst\nSent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 11:21 AM\nTo: Margery Craig\nSubject: FW: Exclusion from Flux [#943676]\nAttachments: FLUX- STMT_12312025_XXXXXW43_RetirementEdge.pdf; FLUX_STMT_2023-0929_XXXXXW43_RetirementEdge.pdf;\n FLUX_STMT_03312025_XXXXXW43_RetirementEdge.pdf\n\n\n\n\nFrom:\nSent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:35 PM\nTo: Claims Analyst \nSubject: Re: Exclusion from Flux [#943676]\n\nHello,\n\nMy name is and I am requesting to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Kassam v. Flux\nPower Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-113 (S.D. Cal.).\n\n 1. My current address is:\n\n\n\n\n Ph:\n\n E:\n\n\n\n 2. I bought 100 shares of Flux Power Holdings, Inc (FLUX) on August 10, 2023, at 5.0700 per share, for a\n total price transaction of $507. I currently still hold all 100 of those shares.\n\n\n\n 3. On November 15, 2021 I owned 0 shares of FLUX, and at the close of trading on February 14, 2025 I\n owned 100 shares as stated above.\n\n\nThank you for this attention in this matter.\nPlease respond with confirmation of my request.\n\nThanks,\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.874 Page 9\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nOnline at: www.merrilledge.com Account Number: 24-Hour Assistance: (877) 653-4732\n Access Code:\n MLPF& S CUST FPO\n Net Portfolio Value: $3,881.95\n Your Merrill Office:\n Merrill EDGE\n FL9-802-03-05\n P.O. BOX 40486\n JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203\n\n\n RETIREMENT ACCOUNT\n This account is enrolled in the Merrill Edge Self-Directed Service July 01, 2023 - September 29, 2023\n\n This Statement Year to Date ASSETS September 29 June 30\n Cash/Money Accounts 2,322.80 4,208.27\n Opening Value (07 / 01) $4,208.27\n Fixed Income - -\n Total Credits 4.48 4.68 Equities 1,559.15 -\n Total Debits - - Mutual Funds - -\n Securities You Transferred In/Out - - Options - -\n Market Gains/(Losses) (330.80) (330.80) Other/Annuities/Insurance - -\n Subtotal (Long Portfolio) 3,881.95 4,208.27\n Closing Value (09 / 29) $3,881.95\n TOTAL ASSETS $3,881.95 $4,208.27\n\n LIABILITIES\n Debit Balance - -\n TOTAL LIABILITIES - -\n NET PORTFOLIO VALUE $3,881.95 $4,208.27\n\n\n\n\n Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (also referred to as \"MLPF&S\" or \"Merrill\") makes available certain investment products sponsored, managed, distributed or provided\n by companies that are affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (BofA Corp). MLPF&S is a registered broker-dealer, Member SIPC and a wholly owned subsidiary of BofA Corp.\n+ Investment products: Are Not FDIC Insured Are Not Bank Guaranteed May Lose Value\n\n012 1 of 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.875 Page 10\n of 20\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.876 Page 11\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nFBO Account Number:\n\n\nYOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT ASSETS July 01, 2023 - September 29, 2023\n\nCASH / MONEY ACCOUNTS Total Estimated Estimated Estimated Est. Annual\nDescription Quantity Cost Basis Market Price Market Value Annual Income Yield%\nCASH 4.40 4.40 4.40\n BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP 2,318.40 2,318.40 1.0000 2,318.40 .01\n FDIC INSURED NOT SIPC COVERED\n TOTAL 2,322.80 2,322.80 .01\n\nEQUITIES Total Estimated Estimated Unrealized Estimated\nDescription Symbol Quantity Cost Basis Market Price Market Value Gain/(Loss) Annual Income\nAMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT AMH 20.0000 730.40 33.6900 673.80 (56.60) 18\n CURRENT YIELD 2.612%\nFLUX PWR HOLDINGS INC FLUX 100.0000 507.00 3.4400 344.00 (163.00)\nINVITATION HOMES INC INVH 15.0000 521.55 31.6900 475.35 (46.20) 16\n CURRENT YIELD 3.281%\nWT05 27NUSCALE POWER SMRWS 100.0000 131.00 0.6600 66.00 (65.00)\n USD\n TOTAL YIELD 2.18% 1,889.95 1,559.15 (330.80) 34\nEquity Cost Basis details are available on the Statements and Documents page of www.merrilledge.com.\n\n\nRESEARCH RATINGS\nSecurity Symbol Morningstar CFRA\nAMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT AMH No Coverage Hold\nINVITATION HOMES INC INVH Buy Hold\n\nTHIRD PARTY RESEARCH\nThird party research on the equity securities of certain companies is available to clients for informational purposes. Clients can access this research at www.merrilledge.com or can call\n877-653-4732 to request that a copy be sent to them. Please note that the third party research rating is not necessarily equivalent to, or derived using the same methodology as, the\nBofAML Research ratings or the ratings of other third party research providers.\n\nLONG PORTFOLIO Adjusted/Total Estimated Market / Unrealized Estimated Estimated\n Cost Basis Contract Value Gain/(Loss) Accrued Interest Annual Income\n\n TOTAL YIELD .88% 4,212.75 3,881.95 (330.80) 34\n\n+\n012 3 of 7\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.877 Page 12\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nFBO Account Number: 24-Hour Assistance: (877) 653-4732\n Access Code:\n\nYOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS July 01, 2023 - September 29, 2023\n\nDIVIDENDS / INTEREST INCOME TRANSACTIONS Income\nDate Description Transaction Type Quantity Income Year To Date\nTax-Exempt Interest\n07 / 31 BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP Interest .0300\n 0.03000 DIV/INT REINVEST PAY DATE 07 / 28 / 2023 FROM 06-30 THRU 07-28 CUSIP NUM: 55499U915\n08 / 31 BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP Interest .0300\n 0.03000 DIV/INT REINVEST PAY DATE 08 / 30 / 2023 FROM 07-31 THRU 08-30 CUSIP NUM: 55499U915\n09 / 29 BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP Interest .0200\n 0.02000 DIV/INT REINVEST PAY DATE 09 / 28 / 2023 FROM 08-31 THRU 09-28 CUSIP NUM: 55499U915\n BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP Income Total .08\n Subtotal (Tax-Exempt Interest) .08 .28\nTax-Exempt Dividends\n09 / 29 AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT * Dividend 4.40\n HOLDING 20.0000 PAY DATE 09 / 29 / 2023\n Subtotal (Tax-Exempt Dividends) 4.40 4.40\n NET TOTAL 4.48 4.68\n\nSECURITY TRANSACTIONS\nSettlement Transaction Commissions/ (Debit)/ Accrued Interest\nDate Description Transaction Type Quantity Amount Trading Fees Credit Earned/(Paid)\nPurchases\n08 / 10 AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT Purchase 20.0000 (730.40) (730.40)\n CUS NO 02665T306 UNIT PRICE 36.5200\n08 / 10 FLUX PWR HOLDINGS INC Purchase 100.0000 (507.00) (507.00)\n CUS NO 344057302 UNIT PRICE 5.0700\n08 / 10 INVITATION HOMES INC Purchase 15.0000 (521.55) (521.55)\n CUS NO 46187W107 UNIT PRICE 34.7700\n08 / 10 WT05 27NUSCALE POWER Purchase 100.0000 (131.00) (131.00)\n USD CUS NO 67079K118 UNIT PRICE 1.3100\n Subtotal (Purchases) (1,889.95) (1,889.95)\n\n\n+\n012 4 of 7\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.878 Page 13\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nFBO Account Number:\n\nYOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS July 01, 2023 - September 29, 2023\n\nSECURITY TRANSACTIONS (continued)\nSettlement Transaction Commissions/ (Debit)/ Accrued Interest\nDate Description Transaction Type Quantity Amount Trading Fees Credit Earned/(Paid)\nPurchases\n TOTAL (1,889.95) (1,889.95)\n TOTAL SECURITY PURCHASES / (DEBITS) (1,889.95)\n TOTAL SECURITY SALES / CREDITS\n\nSWEEP PROGRAM TRANSACTIONS\nDate Transaction Type Quantity Description Debit Credit\n08 / 10 Withdrawal -1,889.9500 BANK OF AMERICA, NA RASP 1,889.95\n FRAC SELL .95 @ 1.00\n NET TOTAL 1,889.95\n\n\n\nYOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT CONTRIBUTIONS AND DISTRIBUTIONS\nYear-End Plan Value as of December 31, 2022: $4,208.07 Contributions after December 31, 2022 for 2022: $.00\n\nContributions Tax Year 2023 Tax Year 2022\nTotal Rollover Deposits $.00 $4,207.90\n\n\n\n\nIf you own London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) linked financial products, the cessation of LIBOR and the transition from LIBOR to alternative reference rates such as SOFR or BSBY,\nmay have significant impacts to those financial products, including impacts to their liquidity, value and potential performance. Additional information is available at\nwww.ml.com/articles/benchmark-interest-rate-reform.html\n\n\n\n\n+\n012 5 of 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.879 Page 14\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n This page intentionally left blank\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.880 Page 15\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nCustomer Service Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), and, at www.finra.org\n Please promptly report any inaccuracy, discrepancy, in other jurisdictions, locally registered entities. We receive a fee from ISA\u00ae banks of up to 2% per annum\nand/or concern by calling Wealth Management Client Investment products offered by Investment Banking of the average daily balances. We receive a fee from our\nSupport at (800-MERRILL) within ten (10) business days Affiliates, including MLPF&S, ARE NOT FDIC INSURED, affiliated banks of up to $100 per annum for each account\nafter delivery of or communication of the account ARE NOT BANK GUARANTEED AND MAY LOSE VALUE. that sweeps balances to the banks under the RASP and\nstatement. You should re-confirm any oral ML bank deposit programs. We also receive a fee from Bank\ncommunications in writing to protect your rights. Additional Information of America, N.A. based on the average daily Preferred\n We will route your equity and option orders to market Deposit \u00ae and Preferred Deposit for Business \u00ae balances.\nAbout Us centers consistent with our duty of best execution.\n You may review our financial statement at our offices: Except for certain custodial accounts, we hold bonds Options Customers\nMerrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and preferred stocks in bulk segregation. If there is a For all customers, including those who own options, please\n(MLPF&S or ML), One Bryant Park, New York, New York partial call for those securities, securities will be\n10036. If you request a copy of our financial statement, randomly selected from those held in bulk. The promptly advise us of any material change in your\nwe will mail it to you. probability of your holdings being selected is investment objectives or financial condition. Individual\n We act as a market maker, dealer, block positioner proportional to the total number of customer holdings options commission charges have been included in your\nor arbitrageur in certain securities. These activities may of that particular security that we hold. confirmation. You may request a summary of this\nput us or one of our affiliates on the opposite side of This statement serves as a confirmation of certain information.\ntransactions we execute for you and potentially result in transactions during the period permitted to be\ntrading profits for us or our affiliates. reported periodically. Additional information, including Margin Customers\n BofA Merrill Lynch Research is research produced by the time of execution for any trade, is available upon If this statement is for a margin account, it is a combined\nMLPF&S and/or one or more of its affiliates. Third written request. statement of your margin account and special\nparty research ratings from selected vendors are In accordance with applicable law, rules and\nprovided, if available, for your information. Our regulations, your free credit balance is not segregated memorandum account maintained for you pursuant to\nproviding these research ratings is not a solicitation or and we can use these funds in our business. Your free applicable regulations. The permanent record of the\nrecommendation of any particular security. MLPF&S credit balance is the amount of funds payable upon separate account, as required by Regulation T, is available\nand its affiliates are not responsible for any third party your demand. You have the right to receive, in the for your inspection upon request. You should retain this\nresearch and have no liability for such research. You normal course of business, any free credit balance and statement for use with your next statement to calculate\nare responsible for any trading decision you make any fully paid securities to which you are entitled, interest charges, if any, for the period covered by this\nbased upon third party research ratings and reports. subject to any obligations you owe in any of your statement. The interest charge period will parallel the\n MLPF&S may make available to you certain securities accounts. statement period, except that interest due for the final day\nand other investment products that are sponsored, For clients enrolled in a sweep program, the balance of the statement period will be carried over and appear on\nmanaged, distributed or provided by companies that in any bank deposit account or shares of any money your next statement.\nare affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (BAC) or in market mutual fund in which you have a beneficial\nwhich BAC has a substantial economic interest. interest can be withdrawn or liquidated on your order Coverage for your Account\n Merrill and Merrill Edge are the marketing name for and the proceeds returned to your securities account\n or remitted to you. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) and\ntwo businesses: Merrill Advisory Center \u2122, which offers You will have the right to vote full shares and we may our excess-SIPC insurance policy do not cover commodities\nteam-based advice and guidance brokerage services; solicit voting instructions concerning these full shares futures contracts, fixed annuity contracts, hedge funds,\nand a self-directed online investing platform. Both are in your account. Voting shares in your account will be private equity funds, commodity pools and other investment\nmade available through MLPF&S. governed by the then current rules and policies of contracts (such as limited partnerships) that are not\n Bank of America Merrill Lynch is the marketing name FINRA and the Securities Exchange Commission or registered with the US Securities Exchange Commission,\nfor the global banking and global markets businesses other applicable exchanges or regulatory bodies. precious metals, other assets that are not securities, as\nof BAC. Lending, derivatives, and other commercial All transactions are subject to the constitution, rules, defined by SIPC, and assets that are not held at MLPF&S,\nbanking activities are performed globally by banking regulations, customs, usages, rulings and\naffiliates of BAC, including Bank of America, N.A., such as cash on deposit at Bank of America, N.A. or Bank of\n interpretations of the exchange or market, and its America California, N.A. (Merrill Lynch affiliated banks) or\nmember Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation clearinghouse, if any, where the transactions are\n(FDIC). Securities, strategic advisory, and other executed, and if not executed on any exchange, FINRA. other depository institutions. Those bank deposits are\n protected by the FDIC up to applicable limits. MLPF&S is not a\ninvestment banking activities are performed globally You may obtain an investor brochure that includes\nby investment banking affiliates of BAC (\u201cInvestment information describing the FINRA Regulation Public bank. Unless otherwise disclosed, INVESTMENTS THROUGH\nBanking Affiliates\u201d), including, in the United States, Disclosure Program (\u201cProgram\u201d). To obtain a brochure MLPF&S ARE NOT FDIC INSURED, ARE NOT BANK\nMLPF&S and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., or more information about the Program or your broker GUARANTEED AND MAY LOSE VALUE. To obtain information\nall of which are registered broker dealers and members contact the FINRA Regulation Public Disclosure Program about SIPC, including the SIPC Brochure, contact SIPC at\nof Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Hotline at (800)289-9999 or access the FINRA website http:/ /www.sipc.org or (202)371-8300.\n\n +\n 012 6 of 7\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.881 Page 16\n of 20\n\n\n\n\nFixed Income Securities Insurance Policies and Annuity Contracts Symbols and Abbreviations\n Values on your statement generally are based on Information is based on data from the issuing insurer. Interest reported to the IRS\nestimates obtained from various sources and in certain We are not responsible for the calculation of Gross Proceeds reported to the IRS\ncases only from affiliates. These values assume policy/contract values. Insurance policies and annuity * Dividends reported to the IRS\nstandard market conditions, are not firm bids or offers contracts are generally not held in your MLPF&S : Transactions reported to the IRS\nand may vary from prices achieved in actual account. If we, as custodian or trustee, hold an annuity OCC Options Clearing Corporation\ntransactions, especially for thinly traded securities. contract that is a security, SIPC and excess-SIPC # Transaction you requested same day\nThese values are generally for transactions of $1 coverage apply. payment. Prior day's dividend retained to\nmillion or more, which often reflect more favorable offset cost of advancing payment on your\n Estimated Annual Income and Current Yield behalf\npricing than transactions in smaller amounts. You may\npay more than these values if you purchase smaller Estimated Annual Income and Current Yield for certain N/A Price, value and/or cost data not available\namounts of securities, or receive less if you sell smaller types of securities could include a return of principal or N/C Not-Calculated\namounts of securities. capital gains in which case the Estimated Annual N/N Non-negotiable securities\n Income and Current Yield would be overstated. N/O Securities registered in your name\nPrices and Valuations Estimated Annual Income and Current Yield are N/O CUST Non-negotiable securities registered in the\n While we believe our pricing information to be estimates and the actual income and yield might be name of the custodian\nreliable, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Pricing lower or higher than the estimated amounts. Current Indicates that BofA Merrill Lynch Research\ninformation provided for certain thinly traded securities Yield is based upon Estimated Annual Income and the has upgraded ( ) or downgraded ( ) its\nmay be stale. current price of the security and will fluctuate. fundamental equity opinion on a security.\n Values on your statement generally are based on Market-Linked Investments (MLI)\nestimates obtained from various sources and in certain\ncases only from affiliates. MLIs are debt securities or Certificates\n Investments such as direct participation program of Deposit linked to an underlying\nsecurities (e.g., partnerships, limited liability reference asset. They are reflected on\ncompanies, and real estate trusts which are not listed your statement by their underlying\non any exchange), and alternative investments (e.g. reference asset \u2013 equities (e.g., stocks,\ncommodity pools, private equity funds, private debit ETFs, equity indices), alternative\nfunds, and hedge funds) are generally illiquid investments (e.g., commodities,\ninvestments. No formal trading market exists for these currencies), or fixed income (e.g.,\nsecurities and their current values will likely be interest rates). This classification\ndifferent from the purchase price. Unless otherwise method illustrates your asset\nindicated, and except for certain alternative investment allocation.\nfunds sponsored by affiliates of MLPF&S, the value\nshown on this statement for an investment in these\nsecurities has been provided by the management,\nadministrator or sponsor of each program or a\nthird-party vendor, in each case without independent\nverification by MLPF&S. The values shown may not\nreflect actual market value or be realized upon a sale.\nIf an estimated value is not provided, accurate\nvaluation information is not available.\nCost Data / Realized Capital Gains & Losses\n Cost Data and Realized Capital Gains/Losses are\nprovided in this statement for informational purposes\nonly. Please review for accuracy. Merrill Lynch is not\nresponsible for omitted or restated data. Please\nconsult your tax advisor to determine the tax\nconsequences of your securities transactions. Your\nstatement is not an official accounting of gains/losses.\nPlease refer to your records, trade confirmations, and\nyour Consolidated Tax Reporting Statement (Form\n1099).\n +\n 012 7 of 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.882 Page 17\n of 20\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.883 Page 18\n of 20\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.884 Page 19\n of 20\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 74-1 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.885 Page 20\n of 20\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:54:51.053892-07:00","document_number":"74","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"037022397711","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Declaration of Margery Craig","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-26T12:31:15.801480-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.708734-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-26","time_filed":"12:01:53","entry_number":74,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":249,"description":"RESPONSE in Support re 71 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs, 70 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation filed by Thomas Frank Clark, Brandon Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Declaration of Margery Craig)(Baker, Joshua) (stn). (Entered: 03/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457482350/","id":457482350,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472467205/","id":472467205,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/73/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-17T12:31:52.254578-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-17T12:31:52.263402-07:00","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":"73","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037022358437","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T12:31:52.212133-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.688153-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"11:29:02","entry_number":73,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":246,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Alexis Mustell on behalf of Charles A Scheiwe (Mustell, Alexis)Attorney Alexis Mustell added to party Charles A Scheiwe(pty:dft) (rxc). (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456356313/","id":456356313,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471319707/","id":471319707,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-09T12:19:56.878048-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T12:19:56.885082-07:00","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":"Minute Order (No Time)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T12:19:56.862281-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T12:19:56.862295-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-09","time_filed":"11:43:27","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456018121/","id":456018121,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69555752/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/470974509/","id":470974509,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-05T13:35:02.914570-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-05T13:35:02.961158-08:00","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":"70","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317426","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804859/","id":479804859,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/1/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:39.935663-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:06:18.521894-07:00","sha1":"8a18ff4052ec83193ce4ce932e2badd8a619e241","page_count":33,"file_size":438335,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.589 Page 1\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN 219683)\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 2\n 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 4 Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n Facsimile: (213) 226-4684\n 5 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 6\n Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\n 7\n 8 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]\n 9\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 11\n 12 ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 13 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS\n Plaintiff,\n AND AUTHORITIES IN\n 15 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019\n v.\n 16 MOTION FOR FINAL\n APPROVAL OF PROPOSED\n 17 FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT\n RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A. AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION\n 18\n SCHEIWE,\n 19\n CLASS ACTION\n 20 Defendants.\n\n 21 Date: April 2, 2026\n Time: 9:30 a.m.\n 22 Courtroom: 4C\n 23 Judge: Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.590 Page 2\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n 3 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1\n\n 4 II. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION ............................................................. 3\n 5 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations ........................................................................... 3\n 6\n B. Procedural History and Settlement ....................................................... 4\n 7\n III. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE SETTLEMENT CLASS .............. 5\n 8\n 9 IV. THE SETTLEMENT WARRANTS FINAL APPROVAL ............................ 6\n 10 A. Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel Adequately Represented the Class .......... 7\n 11 B. The Settlement is the Product of Arm\u2019s Length Negotiations .............. 8\n 12\n C. The Relief Provided to the Settlement Class is Adequate .................... 9\n 13\n 1. The Strength of Plaintiffs\u2019 Case and the Risk,\n 14\n Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of\n 15 Continued Litigation ................................................................... 9\n 16 2. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial .......... 13\n 17\n D. The Amount Obtained in Settlement Supports Final Approval ......... 13\n 18\n E. The Remaining Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Support Approval .................. 15\n 19\n 20 1. The Methods of Distributing Relief and Processing\n Claims ....................................................................................... 15\n 21\n 22 2. The Proposed Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees is\n Appropriate ............................................................................... 16\n 23\n 24 3. Other Agreements ..................................................................... 16\n\n 25 4. The Proposed Settlement Does Not Unjustly Favor\n Any Settlement Class Members, Including Plaintiffs .............. 17\n 26\n 27 F. The Remaining Ninth Circuit Factors Favor Approval ...................... 18\n 28\n 29 i\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.591 Page 3\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 1. The Extent of Discovery and Stage of Proceedings ................. 18\n\n 2 2. Experienced Counsel\u2019s Recommendations .............................. 19\n 3 3. The Absence of a Government Participant ............................... 21\n 4\n 4. The Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports\n 5 Approval ................................................................................... 21\n 6 V. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PLAN OF\n 7 ALLOCATION ............................................................................................. 22\n 8 VI. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE NOTICE PLAN ........................ 23\n 9\n VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29 ii\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.592 Page 4\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n 2\n Cases\n 3\n 4 Baker v. SeaWorld Entm\u2019t, Inc.,\n 2020 WL 818893 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2020) ......................................................... 24\n 5\n 6 Christine Asia Co. v. Yun Ma,\n 2019 WL 5257534 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019) ....................................................... 17\n 7\n Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,\n 8\n 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004)................................................................................. 21\n 9\n Evans v. Jeff D.,\n 10 475 U.S. 717 (1986) ................................................................................................ 6\n 11\n Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.,\n 12 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) ......................................................... 19\n 13\n Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,\n 14 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................. 7, 14, 18, 21\n 15 Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,\n 16 2018 WL 4207245 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018) ....................................................... 17\n 17 Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,\n 18 2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) ................................................ 10, 13\n 19 In re \u201cAgent Orange\u201d Prod. Liab. Litig.,\n 20 597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) ....................................................................... 13\n 21 In re Advanced Battery Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 22 298 F.R.D. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................... 24\n\n 23 In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,\n 2011 WL 1585605 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2011) ....................................................... 12\n 24\n 25 In re Datatec Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 2007 WL 4225828 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007) .......................................................... 22\n 26\n 27 In re Gen. Instrument Sec. Litig.,\n 209 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .................................................................... 22\n 28\n 29 iii\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.593 Page 5\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig.,\n 414 F. Supp. 3d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)................................................................... 13\n 2\n In re Heritage Bond Litig.,\n 3\n 2005 WL 1594389 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ...................................................... 14\n 4\n In re Heritage Bond Litig.,\n 5 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) .......................................... 10, 11, 19\n 6\n In re Immune Response Sec. Litig.,\n 7 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................. 10\n 8\n In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n 9 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)................................................................... 7, 9, 18, 19\n 10 In re NeoPharm, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 11 705 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Ill. 2010) .................................................................... 11\n 12 In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,\n 13 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................ 6, 13, 21, 22\n 14 In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n 15 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010)................................................................................. 11\n\n 16 In re PaineWebber Ltd. Partnerships Litig.,\n 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y.) ................................................................................... 13\n 17\n 18 In re Puda Coal Sec. Inc., Litig.,\n 30 F. Supp. 3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)..................................................................... 11\n 19\n 20 In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litig.,\n 2009 WL 166689 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) ......................................................... 21\n 21\n 22 In re Regulus Therapeutics Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 2020 WL 6381898 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) ....................................................... 14\n 23\n In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp.,\n 24\n 2024 WL 3643393 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23 2024) ....................................... 8, 16, 18, 23\n 25\n In re Sumitomo Copper Litig.,\n 26 189 F.R.D. 274 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) .......................................................................... 10\n 27\n 28\n 29 iv\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.594 Page 6\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 In re Syncor ERISA Litig.,\n 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 6\n 2\n In re Tyco Int'l, Ltd. Multidistrict Litig.,\n 3\n 535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007) ...................................................................... 11\n 4\n In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 5 388 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)................................................................... 22\n 6\n In re Zynga Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 7 2015 WL 6471171 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) ...................................................... 19\n 8\n In re: Volkswagen \u201cClean Diesel\u201d Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.,\n 9 2016 WL 6248426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) ...................................................... 18\n 10 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,\n 11 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 17\n 12 Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd.,\n 13 136 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 20\n 14 Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,\n 15 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................................................... 7\n\n 16 Low v. Trump Univ., LLC,\n 246 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................... 9\n 17\n 18 Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC,\n 2022 WL 4791923 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022)........................................................ 9\n 19\n 20 Maine State Ret. Sys. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.,\n 2013 WL 6577020 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) ........................................................ 21\n 21\n 22 Mild v. PPG Indus., Inc.,\n 2019 WL 3345714 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2019) ......................................................... 8\n 23\n Nat\u2019l Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,\n 24\n 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................. 12, 19, 20\n 25\n Nguyen v. Radient Pharms. Corp.,\n 26 2014 WL 1802293 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ........................................................ 18\n 27\n 28\n 29 v\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.595 Page 7\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Officers for Just. v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n of City & Cnty. of San Francisco,\n 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)................................................................. 7, 12, 13, 14\n 2\n Robbins v. Koger Props., Inc.,\n 3\n 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 12\n 4\n Rodriguez v. W. Publ\u2019g Corp.,\n 5 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009)............................................................................. 8, 23\n 6\n Salazar v. Midwest Servicing Grp., Inc.,\n 7 2018 WL 3031503 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) ........................................................ 12\n 8\n Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp.,\n 9 2007 WL 1114010 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) ........................................................ 8\n 10 Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc.,\n 11 2019 WL 2183451 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) ........................................................ 9\n 12 Tom v. Com Dev USA, LLC,\n 13 2017 WL 10378629 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017) ...................................................... 21\n 14 Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co.,\n 15 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993)..................................................................................... 7\n\n 16 Wong v. Arlo Techs., Inc.,\n 2021 WL 1531171 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021) ........................................................ 9\n 17\n 18 Statutes\n 19 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4) ........................................................................................... 16\n 20\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7) ........................................................................................... 24\n 21\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a71715....................................................................................................... 24\n 22\n 23 Rules\n\n 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ........................................................................................... 6, 16, 24\n 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) ................................................................................. 5\n 26\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) .......................................................................................... 2, 6, 7\n 27\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ...................................................................................... 23\n 28\n 29 vi\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.596 Page 8\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ................................................................................... 6, 7, 18\n\n 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A) ........................................................................................ 7\n 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) ........................................................................................ 8\n 4\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(i) .................................................................................... 9\n 5\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(ii) ................................................................................. 15\n 6\n 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) ................................................................................ 16\n 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iv) ................................................................................ 16\n 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D) ...................................................................................... 17\n 10\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3); and (D) ............................................................................... 6\n 11\n Other Authorities\n 12\n 13 Advisory Committee\u2019s Notes to 2018 Amendment,\n 324 F.R.D. 904 ........................................................................................................ 6\n 14\n 15 Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) \u00a7 30.44 (1995) ......................................... 20\n\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29 vii\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.597 Page 9\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Lead Plaintiff Brandon Paulson and named Plaintiff Thomas Frank Clark\n 2 (collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) submit this memorandum in support of their Motion for\n 3 Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation.1\n 4 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n 5 Plaintiffs and Defendants Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d or the\n 6 \u201cCompany\u201d), Ronald F. Dutt, and Charles A. Scheiwe (collectively, \u201cDefendants,\u201d\n 7 and together with Plaintiffs, the \u201cParties\u201d) have reached a $1,750,000 all-cash, non-\n 8 reversionary settlement of this securities class action (\u201cSettlement\u201d). The\n 9 Settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate result for the Settlement Class,\n 10 providing a significant and certain recovery in a case that presented numerous\n 11 litigation risks including Defendants\u2019 two pending motions to dismiss. The\n 12 Settlement recovers approximately 19.0% of the maximum estimated damages of\n 13 $9.2 million under Plaintiffs\u2019 best-case scenario at an early stage of the case, a\n 14 favorable result compared to typical recoveries in securities class action settlements\n 15 with similar damages. Moreover, the Settlement was reached only after arm\u2019s-\n 16 length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel with the assistance of\n 17 mediator Robert A. Meyer of JAMS, and it is the result of a mediator\u2019s\n 18 recommendation that followed an all-day mediation session. The Settlement is,\n 19 both substantively and procedurally fair, and thus final approval is appropriate.\n 20\n 1\n 21 All capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, have the meanings set forth\n in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d; Dkt. No. 60-\n 22 1). Internal citations and quotations are omitted unless otherwise noted. Citations to\n 23 \u201cBaker Decl.\u201d are to the Declaration of Joshua Baker, filed herewith. Citations to\n \u201cCraig Decl.\u201d are to the Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Emailing of\n 24 the Summary Notice and Mailing of the Postcard Notice; (B) Publication of the\n 25 Summary Notice; and (C) Report on Requests for Exclusion and Objections,\n attached as Exhibit 1 to the Baker Decl. Citations to \u201cFee Brief\u201d are to the\n 26\n Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Lead Counsel\u2019s Motion for an\n 27 Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs,\n 28 filed herewith.\n\n 29 1\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.598 Page 10\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 If approved, the Settlement will completely resolve the Action, settling all\n 2 claims of Settlement Class Members who have not submitted valid requests for\n 3 exclusion. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation. In the Court\u2019s\n 4 Order Granting Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action\n 5 Settlement (\u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d) (Dkt. No. 68), the Court preliminarily\n 6 approved the Settlement, preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for settlement\n 7 purposes, and directed that notice be disseminated to potential Settlement Class\n 8 Members. Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the Settlement.\n 9 To grant final approval of the Settlement, this Court will evaluate whether it\n 10 is \u201cfair, reasonable, and adequate,\u201d focusing on the adequacy of the Settlement\n 11 Amount in consideration for the release of the claims in the Action. Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 12 23(e). Plaintiffs believe their case is strong, but they determined that entering the\n 13 Settlement was in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Even if Plaintiffs had\n 14 survived the pending motions to dismiss, they faced other material obstacles to\n 15 proving their claims, such as prevailing at class certification, summary judgment,\n 16 and trial, and proving the full amount of damages. Rather than engaging in\n 17 expensive, protracted litigation with no assurance of success, Plaintiffs agreed to an\n 18 early resolution of this action as the best outcome for the Settlement Class. Through\n 19 extensive negotiations with Defendants, Plaintiffs obtained a substantial recovery\n 20 for the Settlement Class. In light of the obstacles to achieving a larger recovery and\n 21 the significant amount of time and expenses that continued litigation would entail,\n 22 the Court should approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.\n 23 The Court will also evaluate whether the proposed Plan of Allocation\n 24 (\u201cPlan\u201d) is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Lead Counsel developed the proposed\n 25 Plan in consultation with Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert and the Claims\n 26 Administrator. The proposed Plan comports with applicable legal principles and\n 27\n 28\n 29 2\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.599 Page 11\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs\u2019 theory of damages, and it does not favor Plaintiffs over other members\n 2 of the Settlement Class. The Court should approve the Plan.\n 3 Finally, Plaintiffs seek final certification of the Settlement Class for\n 4 settlement purposes. The Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class in its\n 5 Preliminary Approval Order, and no pertinent changes have transpired that would\n 6 upset or alter the Court\u2019s preliminary findings and determinations. Thus, the Court\n 7 should certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes.\n 8 II. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION\n 9 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n 10 Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power,\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) makes lithium-\n 11 ion battery packs for a range of industrial and commercial sectors, primarily forklift\n 12 equipment manufacturers. Flux Power\u2019s inventories consist primarily of its battery\n 13 pack systems. Around 2021, the Company adopted a new battery pack design and\n 14 switched its supplier. Under the Company\u2019s own accounting rules and U.S. GAAP,\n 15 the Company was required to write down its excess and obsolete inventory as a loss\n 16 in its financial statements.\n 17 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made several false and misleading\n 18 statements and omissions, including eleven months of false financial statements and\n 19 several misleading omissions of material weaknesses in its internal control over\n 20 financial reporting. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Flux Power\u2019s quarterly and\n 21 annual financial statements for each quarter and year from FY2022 through the third\n 22 quarter of FY2024 overstated inventory, gross profit, current assets, and total assets,\n 23 and understated cost of sales and net loss. As a result, Flux Power would need to\n 24 undertake an expensive investigation and issue restatements for each of those\n 25 periods. When the full restatement was finally issued in January 2025, it revealed a\n 26 cumulative overstatement of gross profits by $3.6 million, or 10.3%, and an\n 27 understatement of net loss by $2.4 million, or 7.9%. Plaintiffs also allege that\n 28\n 29 3\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.600 Page 12\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Defendants misleadingly omitted multiple material weaknesses in the Company\u2019s\n 2 internal control over financial reporting throughout the Class Period, which\n 3 contributed to the misstated financial statements and restatement.\n 4 Investors learned about Flux Power\u2019s false financial statements and internal\n 5 control issues through a series of disclosures beginning in September 2024, each\n 6 causing the Company\u2019s stock price to fall. The Company first announced it would\n 7 need to restate its financials in September 2024, with an estimated impact of $1.7\n 8 million in overstated inventory over the prior seven quarters. A few weeks later,\n 9 Flux Power revealed it would need more time to complete the restatement. In\n 10 November 2024, Flux Power revealed that estimated adjustments from the\n 11 restatement totaled $4.9 million, nearly three times as large as originally estimated.\n 12 Plaintiffs also allege that the restatement was accompanied by a parade of\n 13 suspicious executive departures, including Defendant Dutt, the Company\u2019s CEO\n 14 and Chairman, Defendant Scheiwe, its CFO, and its outside auditor, Baker Tilly US\n 15 LLP. Finally, in late January 2025, Flux Power issued its full restatement. In\n 16 February and March 2025, Flux Power further revealed that it had incurred\n 17 significant expenses relating to the restatement process.\n 18 B. Procedural History and Settlement\n 19 On November 1, 2024, Asfa Kassam filed a complaint against Defendants in\n 20 the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\n 21 Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dkt. No. 1. On January 14, 2025, the case was\n 22 transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 17.\n 23 On February 20, 2025, the Court appointed Mr. Paulson as Lead Plaintiff and\n 24 appointed The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Lead Counsel. Dkt. No. 42. On April 21,\n 25 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint (\u201cComplaint\u201d). Dkt.\n 26 No. 48. On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Complaint.\n 27\n 28\n 29 4\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.601 Page 13\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Dkt. Nos. 49, 52. On May 27, 2025, after the Parties agreed to mediate, the Court\n 2 stayed the case pending a joint report on the outcome of the mediation. Dkt. No. 55.\n 3 On July 11, 2025, the Parties participated in a mediation with Robert A.\n 4 Meyer of JAMS. Mr. Meyer has considerable experience mediating complex\n 5 securities class actions such as this Action. See Ex. 8 (Declaration of Robert A.\n 6 Meyer). Prior to the mediation, the Parties exchanged detailed mediation\n 7 statements. After hard-fought negotiations facilitated by Mr. Meyer, the Parties\n 8 ultimately accepted Mr. Meyer\u2019s proposal to settle the Action for $1,750,000. The\n 9 Parties executed a Term Sheet, notified the Court (Dkt. No. 56), and thereafter\n 10 negotiated and executed the Stipulation.\n 11 Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement on August 28,\n 12 2025. Dkt. No. 60. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs\u2019 motion on October 23,\n 13 2025, ordered slight changes to the proposed notice materials, and requested\n 14 supplemental information. Dkt. No. 65. After Plaintiffs submitted the supplemental\n 15 information and changes (Dkt. No. 66), the Court held another hearing on December\n 16 4, 2025. The Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order on December 10, 2025.\n 17 Dkt. No. 68.\n 18 III. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE SETTLEMENT CLASS\n 19 The Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for settlement\n 20 purposes in its Preliminary Approval Order. Dkt. No. 68 \u00b6\u00b62-4. As detailed in\n 21 Plaintiffs\u2019 brief in support of preliminary approval of the Settlement, Dkt. No. 60-\n 22 2 at 4-10, certification of the Settlement Class is merited here because Plaintiffs,\n 23 Lead Counsel, and the Settlement Class satisfy each requirement of Rule 23(a) and\n 24 (b)(3). No pertinent changes have transpired since the Court issued the Preliminary\n 25 Approval Order that would upset or alter the Court\u2019s findings. Thus, the Court\n 26 should grant final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes.\n 27\n 28\n 29 5\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.602 Page 14\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 IV. THE SETTLEMENT WARRANTS FINAL APPROVAL\n 2 Rule 23 requires judicial approval of class action settlements, and provides\n 3 that a class action settlement should be approved if the court finds it \u201cfair,\n 4 reasonable, and adequate.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). It is within the \u201csound\n 5 discretion of the district courts to appraise the reasonableness of [] settlements on a\n 6 case-by-case basis.\u201d Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 742 (1986). The Ninth Circuit\n 7 strongly favors settlement, \u201cparticularly where complex class action litigation is\n 8 concerned.\u201d In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008); In re\n 9 Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (\u201cthe court\n 10 must also be mindful of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s policy favoring settlement, particularly\n 11 in class action law suits\u201d).\n 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) provides that, to determine if a\n 13 settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court must consider whether:\n 14 (A) the class representatives and class counsel have\n adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was\n 15\n negotiated at arm\u2019s length; (C) the relief provided for the\n 16 class is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks,\n 17 and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any\n proposed method of distributing relief to the class,\n 18 including the method of processing class-member claims;\n 19 (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney\u2019s fees,\n including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement\n 20 required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the\n 21 proposal treats class members equitably relative to each\n other.\n 22\n 23 These factors do not \u201cdisplace\u201d any previously adopted factors, but \u201cfocus\n 24 the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that\n 25 should guide the decision whether to approve the proposal.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)\n 26 Advisory Committee\u2019s Notes to 2018 Amendment, 324 F.R.D. 904, 918.\n 27 Ultimately, \u201c[a] settlement should be approved if \u2018it is fundamentally fair, adequate\n 28\n 29 6\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.603 Page 15\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 and reasonable.'\u201d Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir.\n 2 1993); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000) (same).\n 3 In evaluating whether settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts\n 4 in the Ninth Circuit traditionally consider the following factors, many of which\n 5 overlap with the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2): \u201cthe strength of the plaintiffs\u2019 case;\n 6 the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of\n 7 maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in\n 8 settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the\n 9 experience and views of counsel; the presence of a government participant; and the\n 10 reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.\u201d Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,\n 11 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,\n 12 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). Keeping in mind that \u201cit is the very uncertainty of outcome\n 13 in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce\n 14 consensual settlements,\u201d courts should not convert settlement approval into an\n 15 inquiry on the merits. Officers for Just. v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n of City & Cnty. of San\n 16 Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, the Rule 23(e) and Ninth Circuit\n 17 factors weigh in favor of final approval of the Settlement.\n 18 A. Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel Adequately Represented the Class\n 19 Courts must consider whether the \u201cclass representatives and class counsel\n 20 have adequately represented the class.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A). The Ninth\n 21 Circuit requires courts to resolve two questions to determine adequacy: \u201c(1) do the\n 22 named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class\n 23 members[;] and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action\n 24 vigorously on behalf of the class?\u201d Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.\n 25 Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement\n 26 Class throughout this litigation. Plaintiffs have no antagonistic interests to other\n 27 class members. Their claims are typical of Settlement Class Members\u2019 claims, and\n 28\n 29 7\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.604 Page 16\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs share an interest with the other Settlement Class Members in obtaining\n 2 the largest possible recovery for the Settlement Class. Mild v. PPG Indus., Inc.,\n 3 2019 WL 3345714, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2019) (\u201cBecause Plaintiff\u2019s claims are\n 4 typical of and coextensive with the claims of the Settlement Class, his interest in\n 5 obtaining the largest possible recovery is aligned with the interests of the rest of the\n 6 Settlement Class members.\u201d).\n 7 Moreover, Plaintiffs retained highly experienced counsel with a successful\n 8 track record of representing investors in similar securities cases. See Baker Decl.\n 9 \u00b679. Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel have also demonstrated their adequacy by, at all\n 10 times, vigorously prosecuting the Action.\n 11 B. The Settlement is the Product of Arm\u2019s Length Negotiations\n 12 Rule 23(e)(2)(B) addresses whether \u201cthe [settlement] proposal was\n 13 negotiated at arm\u2019s length.\u201d \u201cThe Ninth Circuit, as well as courts in this District,\n 14 \u2018put a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated\n 15 resolution\u2019 in approving a class action settlement.\u201d In re Stable Road Acquisition\n 16 Corp., 2024 WL 3643393, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23 2024) (quoting Rodriguez v. W.\n 17 Publ\u2019g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009)). The use of an experienced\n 18 mediator further supports satisfaction of this factor. Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp.,\n 19 2007 WL 1114010, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) (\u201c[t]he assistance of an\n 20 experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-\n 21 collusive.\u201d).\n 22 The proposed Settlement followed hard-fought litigation and arm\u2019s length\n 23 negotiations including a mediation session and subsequent discussions guided by\n 24 Mr. Meyer, a mediator with extensive experience mediating securities class actions.\n 25 Baker Decl. \u00b616 and Ex. 8. The Parties\u2019 mediation statements presented, among\n 26 other things, their respective views on the merits of the Action and issues relating\n 27 to causation and damages. Id. \u00b627 and Ex. 8. After a full day in-person mediation\n 28\n 29 8\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.605 Page 17\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 session facilitated by Mr. Meyer, the Parties reached an agreement in principle after\n 2 mutually accepting a mediator\u2019s proposal. Id. \u201cThe fact \u2026 that the Settlement is\n 3 based on a mediator\u2019s proposal further supports a finding that the settlement\n 4 agreement is not the product of collusion.\u201d Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, 2022\n 5 WL 4791923, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc.,\n 6 2019 WL 2183451, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) (\u201cthe Court is satisfied that the\n 7 Agreement is not the product of collusion between the parties. The Agreement is\n 8 the outcome of an arms-length negotiation conducted with the help of an\n 9 experienced mediator, Robert Meyer\u201d).\n 10 C. The Relief Provided to the Settlement Class is Adequate\n 11 The Court must also consider whether \u201cthe relief provided for the class is\n 12 adequate, taking into account \u2026 the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal\u201d along\n 13 with other relevant factors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(i). This requirement\n 14 incorporates three of the traditional Hanlon factors: the strength of plaintiffs\u2019 case;\n 15 the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; and the risk\n 16 of maintaining class action status through the trial. Wong v. Arlo Techs., Inc., 2021\n 17 WL 1531171, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021). These factors support final approval\n 18 of the Settlement.\n 19 1. The Strength of Plaintiffs\u2019 Case and the Risk, Expense,\n Complexity, and Likely Duration of Continued Litigation\n 20\n 21 In assessing whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the\n 22 Court must balance the continuing risks of litigation, including the strengths and\n 23 weaknesses of the case, and the complexity, expense, and likely duration of\n 24 continued litigation, against the benefits afforded to the Settlement Class, including\n 25 the immediacy and certainty of a financial recovery. Mego, 213 F.3d at 458, 459.\n 26 Courts favor settlement where the case is \u201ccomplex and likely to be expensive and\n 27 lengthy to try\u201d and presents material risks beyond the \u201cinherent risks of litigation.\u201d\n 28 Low v. Trump Univ., LLC, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1295, 1301 (S.D. Cal. 2017). \u201cCourts\n 29 9\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.606 Page 18\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 have recognized that, in general, securities actions are highly complex and that\n 2 securities class litigation is notably difficult and notoriously uncertain.\u201d Hefler v.\n 3 Wells Fargo & Co., 2018 WL 6619983, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018), aff\u2019d sub\n 4 nom. Hefler v. Pekoc, 802 F. App\u2019x 285 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, Lead Counsel and\n 5 Plaintiffs carefully weighed the merits and risks of this case before entering into the\n 6 Settlement.\n 7 While Plaintiffs believe that their case is strong, they remain cognizant of the\n 8 substantial risks posed to the Settlement Class in continuing to litigate this action.\n 9 See In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 WL 1594403, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005)\n 10 (\u201cno matter how confident one may be of the outcome of litigation, such confidence\n 11 is often misplaced\u201d); see also In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 189 F.R.D. 274, 282\n 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (discussing several instances where settlement was rejected by a\n 13 court only to have the class\u2019s ultimate recovery be less than the proposed\n 14 settlement).\n 15 Here, the risks of continued litigation are considerable. Defendants deny any\n 16 wrongdoing and would present a multi-pronged defense. Defendants\u2019 motions to\n 17 dismiss the Complaint, focusing the entirety of two briefs on the adequacy of\n 18 Plaintiffs\u2019 scienter allegations, were still pending. Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b634-35. Plaintiffs\n 19 and Lead Counsel believe that the case has merit, but they recognize the significant\n 20 risk and expense that would be necessary to prosecute Plaintiffs\u2019 claims\n 21 successfully through the pleading stage, completion of fact and expert discovery,\n 22 class certification, summary judgment, trial, and subsequent appeals, as well as the\n 23 inherent difficulties and delays complex litigation like this entails. In re Immune\n 24 Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1172 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (approving\n 25 settlement and noting that \u201cthe Court also recognizes that the issues of scienter and\n 26 causation are complex and difficult to establish at trial.\u201d).\n 27\n 28\n 29 10\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.607 Page 19\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Proving loss causation and damages would also be risky, complicated, and\n 2 uncertain, involving conflicting expert testimony. Defendants would likely present\n 3 their own expert testimony to demonstrate that the revelation of the fraud did not\n 4 cause the alleged stock drops, and/or attempt to demonstrate that all or a portion of\n 5 the alleged stock drops was attributable to other issues unrelated to the alleged\n 6 fraud. Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b638-41. In re Tyco Int'l, Ltd. Multidistrict Litig., 535 F. Supp.\n 7 2d 249, 260\u201361 (D.N.H. 2007) (\u201cProving loss causation would be complex and\n 8 difficult. Moreover, even if the jury agreed to impose liability, the trial would likely\n 9 involve a confusing \u2018battle of the experts\u2019 over damages.\u201d).\n 10 Even if Plaintiffs were to prevail at the pleading stage, continuing to litigate\n 11 this Action would likely require extensive document discovery, depositions of\n 12 numerous witnesses, submitting expert reports and testimony, overcoming motions\n 13 for summary judgment, and an expensive and risky trial. Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b642-46.\n 14 Expert discovery and trial preparation would prove expensive and complex, with\n 15 no guarantee of victory. See Heritage Bond, 2005 WL 1594403, at *6. Plaintiffs\n 16 faced the risk that they might lose on summary judgment. See, e.g., In re Oracle\n 17 Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 395 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming summary judgment\n 18 in favor of defendants where plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue on loss\n 19 causation); In re NeoPharm, Inc. Sec. Litig., 705 F. Supp. 2d 946, 966 (N.D. Ill.\n 20 2010) (granting partial summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to prove falsity\n 21 or scienter). Plaintiffs may have an expert excluded, damaging their case. See, e.g.,\n 22 In re Puda Coal Sec. Inc., Litig., 30 F. Supp. 3d 230, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff\u2019d\n 23 sub nom. Querub v. Hong Kong, 649 F. App\u2019x 55 (2d Cir. 2016).\n 24 Plaintiffs might also lose at trial, or the jury might reduce damages\n 25 significantly. See ISS, Puma Biotechnology \u2013 Both Sides Claim Victory in Rare\n 26 Jury Trial Verdict (Feb. 15, 2019) (reporting that according to defendants, plaintiffs\n 27 won only 5% of the damages they requested), available at\n 28\n 29 11\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.608 Page 20\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 https://www.issgovernance.com/puma-biotechnology-both-sides-claim-victory-in-\n 2 rare-jury-trial-verdict/. Plaintiffs might still lose their case even after winning at\n 3 trial. In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., 2011 WL 1585605, at *38 (S.D. Fla. Apr.\n 4 25, 2011), aff\u2019d on other grounds sub nom. Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,\n 5 688 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2012) (granting motion for judgment as a matter of law,\n 6 reversing plaintiffs\u2019 partial jury verdict for failure to prove loss causation). Even if\n 7 Plaintiffs were to secure a verdict for damages and defend the verdict from\n 8 Defendants\u2019 inevitable post-trial motions, Plaintiffs might still lose on appeal.\n 9 Robbins v. Koger Props., Inc., 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997) (overturning $81\n 10 million jury verdict).\n 11 By contrast, the Settlement provides a favorable, immediate, and guaranteed\n 12 recovery for the Settlement Class and eliminates the risk, delay, and expense of\n 13 continued litigation. While a greater recovery might be a theoretical possibility,\n 14 evaluating the benefits of settlement must be tempered by recognizing that any\n 15 compromise involves concessions on the part of all parties. \u201cThe very essence of a\n 16 settlement is compromise, a yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest\n 17 hopes.\u201d Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 624.\n 18 Considering the risks of continued litigation and the time and expense that\n 19 would be incurred to prosecute the Action through a trial, the $1,750,000 Settlement\n 20 is a reasonable and adequate recovery. Salazar v. Midwest Servicing Grp., Inc.,\n 21 2018 WL 3031503, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) (settlement agreement\u2019s\n 22 elimination of risk, delay, and further expenses weighs in favor of approval); Nat\u2019l\n 23 Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D.\n 24 Cal. 2004) (\u201c[U]nless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and\n 25 approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.\u201d).\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29 12\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.609 Page 21\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 2. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial\n 2 The Settlement was reached before Plaintiffs moved for class certification.\n 3 While Plaintiffs believe that class certification would be appropriate (see \u00a7 III,\n 4 supra), it cannot be assured, and Defendants could attempt to alter or amend a class\n 5 certification order. See In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig., 414 F. Supp. 3d 686, 694\n 6 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\u201cAlthough the risk of maintaining a class through trial is present\n 7 in [every] class action ... this factor [nevertheless] weighs in favor of settlement\n 8 where it is likely that defendants would oppose class certification if the case were\n 9 to be litigated.\u201d); Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1041 (\u201cthere is no guarantee the\n 10 [class] certification would survive through trial, as Defendants might have sought\n 11 decertification or modification of the class\u201d).\n 12 D. The Amount Obtained in Settlement Supports Final Approval\n 13 \u201cTo evaluate the adequacy of the settlement amount, courts primarily\n 14 consider plaintiffs\u2019 expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement\n 15 offer.\u201d Hefler, 2018 WL 6619983, at *8. The adequacy of the amount offered in\n 16 settlement must be judged \u201cnot in comparison with the possible recovery in the best\n 17 of all possible worlds, but rather in light of the strengths and weaknesses of\n 18 plaintiffs\u2019 case.\u201d In re \u201cAgent Orange\u201d Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740, 762\n 19 (E.D.N.Y. 1984), aff\u2019d, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987).\n 20 What constitutes a reasonable settlement amount \u201cis not susceptible of a\n 21 mathematical equation yielding a particularized sum.\u201d In re PaineWebber Ltd.\n 22 Partnerships Litig., 171 F.R.D. 104, 130 (S.D.N.Y.), aff\u2019d sub nom. In re\n 23 PaineWebber Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 117 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 1997). Nor is the\n 24 proposed Settlement \u201cto be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of\n 25 what might have been achieved by the negotiators.\u201d Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at\n 26 625. As \u201c[s]ettlement is the offspring of compromise[,] the question [courts] address\n 27 is not whether the final product could be prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it\n 28\n 29 13\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.610 Page 22\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 is fair, adequate and free from collusion.\u201d Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027. Common sense\n 2 dictates that Plaintiffs must take less in a settlement than they would after a complete\n 3 trial victory or Defendants would have no reason to settle. In a factually and legally\n 4 complex securities class action lawsuit such as this, this is no guarantee that\n 5 Plaintiffs could secure a judgment at or near the full amount of the class-wide\n 6 damages they estimate.\n 7 Here, the $1.75 million Settlement Amount is reasonable and warrants final\n 8 approval. The Settlement recovers approximately 19.0% of the maximum estimated\n 9 damages of $9.2 million under Plaintiffs\u2019 best-case scenario, as estimated by\n 10 Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert. Baker Decl. \u00b647. This best-case scenario\n 11 assumes that: (i) Plaintiffs defeat Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss; (ii) are able to\n 12 succeed at summary judgment and at trial; (iii) the Court certifies the case as a class\n 13 action, including the same class period as the Settlement Class Period; and (iv) the\n 14 Court and jury completely accept Plaintiffs\u2019 damages theory, including proof of loss\n 15 causation for the totality of each of the six alleged declines in stock price. Id.\n 16 Anything less than a complete victory would decrease, or potentially eliminate,\n 17 recoverable damages. Moreover, Defendants estimated that the maximum\n 18 aggregate damages Plaintiffs could recovery in their best-case scenario was only\n 19 $7.0 million, in which case the Settlement represents a 25.0% recovery. Id.\n 20 The percentage of maximum damages recovered here (19.0% or 25.0%) falls\n 21 well within the range of other securities class action settlements that courts have\n 22 approved. See In re Regulus Therapeutics Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 6381898, at *6\n 23 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) (approving 1.99% recovery); In re Heritage Bond Litig.,\n 24 2005 WL 1594389, at *8-9 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (average recovery between\n 25 2% to 3% of maximum damages); see also Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 628 (\u201cIt\n 26 is well-settled law that a cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of the\n 27 potential recovery does not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair.\u201d). It\n 28\n 29 14\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.611 Page 23\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 is also comparable to the median recovery in similarly sized securities cases.\n 2 According to Cornerstone Research, between 2016-2024 the median recovery in\n 3 cases such as this one alleging Rule 10b-5 claims with less than $25 million in\n 4 maximum estimated damages was approximately 22.9%. Laarni T. Bulan, et al.,\n 5 Securities Class Action Settlements: 2025 Review and Analysis (Cornerstone\n 6 Research), at 7.2 Between 2016-2025, securities fraud class actions that settled after\n 7 the filing of a motion to dismiss but before a ruling recovered a median of 5.8% of\n 8 estimated damages. Id. at 14. Thus, the amount of the Settlement supports a finding\n 9 that it is a reasonable and adequate result for the Settlement Class.\n 10 E. The Remaining Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Support Approval\n 11 1. The Methods of Distributing Relief and Processing Claims\n 12 Rule 23 requires that the Court consider the effectiveness of the proposed\n 13 method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing claims.\n 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(ii). The Preliminary Approval Order established a plan\n 15 to provide notice to potential Settlement Class Members, which Plaintiffs and the\n 16 Claims Administrator duly executed. As the Court directed in the Preliminary\n 17 Approval Order, SCS mailed copies of the Postcard Notice and emailed links to the\n 18 Notice and Proof of Claim to over 18,000 potential Settlement Class Members and\n 19 published the Summary Notice on GlobeNewswire and in Investor\u2019s Business Daily.\n 20 Craig Decl. \u00b6\u00b63-10. The Postcard Notice and email notices informed Settlement\n 21 Class Members of the Settlement and directed them to the case-specific Settlement\n 22 website where the Claims Administrator posted key documents including the\n 23 Stipulation, long-form Notice, Proof of Claim, and Preliminary Approval Order. Id.\n 24 \u00b612.\n 25\n 26\n 27 2\n https://www.cornerstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Securities-Class-\n 28 Action-Settlements-2025-Review-and-Analysis.pdf\n\n 29 15\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.612 Page 24\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Settlement Class Members must complete a standard Proof of Claim form\n 2 that requests the information necessary to calculate claims pursuant to the Plan. The\n 3 Settlement website also allowed Settlement Class Members to file their claims\n 4 electronically. Id. \u201cClaims processing, like the method proposed here, is standard\n 5 in securities class action settlements. It has been long found to be effective, as well\n 6 as necessary, insofar as neither Lead Plaintiff nor Defendants possess the individual\n 7 investor trading data required for a claims-free process to distribute the Net\n 8 Settlement Fund.\u201d Stable Road, 2024 WL 3643393, at *7.\n 9 2. The Proposed Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees is Appropriate\n 10 Rule 23 also addresses \u201cthe terms of any proposed award of attorney\u2019s fees,\n 11 including timing of payment.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii). As discussed in the\n 12 Fee Brief, Lead Counsel seek an award of attorneys\u2019 fees of one-third of the\n 13 Settlement Amount and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $65,904.07. This\n 14 fee and expense request, previewed in the Notice, is consistent with awards granted\n 15 in similar actions in the Ninth Circuit. See Fee Brief, \u00a7\u00a7 III(B) and (C)(5).\n 16 Lead Counsel also seeks awards to Plaintiffs of $7,500 each ($15,000 total)\n 17 pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), 15\n 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4), in connection with their representation of the Settlement\n 19 Class. Plaintiffs supervised and engaged with Lead Counsel during litigation and\n 20 throughout settlement negotiations, and kept abreast of developments in this case\n 21 and with Flux Power generally. Plaintiffs spent their own valuable time representing\n 22 the Settlement Class. Exs. 4-5 (Plaintiffs\u2019 declarations). Plaintiffs\u2019 request for\n 23 compensation is appropriate, as courts routinely grant similar awards to\n 24 representative plaintiffs. See Fee Brief, \u00a7 III(F).\n 25 3. Other Agreements\n 26 Rule 23 requires that any agreement made in connection with the proposed\n 27 Settlement be disclosed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iv). As previously disclosed in\n 28\n 29 16\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.613 Page 25\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 the Stipulation (\u00b610.3) and in Plaintiffs\u2019 brief in support of preliminary approval\n 2 (Dkt. No. 60-2 at 17), the Parties entered into a standard supplemental agreement\n 3 that gives Defendants the right to terminate the Settlement if Settlement Class\n 4 Members holding more than a certain number of shares request exclusion. Only the\n 5 agreement\u2019s exact terms\u2014specifically, the number of shares that trigger the right\n 6 to terminate\u2014has not been disclosed to Settlement Class Members to avoid\n 7 incentivizing Settlement Class Members to opt out solely to leverage the threshold\n 8 to exact an individual settlement. This agreement does not detract from the fairness\n 9 of the Settlement. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th\n 10 Cir. 2006); Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2018 WL 4207245, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept.\n 11 4, 2018) (\u201ca termination option triggered by the number of class members who opt\n 12 out of the Settlement does not by itself render the Settlement unfair.\u201d); Christine\n 13 Asia Co. v. Yun Ma, 2019 WL 5257534, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019) (\u201cThis\n 14 type of agreement is standard in securities class action settlements and has no\n 15 negative impact on the fairness of the Settlement.\u201d).3\n 16 4. The Proposed Settlement Does Not Unjustly Favor Any\n Settlement Class Members, Including Plaintiffs\n 17\n Courts must also evaluate whether the settlement treats class members\n 18\n equitably relative to one another. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D). The Settlement does\n 19\n not provide preferential treatment to any Settlement Class Member, including\n 20\n Plaintiffs. The Plan determines how money is distributed, providing for a pro rata\n 21\n distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants who suffered\n 22\n losses as a proximate result of the alleged fraud, based on when each investor\n 23\n purchased and/or sold Flux Power common stock during the Settlement Class\n 24\n Period and the subsequent stock price declines upon revelation of the truth, as\n 25\n alleged in the Complaint. Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b663-70. The Plan was developed by Lead\n 26\n 27\n 3\n 28 Defendants have not exercised their termination option.\n 29 17\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.614 Page 26\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Counsel in conjunction with SCS and Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert. Id. The\n 2 Plan will determine Plaintiffs\u2019 recovery just like every other Settlement Class\n 3 Member, so Plaintiffs receive no preferential treatment. See Nguyen v. Radient\n 4 Pharms. Corp., 2014 WL 1802293, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (a plan of\n 5 allocation is reasonable \u201cif it fairly treats class members by awarding a pro rata\n 6 share to every Authorized Claimant, but also sensibly makes interclass distinctions\n 7 based upon, inter alia, the relative strengths and weaknesses of class members\u2019\n 8 individual claims and the timing of purchases of the securities at issue.\u201d).\n 9 As noted above, Lead Counsel also seek awards to Plaintiffs, reimbursing\n 10 them for costs incurred and time spent representing the Settlement Class, as\n 11 authorized by the PSLRA. Such awards do \u201cnot constitute inequitable treatment of\n 12 Settlement Class Members.\u201d Stable Road, 2024 WL 3643393 at *8.\n 13 F. The Remaining Ninth Circuit Factors Favor Approval\n 14 In Hanlon, 150 F.3d 1011, the Ninth Circuit identified additional factors not\n 15 co-extensive with Rule 23(e)(2). These factors also support final approval.\n 16 1. The Extent of Discovery and Stage of Proceedings\n 17 In considering a class action settlement, courts look for indications that the\n 18 parties carefully investigated the claims before reaching a resolution. Mego, 213\n 19 F.3d at 458; In re: Volkswagen \u201cClean Diesel\u201d Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod.\n 20 Liab. Litig., 2016 WL 6248426, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) (extensive\n 21 discovery is \u201cnot a necessary ticket to the bargaining table where the parties have\n 22 sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement\u201d).\n 23 Lead Counsel conducted an extensive investigation of the claims asserted in\n 24 this Action, including: (i) reviewing Flux Power\u2019s SEC filings, press releases,\n 25 conference calls, and other public statements during the Settlement Class Period;\n 26 (ii) reviewing public documents, reports, announcements, and news articles\n 27 concerning Flux Power, including research reports by securities and financial\n 28\n 29 18\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.615 Page 27\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 analysts; and (iii) retaining an investigator to identify and interview former Flux\n 2 Power employees and knowledgeable third parties. See Baker Decl. \u00b623; Exs. 2-3.\n 3 Lead Counsel\u2019s efforts allowed them to make an informed assessment of the\n 4 strengths and weaknesses of this Action, essential to recommending to Plaintiffs\n 5 whether to accept the Settlement Amount to resolve the Action. Reviewing\n 6 Defendant\u2019s mediation statement and negotiating the Settlement at the mediation\n 7 further informed Lead Counsel about the strengths and weaknesses of the case. As\n 8 a result, Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel had an ample understanding of the merits and\n 9 weaknesses of this Action and the reasonableness of the Settlement.\n 10 Courts regularly find this factor supports approval of a settlement even when\n 11 plaintiffs settle before any discovery. See, e.g., Mego, 213 F.3d at 459 (finding that,\n 12 even absent extensive formal discovery, class counsel\u2019s significant investigation\n 13 and research supported settlement approval). Courts have commended class counsel\n 14 for recognizing when, as was the case here, a prompt resolution of the matter is in\n 15 the best interest of the class. See Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 221862,\n 16 at *15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (\u201cClass counsel achieved an excellent result for the\n 17 class members by settling the instant action promptly\u201d), aff\u2019d, 331 F. Appx. 452,\n 18 457 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel acquired \u201cfulsome\n 19 understandings\u201d of the parties\u2019 respective positions on the legal and factual issues\n 20 in the case, allowing them to negotiate a reasonable Settlement. In re Zynga Inc.\n 21 Sec. Litig., 2015 WL 6471171, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015).\n 22 2. Experienced Counsel\u2019s Recommendations\n 23 Courts also give weight to the opinion of experienced and informed counsel\n 24 supporting the settlement. \u201cAbsent fraud, collusion, or the like,\u201d the Court should\n 25 give \u201c[g]reat weight [] to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely\n 26 acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation,\u201d Heritage Bond, 2005 WL\n 27 1594403, at *9; DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528. As set forth above, Lead Counsel\n 28\n 29 19\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.616 Page 28\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 have extensive securities litigation experience and obtained a thorough\n 2 understanding of the merits and risks of the Action. Lead Counsel\u2019s support for the\n 3 reasonableness of this Settlement supports final approval. Baker Decl. \u00b649.\n 4 Lead Counsel\u2019s experience and reputation allowed them to leverage the\n 5 credible threat of further litigation and trial, but also to recognize that the Settlement\n 6 was a better option for the Settlement Class. Courts have recognized that Lead\n 7 Counsel are knowledgeable and experienced attorneys well-suited to serve as class\n 8 counsel in securities class actions such as this one. E.g., Knox v. Yingli Green\n 9 Energy Holding Co. Ltd., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1159, 1165 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (\u201cThe Rosen\n 10 Law Firm is highly qualified [and] experienced in securities class actions\u201d); see also\n 11 Exs. 6-7 (firm r\u00e9sum\u00e9s for Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel). The experience of Lead Counsel\n 12 supports approval of the Settlement they negotiated.\n 13 Defendants were also represented by experienced and skilled securities\n 14 practitioners. The attorneys at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. and Wilson\n 15 Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP vigorously represented their clients and\n 16 were equally well-informed regarding the case. Baker Decl. \u00b680. Because the\n 17 Settlement is the product of serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations\n 18 among experienced counsel and a highly qualified mediator, final approval is\n 19 warranted.\n 20 Finally, Plaintiffs\u2019 support for the Settlement is further evidence that the\n 21 Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. See Exs. 4-5 (Plaintiffs\u2019 declarations).\n 22 Plaintiffs\u2019 support for a settlement should be accorded \u201cspecial weight because [the\n 23 plaintiff] may have a better understanding of the case than most members of the\n 24 class.\u201d DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528 (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation\n 25 (Third) \u00a7 30.44 (1995)). The support of both experienced counsel and Plaintiffs\n 26 favors final approval of the Settlement.\n 27\n 28\n 29 20\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.617 Page 29\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 3. The Absence of a Government Participant\n 2 There was no government participant here, so this factor is neutral. See Tom\n 3 v. Com Dev USA, LLC, 2017 WL 10378629, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017).\n 4 4. The Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports Approval\n 5 To date, 18,981 potential Settlement Class Members were directly notified of\n 6 the Settlement either by mailed Postcard Notice or by emailed link to the Notice and\n 7 Proof of Claim. Craig Decl. \u00b69. The Claims Administrator, SCS, caused 6,326 copies\n 8 of the Postcard Notice to be mailed to potential Settlement Class Members, and\n 9 12,655 potential Settlement Class Members received emails with links to the Notice\n 10 and Claim Form. Id. \u00b6\u00b66-8. The deadline to file objections to, or request exclusion\n 11 from, the Settlement is March 12, 2026. To date, no Settlement Class Members have\n 12 objected to the Settlement, and no requests for exclusion have been received. Id.\n 13 \u00b6\u00b613-14; Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b661-62. Plaintiffs will respond to subsequent objections, if\n 14 any, in their reply.\n 15 The absence of objections to a proposed class action settlement supports\n 16 approval. Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1043; In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litig.,\n 17 2009 WL 166689, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) (\u201cthe absence of a large number\n 18 of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that\n 19 the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members\u201d).\n 20 That no requests for exclusion have been received also supports the Settlement\u2019s\n 21 approval. See Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 577 (9th Cir. 2004)\n 22 (affirming settlement with 0.56% of eligible class members requesting exclusion);\n 23 Maine State Ret. Sys. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2013 WL 6577020, at *16 (C.D.\n 24 Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) (69 exclusion requests in response to mailing of over 50,000\n 25 notices supports settlement). \u201c[T]he fact that the overwhelming majority of the class\n 26 willingly approved the offer and stayed in the class presents at least some objective\n 27 positive commentary as to its fairness.\u201d Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027. The absence of\n 28 any objections or exclusion requests here supports final approval of the Settlement.\n 29 21\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.618 Page 30\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 V. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION\n 2 In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the Plan,\n 3 which was detailed in the Notice. Plaintiffs now request that the Court grant final\n 4 approval of the Plan for the purpose of administering the Settlement. Courts assess\n 5 plans of allocation by the same metric as settlements as a whole: they must be \u201cfair,\n 6 reasonable and adequate.\u201d Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Practically\n 7 speaking, \u201c[a]n allocation formula need only have a reasonable, rational basis,\n 8 particularly if recommended by experienced and competent class counsel.\u201d In re\n 9 WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 388 F. Supp. 2d 319, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\n 10 The proposed Plan has a reasonable, rational basis. It distributes the settlement\n 11 proceeds on a pro rata basis, calculating a claimant\u2019s relative loss proximately\n 12 caused by Defendants\u2019 alleged misrepresentations and omissions, based on factors\n 13 such as when and at what prices the claimant purchased and sold Flux Power stock.\n 14 Plaintiffs engaged a damages consultant to assist in developing the Plan to allocate\n 15 the Settlement proceeds among Claimants with the goal of reimbursing Settlement\n 16 Class Members in a fair and reasonable manner. Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b663-69.\n 17 Because they tend to mirror the complaint\u2019s allegations in securities class\n 18 actions, \u201cplans that allocate money depending on the timing of purchases and sales\n 19 of the securities at issue are common.\u201d In re Datatec Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL\n 20 4225828, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007); see also In re Gen. Instrument Sec. Litig.,\n 21 209 F. Supp. 2d 423, 431 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding plan of allocation was \u201ceven\n 22 handed\u201d where \u201cclaimants are to be reimbursed on a pro rata basis for their\n 23 recognized losses based largely on when they bought and sold their shares\u201d). Here,\n 24 each authorized claimant will receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund\n 25 based on the claimant\u2019s recognized loss as calculated in accordance with the Plan.\n 26 Baker Decl. \u00b6\u00b663-69. There have been no objections to the Plan from any potential\n 27 Settlement Class Members. Craig Decl. \u00b614; Baker Decl. \u00b670. The Plan fairly\n 28\n 29 22\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.619 Page 31\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 compensates Settlement Class Members and should be approved. See Stable Road,\n 2 2024 WL 3643393, at *10-11 (approving substantially similar plan of allocation).\n 3 VI. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE NOTICE PLAN\n 4 Plaintiffs provided the Settlement Class with adequate notice of the\n 5 Settlement, in the manner and form that the Court preliminarily approved. 18,981\n 6 potential Settlement Class Members received direct notice about the Settlement.\n 7 Craig Decl. \u00b69. Of those, there were 6,326 Postcard Notices mailed and 12,655\n 8 emails sent with links to the Notice and Proof of Claim. Id. \u00b6\u00b66-8. The Claims\n 9 Administrator also published the Court-approved Summary Notice online in\n 10 GlobeNewswire and in print in Investor\u2019s Business Daily. Id. \u00b610. The Claims\n 11 Administrator also published all required information regarding the Settlement\n 12 online on the Settlement Website. Id. \u00b612. The notice plan executed here directed\n 13 notice in a \u201creasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the\n 14 propos[ed judgment].\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B).\n 15 The Notice provides all necessary information for Settlement Class Members\n 16 to make an informed decision regarding the proposed Settlement. See Craig Decl.,\n 17 Ex. A (Notice). It \u201cgenerally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail\n 18 to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be\n 19 heard.\u201d Rodriguez v. W. Publ\u2019g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009). The\n 20 Notice gave Settlement Class Members all the information they needed to decide\n 21 whether to opt out, object, or file a claim. It told Settlement Class Members, among\n 22 other things: (1) the amount of the Settlement; (2) why the parties propose the\n 23 Settlement; (3) the estimated average recovery per damaged share; (4) the\n 24 maximum amount of attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses that Lead Counsel would seek;\n 25 (5) Lead Counsel\u2019s contact information; (6) that Settlement Class Members could\n 26 object to the Settlement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and the\n 27 consequences thereof; and (7) the dates and deadlines for certain Settlement-related\n 28\n 29 23\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.620 Page 32\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 events. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7). The Notice further explained that the Net\n 2 Settlement Fund would be distributed to eligible Settlement Class Members who\n 3 submit valid and timely claim forms under the Plan as described in the Notice.\n 4 In sum, the Notice fairly apprised Settlement Class Members of their rights,\n 5 is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and complies with the Court\u2019s\n 6 Preliminary Approval Order, Rule 23, the PSLRA, and due process. Courts\n 7 routinely find these methods of notice sufficient. \u201cThe use of a combination of a\n 8 mailed post card directing class members to a more detailed online notice has been\n 9 approved by courts.\u201d In re Advanced Battery Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 298 F.R.D.\n 10 171, 183 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases); Baker v. SeaWorld Entm\u2019t, Inc.,\n 11 2020 WL 818893, at *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2020) (approving similar notice\n 12 program). Defendants also provided notice to appropriate governmental officials\n 13 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a71715 et seq. Dkt. No. 62.\n 14 VII. CONCLUSION\n 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiffs\u2019 motion and: (a)\n 16 certify the Settlement Class; (b) approve the Settlement and Plan as fair, reasonable,\n 17 and adequate; and (c) find that the notice plan complied with all applicable\n 18 requirements.\n 19\n 20 Respectfully submitted,\n\n 21 Dated: March 5, 2026 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 22\n By: /s/Joshua Baker\n 23 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN 219683)\n 24 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 25 Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n 26 Facsimile: (213) 226 4684\n Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 27\n 28\n 29 24\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-1 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.621 Page 33\n of 33\n\n\n\n 1 Phillip Kim (pro hac vice)\n Joshua Baker (pro hac vice)\n 2 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor\n 3 New York, NY 10016\n Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n 4 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n 5 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n Email: jbaker@rosenlegal.com\n 6\n 7 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the\n Settlement Class\n 8\n 9 BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.\n 10 Melissa A. Fortunato (SBN 319767)\n fortunato@bespc.com\n 11 Marion C. Passmore (SBN 228474)\n 12 passmore@bespc.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800\n 13 Los Angeles, California 90071\n 14 Telephone: (213) 612-7735\n Facsimile: (212) 214-0506\n 15\n 16 Additional Counsel for Plaintiff\n 17 Thomas Frank Clark\n\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29 25\n MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n 30 ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:54:53.991410-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317427","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Memo of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Final Approval of Propos","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804860/","id":479804860,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/2/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:39.957953-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:04:24.232563-07:00","sha1":"b86b0d5af93d79ba175da14eb0d3101a6ceec7e6","page_count":32,"file_size":509804,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.622 Page 1\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN 219683)\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 2\n 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 4 Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n Facsimile: (213) 226-4684\n 5 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 6\n Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\n 7\n 8 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]\n 9\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 11\n 12 ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 13 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 14 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA\n Plaintiff,\n BAKER IN SUPPORT OF: (1)\n 15 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION FOR\n v.\n 16 FINAL APPROVAL OF\n PROPOSED CLASS ACTION\n 17 FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF\n RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A. ALLOCATION; AND (2) LEAD\n 18\n SCHEIWE,\n COUNSEL\u2019S MOTION FOR AN\n 19\n AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019\n 20 Defendants.\n FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF\n 21 EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO\n PLAINTIFFS\n 22\n 23 CLASS ACTION\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.623 Page 2\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n 2 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3\n 3 II. PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .............................................................. 5\n 4\n A. Background ........................................................................................... 5\n 5\n B. Commencement of the Instant Action .................................................. 5\n 6\n 7 C. Lead Counsel\u2019s Investigation, the Amended Complaint,\n And Defendants\u2019 Motions To Dismiss ................................................. 6\n 8\n 9 D. The Mediation Process Results in a Settlement .................................... 7\n\n 10 E. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement ............................................... 8\n 11 III. THE RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION .............................................. 9\n 12\n A. Risks to Proving Liability ..................................................................... 9\n 13\n B. Risk of Proving Loss Causation and Damages ................................... 10\n 14\n 15 C. Other Risks, Including Class Certification, Trial, and Appeals ......... 11\n\n 16 D. The Settlement is Reasonable in Light of the Maximum\n Potential Recovery in the Action ........................................................ 14\n 17\n 18 IV. UNDER LEAD COUNSEL\u2019S SUPERVISION, THE CLAIMS\n ADMINSITRATOR DULY EXECUTED THE COURT-\n 19 APPROVED NOTICE PROGRAM ............................................................. 16\n 20\n V. OBJECTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS ........................................................... 18\n 21\n 22 VI. ALLOCATION OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE\n SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................. 19\n 23\n VII. LEAD COUNSEL\u2019S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES,\n 24\n REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND\n 25 AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................ 22\n 26 A. The Fee Application ............................................................................ 22\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.624 Page 3\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 1. The Outcome Achieved is the Result of the Significant\n Time and Labor that Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel Devoted to\n 2 the Action.................................................................................. 22\n 3\n 2. Standing and Caliber of Opposing Counsel ............................. 24\n 4\n 3. The Risks of Litigation and the Need to Ensure the\n 5 Availability of Competent Counsel in High-Risk\n 6 Contingent Securities Cases ..................................................... 25\n 7 4. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Fee\n 8 Application ............................................................................... 26\n 9 5. Plaintiffs Support the Fee Application ..................................... 27\n 10 B. The Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses\n 11 Incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel is Fair and Reasonable ..................... 27\n 12 C. Awards to Plaintiffs ............................................................................ 28\n 13\n VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 29\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.625 Page 4\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 I, Joshua Baker, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n 2 \u00a7 1746, as follows:\n 3 1. I am a partner at Court-appointed lead counsel The Rosen Law Firm,\n 4 P.A. (\u201cRosen Law\u201d or \u201cLead Counsel\u201d), counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Brandon Paulson\n 5 and named Plaintiff Thomas Frank Clark (together, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) in the above-\n 6 captioned action (the \u201cAction\u201d).1 I oversaw or conducted the day-to-day activities\n 7 in the Action on behalf of my firm. I am familiar with the proceedings in this\n 8 litigation and I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon\n 9 supervising and participating in all aspects of the Action.\n 10\n 2. I submit this declaration, together with the attached exhibits, in support\n 11\n of Plaintiffs\u2019 motion, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,\n 12\n for final approval of the proposed $1,750,000 settlement (\u201cSettlement\u201d) that the\n 13\n Court preliminarily approved by Order dated December 4, 2025 (\u201cPreliminary\n 14\n Approval Order\u201d) (Dkt. No. 68), as well as final approval of the proposed Plan of\n 15\n Allocation for distributing the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund to eligible\n 16\n Settlement Class Members.\n 17\n 3. I also submit this declaration in support of Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for:\n 18\n (a) an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund\n 19\n (i.e., $583,333.33, plus interest earned at the same rate as the Settlement Fund); (b)\n 20\n reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel in the total\n 21\n 22 amount of $65,904.07, plus interest earned at the same rate as the Settlement Fund;\n\n 23 and (c) awards of $7,500 each ($15,000 total) to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private\n\n 24 Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) for their costs, including for\n 25\n 26 1\n All capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, have the meanings set forth\n 27 in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d; Dkt. No. 60-\n 28 1).\n\n 29\n 1\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.626 Page 5\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 time spent, incurred in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class\n 2 (\u201cFee Application\u201d).\n 3 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the\n 4 Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Emailing of the Summary Notice and\n 5 Mailing of the Postcard Notice; (B) Publication of the Summary Notice; and (C)\n 6 Report on Requests for Exclusion and Objections (\u201cCraig Decl.\u201d).\n 7 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the\n 8 Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen concerning attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses on\n 9 behalf of Lead Counsel.\n 10\n 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the\n 11\n Declaration of Marion C. Passmore concerning attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses on\n 12\n behalf of Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Clark, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.\n 13\n (\u201cBES\u201d).\n 14\n 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the\n 15\n Declaration of Brandon Paulson.\n 16\n 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the\n 17\n Declaration of Thomas Frank Clark.\n 18\n 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Rosen Law\u2019s\n 19\n firm r\u00e9sum\u00e9.\n 20\n 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of BES\u2019s firm\n 21\n 22 r\u00e9sum\u00e9.\n\n 23 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the\n\n 24 Declaration of mediator Robert A. Meyer (\u201cMeyer Decl.\u201d).\n 25 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Edward\n 26 Flores, Svetlana Starykh, and Iveline Velikova, Recent Trends in Securities Class\n 27 Action Litigation: 2025 Full-Year Review (NERA Jan. 21, 2026).\n 28\n 29\n 2\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.627 Page 6\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a chart\n 2 providing a survey of law firm billing rates for plaintiff and defense firms in\n 3 securities actions, derived from public sources indicated in the chart.\n 4 I. INTRODUCTION\n 5 14. This is a securities class action brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the\n 6 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u201d), and Securities and Exchange\n 7 Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs assert claims\n 8 against Defendants Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d),\n 9 Ronald F. Dutt, and Charles A. Scheiwe (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) for alleged\n 10\n false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact regarding Flux\n 11\n Power\u2019s financial statements for each quarter between FY2022 through the third\n 12\n quarter of FY2024. Plaintiffs allege that the price of Flux Power\u2019s publicly traded\n 13\n common stock was artificially inflated as a result of Defendants\u2019 alleged false and\n 14\n misleading statements, and Flux Power\u2019s stock price declined when the truth was\n 15\n revealed through a series of partial disclosures principally concerning the\n 16\n Company\u2019s restatement of its financial reports for the relevant periods.\n 17\n 15. The proposed Settlement provides for the resolution of all claims in the\n 18\n Action in exchange for a non-reversionary, all cash payment of $1,750,000. As\n 19\n detailed below, Lead Counsel believes that the Settlement represents a favorable\n 20\n result for the Settlement Class, especially when juxtaposed against the significant\n 21\n 22 risks of continued litigation. Indeed, Defendants had advanced, and would continue\n\n 23 to advance, serious arguments with respect to liability (particularly with respect to\n\n 24 scienter), and would most likely present robust challenges to Plaintiffs\u2019 ability to\n 25 prove loss causation for each of the several alleged stock drops, which could\n 26 significantly decrease the amount of aggregate damages.\n 27 16. Moreover, the Settlement is the product of a mediator\u2019s proposal, by a\n 28 well-respected mediator experienced with securities class actions, following, inter\n 29\n 3\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.628 Page 7\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 alia: (a) a comprehensive inquiry into the merits of the claims alleged and the likely\n 2 damages that could be recovered by the Settlement Class; (b) reviewing Defendants\u2019\n 3 motions to dismiss; and (c) a full-day mediation session during which experienced\n 4 counsel forcefully advocated on behalf of their respective clients. The Settlement is\n 5 substantively fair, and was achieved through a fair process, and thus Lead Counsel\n 6 believes that it is in the best interest of the Settlement Class and should be approved.\n 7 17. In addition to seeking final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs seek\n 8 approval of the proposed plan of allocation (\u201cPlan of Allocation\u201d or \u201cPlan\u201d) as fair\n 9 and reasonable. As discussed in further detail below, Lead Counsel developed the\n 10\n Plan of Allocation with the assistance of Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert and\n 11\n the Claims Administrator. The Plan of Allocation provides for the distribution of\n 12\n the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members who submit Claim Forms that\n 13\n are approved for payment by the Court on a pro rata basis. Specifically, an\n 14\n Authorized Claimant\u2019s pro rata share shall be the Authorized Claimant\u2019s\n 15\n Recognized Claim divided by the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized\n 16\n Claimants, multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund. Courts\n 17\n routinely approved similar allocation plans, and Lead Counsel believes that the\n 18\n proposed Plan of Allocation here should likewise be approved.\n 19\n 18. Lead Counsel also seek approval of the requests in the Fee Application.\n 20\n As detailed in the concurrently filed memorandum of law in support thereof, the\n 21\n 22 requested fee of one-third of the Settlement Amount falls in line with awards\n\n 23 routinely granted by courts in this Circuit in comparable complex litigation with\n\n 24 similar stakes, and is a fair and reasonable amount in light of the work performed\n 25 and the result obtained. Moreover, the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by\n 26 Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel were all reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of the\n 27 Action. Finally, the requests for awards to Plaintiffs as compensation for their time\n 28 and dedication spent on overseeing this action on behalf of the Settlement Class are\n 29\n 4\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.629 Page 8\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 authorized by the PSLRA and reasonable under the circumstances. The requested\n 2 amounts of fees and expenses, and the awards to Plaintiffs, are all within the\n 3 maximum figures proposed in the Notice sent to the Settlement Class. To date, not\n 4 one Settlement Class Member has objected to any aspect of these requests.\n 5 19. For these reasons and those discussed below, Lead Counsel respectfully\n 6 submit that the $1.75 million Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved\n 7 as fair, reasonable, adequate, and that the requested attorneys\u2019 fees of one-third of\n 8 the $1.75 million Settlement Fund, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and awards\n 9 to Plaintiffs should be awarded in full.\n 10\n II. PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION\n 11\n A. Background\n 12\n 20. Flux Power makes lithium-ion battery packs for a range of industrial\n 13\n and commercial sectors, primarily forklift equipment manufacturers. Plaintiffs\n 14\n allege that Defendants made several false and misleading statements during the\n 15\n Settlement Class Period concerning the Company\u2019s financial reports, eleven quarters\n 16\n of which had to be restated, and the Company\u2019s internal control over financial\n 17\n reporting. Plaintiffs allege that they and the other Settlement Class Members were\n 18\n misled by these statements during the Settlement Class Period and were damaged as\n 19\n a result thereof when the truth was slowly revealed through a series of partial\n 20\n disclosures surrounding the restatement and the consequences thereof.\n 21\n 22 B. Commencement of the Instant Action\n\n 23 21. On November 1, 2024, Asfa Kassam filed the first class action\n\n 24 complaint in this Action in the District of Nevada. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint\n 25 alleged violations of the Exchange Act against Defendants Flux Power, Dutt, and\n 26 Scheiwe. On January 14, 2025, the case was transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 17.\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 5\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.630 Page 9\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 22. On February 20, 2025, the Court appointed Mr. Paulson to serve as\n 2 Lead Plaintiff and approved his selection of Rosen Law to serve as Lead Counsel.\n 3 Dkt. No. 42.\n 4 C. Lead Counsel\u2019s Investigation, the Amended Complaint, And\n 5 Defendants\u2019 Motions To Dismiss\n 6 23. Following the appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, Lead\n 7 Counsel conducted a thorough investigation into Defendants\u2019 allegedly wrongful\n 8 acts, which included, among other things: (a) reviewing and analyzing (i) Flux\n 9 Power\u2019s filings with the SEC, (ii) public reports, research reports prepared by\n 10 securities and financial analysts, and news articles concerning Flux Power, (iii) Flux\n 11 Power\u2019s investor call transcripts, press releases, and other public statements made\n 12 by Defendants prior to, during, and after the Settlement Class Period, and (iv) other\n 13 publicly available material related to Flux Power; and (b) retaining and working with\n 14 a private investigator who conducted an investigation that involved, inter alia,\n 15\n numerous interviews of former Company employees and other sources of relevant\n 16\n information. Lead Counsel also consulted with a financial damages expert.\n 17\n 24. On April 21, 2025, Mr. Paulson, joined by Mr. Clark, filed their\n 18\n Amended Class Action Complaint (\u201cComplaint\u201d) against Defendants. Dkt. No. 48.\n 19\n Among other things, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false\n 20\n and misleading statements and omissions, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)\n 21\n of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Id. Specifically,\n 22\n the Complaint alleges that Flux Power\u2019s quarterly and annual financial statements\n 23\n for each quarter and year from FY2022 through the third quarter of FY2024\n 24\n overstated inventory, gross profit, current assets, and total assets, and understated\n 25\n 26 cost of sales and net loss. As a result, Flux Power had to undertake an expensive\n\n 27 investigation and issue restatements for each of those periods. Id. Plaintiffs further\n\n 28 alleged that the price of Flux Power\u2019s publicly traded common stock was artificially\n\n 29\n 6\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.631 Page 10\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 inflated as a result of Defendants\u2019 allegedly false and misleading statements and it\n 2 declined when the truth was gradually revealed through a series of partial\n 3 disclosures. Id. Plaintiffs asserted these allegations on behalf of themselves and a\n 4 putative class of Flux Power shareholders who purchased the publicly traded\n 5 common stock of Flux Power between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025,\n 6 both dates inclusive. Id.\n 7 25. On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed two motions to dismiss the\n 8 Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 49, 52.\n 9 D. The Mediation Process Results in a Settlement\n 10\n 26. Before Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants\u2019 motions to\n 11\n dismiss, the Parties agreed to participate in a private mediation. On May 27, 2025,\n 12\n the Court stayed the case pending a joint report on the outcome of the mediation.\n 13\n Dkt. No. 55. The Parties selected Robert A. Meyer, of JAMS, to serve as mediator.\n 14\n Mr. Meyer has successfully mediated numerous complex commercial cases,\n 15\n including many securities class action cases. See Ex. 8 (Meyer Decl.).\n 16\n 17 27. Prior to the mediation, Plaintiffs and Defendants exchanged extensive\n\n 18 mediation statements that addressed, among other things, issues related to liability,\n\n 19 Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs\u2019 anticipated opposition thereto, and\n\n 20 damages. On July 11, 2025, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation session\n 21 with Mr. Meyer. After hard-fought negotiations facilitated by Mr. Meyer, the Parties\n 22 ultimately accepted Mr. Meyer\u2019s proposal to settle the Action for $1,750,000.\n 23 28. The agreement in principle to settle the Action was memorialized in a\n 24 term sheet executed immediately following the mediation. The term sheet set forth,\n 25 among other things, the Parties\u2019 agreement to settle and release all claims asserted\n 26 against Defendants in the Action in return for a cash payment of $1,750,000 for the\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 7\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.632 Page 11\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 benefit of the Settlement Class, subject to certain terms and conditions, including the\n 2 execution of a customary \u201clong form\u201d stipulation of settlement and related papers.\n 3 E. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement\n 4 29. The Parties thereafter worked diligently to finalize the Settlement,\n 5 which involved numerous complex terms and other issues that required substantial\n 6 negotiation among the Parties. The terms of the Settlement are memorialized in the\n 7 Stipulation. Dkt. No. 60-1.\n 8 30. On August 28, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the\n 9 Settlement. Dkt. No. 60. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs\u2019 motion on October\n 10\n 23, 2025, ordered slight changes to the proposed notice materials, and requested\n 11\n supplemental information. Dkt. No. 65. After Plaintiffs submitted the supplemental\n 12\n information and changes (Dkt. No. 66), the Court held another hearing on December\n 13\n 4, 2025.\n 14\n 31. On December 10, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs\u2019\n 15\n Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt. No. 68\n 16\n (\u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d). The Preliminary Approval Order preliminarily\n 17\n approved the Settlement, conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement\n 18\n purposes only, appointed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, appointed Lead\n 19\n Counsel as Class Counsel, approved the proposed procedure to provide notice of the\n 20\n Settlement to potential Settlement Class Members, and set April 2, 2026, as the date\n 21\n 22 for the final approval hearing. Id. The Settlement Class is defined as:\n\n 23 [A]ll persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Flux Power\n common stock between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025,\n 24 both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a)\n 25 persons who suffered no compensable losses; (b) Defendants; the\n present and former officers, directors, or control persons of Flux\n 26 Power at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and\n 27 their legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, or assigns;\n present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, and\n 28\n 29\n 8\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.633 Page 12\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 predecessors of Flux Power; and any entity in which any of the\n persons excluded under this subsection (b) has or had a controlling or\n 2 majority ownership interest at any time; and (c) persons or entities\n 3 who file valid and timely requests for exclusion from the Settlement\n Class in accordance with this Order.\n 4\n 5 III. THE RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION\n\n 6 32. The Settlement provides an immediate and certain benefit to the\n\n 7 Settlement Class in the form of a non-reversionary, all cash payment of $1,750,000.\n 8 As explained more fully below, there were significant risks that the Settlement Class\n 9 might recover substantially less than the Settlement Amount\u2014or nothing at all\u2014if\n 10 the case proceeded through additional years of litigation to a potential verdict,\n 11 followed by the inevitable appeals. Plaintiffs had not yet defeated Defendants\u2019\n 12 motions to dismiss. Defendants asserted, or could have asserted, many non-frivolous\n 13 arguments with respect to scienter, loss causation, and damages in this case. These\n 14 arguments, among many risks, were carefully considered in evaluating whether the\n 15 Settlement was in the Settlement Class\u2019s best interests. At bottom, there was simply\n 16 no guarantee that Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class would achieve any recovery,\n 17 let alone one greater than $1.75 million.\n 18 A. Risks to Proving Liability\n 19 33. Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel recognized that this Action presented a\n 20 number of substantial risks to establishing Defendants\u2019 liability.\n 21\n 34. Defendants forcefully argued in their motions to dismiss, and\n 22\n undoubtedly would continue to argue at summary judgment and trial, that Plaintiffs\n 23\n had failed to plead and would be unable to prove that the restated financial\n 24\n statements and alleged internal controls statements were made with scienter. Even\n 25\n if Plaintiffs defeated Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, which focused entirely on the\n 26\n sufficiency of Plaintiffs\u2019 scienter allegations, proving those allegations would\n 27\n require extensive document discovery and depositions.\n 28\n 29\n 9\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.634 Page 13\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 35. In their motions to dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to\n 2 allege that the individual Defendants knew about the accounting errors that were\n 3 later revealed in the restatement, or that the internal controls weaknesses later\n 4 revealed existed and were known prior to being disclosed. Dkt. Nos. 49, 52.\n 5 Plaintiffs would need to prove that Defendants misled investors knowingly or with\n 6 deliberate recklessness in making the alleged false and misleading statements and\n 7 signing the inaccurate financial reports.\n 8 36. There was also no assurance that Plaintiffs would be able to ascertain\n 9 evidence and testimony sufficient to prove their allegations, or that such evidence\n 10\n would be accepted by the Court at summary judgment or trial. Some of the key\n 11\n events at issue took place several years ago. Memories fade, documents are lost, and\n 12\n Plaintiffs would have had to rely on testimony from people who may well have a\n 13\n personal or professional relationship with Defendants to prove their case.\n 14\n 37. Despite believing this Action is meritorious, Plaintiffs and Lead\n 15\n Counsel were well aware of the high hurdles they would have to surmount to\n 16\n successfully prove Defendants\u2019 liability under the federal securities laws.\n 17\n B. Risk of Proving Loss Causation and Damages\n 18\n 38. Even assuming that Plaintiffs overcame the risks of defeating\n 19\n Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss and establishing Defendants\u2019 liability, Plaintiffs\n 20\n would have confronted considerable challenges in establishing loss causation and\n 21\n 22 class-wide damages.\n\n 23 39. Lead Counsel expect that Defendants would have argued that\n\n 24 confounding information mitigated or eliminated some of the alleged partial\n 25 corrective disclosures, and/or that Plaintiffs would be unable to prove that some of\n 26 the partial corrective disclosures such as the departure of Flux Power executives,\n 27 were in fact related to, and caused by, the revelation of truth concealed by the alleged\n 28 false and misleading statements.\n 29\n 10\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.635 Page 14\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 40. Pursuant to Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), it is\n 2 Plaintiffs\u2019 burden to prove loss causation and damages. This would require Plaintiffs\n 3 to proffer expert testimony as to: (a) what the \u201ctrue value\u201d of Flux Power common\n 4 stock would have been had there been no alleged material misstatements; (b) the\n 5 amount by which Flux Power common stock was artificially inflated by the alleged\n 6 material misstatements; and (c) the amount of artificial inflation removed by the\n 7 purported partial corrective disclosures. Defendants almost certainly would have\n 8 retained their own damages expert(s) to present conflicting conclusions and theories\n 9 as to the reasons for the declines in Flux Power common stock on the alleged\n 10\n disclosure dates. Were any of these arguments to succeed, damages would have\n 11\n been significantly reduced, if not eliminated.\n 12\n 41. The burden of proving loss causation and damages would require a jury\n 13\n to decide the \u201cbattle of the experts\u201d\u2014an expensive and intrinsically unpredictable\n 14\n process. Additionally, expert testimony can often rest on many assumptions, any of\n 15\n which risks being rejected by a jury. As this Court is no doubt aware, a jury\u2019s\n 16\n reaction to complicated expert testimony is highly unpredictable, and there is always\n 17\n the possibility that a jury could be swayed by Defendants\u2019 expert(s) and award only\n 18\n a fraction of the damages that Plaintiffs contend were suffered by the Settlement\n 19\n Class. Thus, the amount of damages that the Settlement Class would actually\n 20\n recover at trial, even if successful on liability issues, was uncertain.\n 21\n 22 C. Other Risks, Including Class Certification, Trial, and Appeals\n\n 23 42. In addition, any future recovery would require Plaintiffs to prevail at\n\n 24 several later stages of the litigation beyond the pleading stage, each of which\n 25 presents significant risks in complex class actions such as this one. For example,\n 26 Plaintiffs would have to move to certify the class. While Lead Counsel is confident\n 27 that all of the Rule 23 requirements are met and that the Court would have certified\n 28 the proposed class, Defendants would have almost certainly raised arguments\n 29\n 11\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.636 Page 15\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 challenging the propriety of class certification. Even if Plaintiffs\u2019 class certification\n 2 motion was granted, Defendants would likely file a Rule 23(f) petition for appellate\n 3 review. There also would remain a risk that the class could be de-certified at a later\n 4 stage in the case. See Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 77 F.4th 74,\n 5 81 (2d Cir. 2023) (de-certifying the class and effectively ending the case\u2014after\n 6 approximately 13 years of litigation\u2014based on 2021 Supreme Court decision).\n 7 43. Potential arguments raised with respect to loss causation and damages\n 8 could have also posed a substantial risk to class certification as Defendants would\n 9 argue a lack of price impact. See Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Tchr. Ret.\n 10\n Sys., 594 U.S. 113, 123 (2021) (directing courts to consider \u201call evidence relevant to\n 11\n price impact\u201d at the class certification stage).2 In particular, Lead Counsel expects\n 12\n Defendants would have argued that there was a \u201cmismatch\u201d between the generality\n 13\n of alleged misstatements in financial reports and internal controls statements, as\n 14\n compared to certain of the specific corrective disclosures concerning executive\n 15\n departures or costs associated with the restatement. See id. As there were only two\n 16\n plaintiffs, if Defendants were able to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were atypical in\n 17\n any way, it could put the entire case at risk.\n 18\n 44. Plaintiffs would also have to complete substantial fact and expert\n 19\n discovery, which would entail, among other things, negotiation of document\n 20\n production, review and analysis of documents produced by Defendants and third\n 21\n 22 parties, taking and defending percipient and expert depositions, propounding and\n\n 23 responding to interrogatories and requests for admission, and defending Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 24 depositions. The costs of each of these tasks would assuredly be high, and the fruits\n 25\n 26 2\n Arguments about price impact generally do not weigh against class certification for\n 27 settlement purposes. In re Am. Int\u2019l Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229, 232 (2d Cir.\n 28 2012).\n\n 29\n 12\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.637 Page 16\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 of each endeavor would be highly uncertain. Furthermore, Plaintiffs would have to\n 2 successfully navigate and prevail against Defendants\u2019 anticipated motions for\n 3 summary judgment, as well as at trial. And finally, even if Plaintiffs prevailed at\n 4 each of those stages, they would have to succeed on the appeals that would surely\n 5 follow. This process could extend for years and might ultimately lead to a smaller\n 6 recovery, or no recovery at all. Indeed, even prevailing at trial would not guarantee\n 7 a recovery larger than the $1,750,000 Settlement.3\n 8 45. Lead Counsel know from painful experience that despite the most\n 9 vigorous and competent of efforts, attorneys\u2019 success in contingent litigation such\n 10\n as this case is never assured. For instance, in In re ChinaCast Education\n 11\n Corporation Sec. Litig., No. 2:12cv-04621-JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), as Co-Lead\n 12\n Counsel, Rosen Law diligently pursued a securities class action for about six years\n 13\n against ChinaCast Education Corporation, a Delaware company operating in China.\n 14\n The effort included a successful appeal at the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the\n 15\n district court\u2019s dismissal decision. ChinaCast\u2019s insurers refused to cover litigation\n 16\n costs, however, and the company\u2019s counsel withdrew from the action leaving\n 17\n ChinaCast unrepresented. The plaintiffs later secured a default judgment of $65.8\n 18\n million for the class, but the very next day, ChinaCast filed for bankruptcy. In an\n 19\n attempt to recover the default judgment, plaintiffs spent an additional two years\n 20\n pursuing a lawsuit against ChinaCast\u2019s multiple insurers. See Jayhawk Private\n 21\n 22 Equity Fund II LP v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, 2:17-cv-05523-GW-RAO\n\n 23\n 24 3\n See, e.g., Robbins v. Koger Props., Inc., 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997) (reversing\n 25 jury verdict of $81 million for plaintiffs); In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Sec.\n Litig., 2011 WL 1585605 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2011) (granting defendants\u2019 motion for\n 26\n judgment as a matter of law following plaintiffs\u2019 verdict); In re Apple Computer Sec.\n 27 Litig., 1991 WL 238298 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 1991) (overturning jury verdict for\n 28 plaintiffs after extended trial).\n\n 29\n 13\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.638 Page 17\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 (C.D. Cal.). Unfortunately, plaintiffs\u2019 claims were dismissed due to the expansive\n 2 exclusion provisions in the insurance policies. Therefore, despite approximately\n 3 eight years of dedicated efforts by the plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, there was no financial\n 4 recovery for the investors. Similarly, in Sawant v. Ramsey, 2012 WL 3265020 (D.\n 5 Conn. Aug. 9, 2012), Rosen Law spent thousands of hours securing a trial verdict\n 6 only to find it impossible to collect on the judgment. As these examples make clear,\n 7 complex litigation is uncertain, and success in cases like this one is never guaranteed.\n 8 46. Given these significant litigation risks, Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel\n 9 believe that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best\n 10\n interests of the Settlement Class.\n 11\n D. The Settlement is Reasonable in Light of the Maximum Potential\n 12 Recovery in the Action\n 13 47. In addition to the attendant risks of complex securities class action\n 14 litigation discussed above, the Settlement is also fair and reasonable considering the\n 15\n maximum potential recovery of available damages. If Plaintiffs had fully prevailed\n 16\n in their claims at the motion to dismiss stage, at summary judgment, and after a jury\n 17\n trial, if the Court certified the same class period as the Settlement Class Period, and\n 18\n if the Court and jury accepted Plaintiffs\u2019 damages theory, including proof of loss\n 19\n causation as to the entirety of each of the six stock price drop dates alleged in this\n 20\n case\u2014i.e., Plaintiffs\u2019 best-case scenario\u2014Plaintiffs estimated that their total\n 21\n maximum damages would be approximately $9.2 million. Defendants estimated\n 22\n that the maximum aggregate damages Plaintiffs could recover in their best-case\n 23\n scenario was only $7.0 million. Thus, the $1.75 million Settlement Amount\n 24\n represents approximately 19.0% or 25.0% of the total maximum damages\n 25\n 26 potentially available in this Action.\n\n 27 48. Moreover, the estimated damages assume that Plaintiffs are given full\n\n 28 credit for each of the respective stock drops and does not consider any disaggregation\n\n 29\n 14\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.639 Page 18\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 arguments that Defendants may have raised. See Destefano v. Zynga, Inc., 2016 WL\n 2 537946, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) (\u201c[L]oss causation might have been\n 3 particularly difficult for Lead Plaintiff to prove, as Defendants would have argued\n 4 that Lead Plaintiff\u2019s expert could not apportion losses to Defendants\u2019 misstatements\n 5 as opposed to other events and information available on the market \u2026.\u201d); In re Flag\n 6 Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 2009) (\u201cto establish loss\n 7 causation, Dura requires plaintiffs to disaggregate those losses caused by changed\n 8 economic circumstances, \u2018changed investor expectations, new industry-specific or\n 9 firm-specific facts, conditions, or other events,\u2019 from disclosures of the truth behind\n 10\n the alleged misstatements.\u201d) (quoting Dura, 544 U.S. at 343). Even if Plaintiffs were\n 11\n able to establish that at least some portion of the stock price drop on each of the\n 12\n alleged corrective disclosure dates was attributable to the fraud, Defendants likely\n 13\n would have raised arguments concerning the release of other, non-fraud related\n 14\n information on those dates, which could have decreased the amount of recoverable\n 15\n damages even further.\n 16\n 49. In sum, having evaluated the relative strengths and weaknesses of the\n 17\n Action in light of Defendants\u2019 arguments, and having considered the very real risks\n 18\n presented by the significant hurdles of class certification, summary judgment, trial\n 19\n and any eventual appeals that lie ahead, it is the informed judgment of Lead Counsel,\n 20\n based upon all of the proceedings to date and their extensive experience in litigating\n 21\n 22 class actions under the federal securities laws, that the proposed Settlement is fair,\n\n 23 reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.\n\n 24 50. Lead Counsel\u2019s conclusion that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and\n 25 adequate is also supported by Plaintiffs. See Exs. 4-5 \u00b68.\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 15\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.640 Page 19\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 IV. UNDER LEAD COUNSEL\u2019S SUPERVISION, THE CLAIMS\n ADMINSITRATOR DULY EXECUTED THE COURT-APPROVED\n 2 NOTICE PROGRAM\n 3\n 51. The Court\u2019s Preliminary Approval Order directed that the Postcard\n 4\n Notice, email notice, and the Summary Notice, be disseminated to the Settlement\n 5\n Class. Dkt. No. 68. The Preliminary Approval Order also set deadlines for the\n 6\n receipt of objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or the Fee and\n 7\n Expense Application or to request exclusion from the Settlement Class, and set a\n 8\n final fairness hearing date (\u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d). Id. These dates were posted to\n 9\n the case-specific Settlement website. See Craig Decl. \u00b612.\n 10\n 52. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, Lead Counsel instructed\n 11\n SCS, the Court-approved Claims Administrator, to begin mailing and emailing\n 12\n notice of the Settlement and to publish the Summary Notice. Contemporaneously\n 13\n 14 with the mailing of the Postcard Notice and emailing of the Notice and Proof of\n\n 15 Claim form, Lead Counsel instructed SCS to post downloadable copies of the Notice\n\n 16 and Proof of Claim form, among other important documents, on the Settlement\n\n 17 website. Upon request, SCS mailed and/or emailed copies of the long-form Notice\n 18 and/or Proof of Claim form to Settlement Class Members and their nominees and\n 19 will continue to do so until the deadline to submit a Proof of Claim has passed. Id.\n 20 \u00b66 and n.2.\n 21 53. The Postcard Notice provides a limited description of the Settlement\n 22 and directs potential Settlement Class Members to downloadable versions of the\n 23 Notice and Proof of Claim form posted online on the Settlement website. The Notice\n 24 contains, among other things, a description of the Action; the definition of the\n 25 Settlement Class; a summary of the terms of the Settlement and the proposed Plan\n 26 of Allocation; and a description of Settlement Class Members\u2019 right to participate in\n 27 the Settlement, object to the Settlement, the Plan, and/or the Fee Application, or to\n 28\n 29\n 16\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.641 Page 20\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The Notice also informs Settlement\n 2 Class Members of Lead Counsel\u2019s intent to apply for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in\n 3 an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of\n 4 litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $75,000, and awards to Plaintiffs of\n 5 up to $15,000 total as compensation for their representation of the Settlement Class.\n 6 See Craig Decl., Ex. A (Notice) at 1, 9-10.\n 7 54. On December 11, 2025, SCS received from Defendants\u2019 counsel a list\n 8 containing the names and addresses of record holders (\u201cRecord Holder List\u201d) for the\n 9 purchasers of Flux Power common stock during the Settlement Class Period. Id. \u00b66.\n 10\n However, as in most class actions of this nature, the vast majority of potential\n 11\n Settlement Class Members are expected to be beneficial purchasers whose securities\n 12\n are held in \u201cstreet name\u201d\u2014i.e., the securities are purchased by brokerage firms,\n 13\n banks, institutions, and other third-party nominees in the name of the nominee, on\n 14\n behalf of the beneficial purchasers. The names and addresses of these beneficial\n 15\n purchasers are known only to the nominees. Thus, SCS maintains a proprietary\n 16\n database with the names and addresses of the largest and most common banks,\n 17\n brokers, and other nominees, as well as mutual funds and other institutional holders.\n 18\n Id. \u00b64. At the time of the initial mailing, these nominees in SCS\u2019s master mailing\n 19\n list included over 2,400 such entities. Id.\n 20\n 55. SCS requested that nominees who purchased Flux Power stock during\n 21\n 22 the Settlement Class Period for the beneficial interest of other persons, within ten\n\n 23 days from the date of the letter, either (a) send the Postcard Notice or email the link\n\n 24 to the location of the Notice and Proof of Claim on the Settlement webpage to their\n 25 customers who may be beneficial purchasers/owners or (b) provide SCS with a list\n 26 of names, last known addresses, and email addresses of their beneficial\n 27 purchasers/owners so that SCS could promptly either mail the Postcard Notice or\n 28\n 29\n 17\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.642 Page 21\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 email the link to the location of the Notice and Proof of Claim directly to such\n 2 beneficial purchasers/owners. Id. \u00b64.\n 3 56. As of March 5, 2025, a total of 18,981 potential Settlement Class\n 4 Members were notified either by mailed Postcard Notice or emailed the link to the\n 5 Notice and Claim Form. Id. \u00b69.\n 6 57. On January 19, 2026, in accordance with the Preliminary Approval\n 7 Order, SCS caused the Summary Notice to be published in Investor\u2019s Business Daily\n 8 and to be transmitted over the GlobeNewswire. Id. \u00b610 & Ex. D.\n 9 58. On December 23, 2025, the Settlement website became operational. On\n 10\n the Settlement website, Settlement Class Members can submit a claim online, and\n 11\n download copies of the Notice, Proof of Claim, Stipulation, and Preliminary\n 12\n Approval Order. Id. \u00b612.\n 13\n 59. The deadline to submit a valid Proof of Claim with all required\n 14\n information was March 3, 2026. Preliminary Approval Order \u00b621(a); Craig Decl.,\n 15\n \u00b615 and Ex. A (Notice) at 2, 8. While SCS will need time to process and validate\n 16\n all of the claims, the total number of claims received to date is 3,473. Craig Decl.\n 17\n \u00b615.\n 18\n 60. Once SCS has processed all of the claims it receives, Lead Counsel will\n 19\n move the Court to enter a Class Distribution Order. In conjunction with that motion,\n 20\n Lead Counsel will provide the Court with more detailed information concerning the\n 21\n 22 status of all of the claims received by SCS, and SCS\u2019s recommendations regarding\n\n 23 the acceptance and rejection of claims.\n\n 24 V. OBJECTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS\n 25 61. The deadline for Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves\n 26 from the Settlement or object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or to the Fee\n 27 Application is March 12, 2026. To date, not one request for exclusion has been\n 28 received. Craig Decl. \u00b613. SCS will submit a supplemental affidavit after the opt-\n 29\n 18\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.643 Page 22\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 out deadline updating the Court with respect to any subsequently received requests\n 2 for exclusion.\n 3 62. To date, no objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the\n 4 Fee Application have been filed or have otherwise been received by Lead Counsel\n 5 or SCS. See id. \u00b614. Lead Counsel will file reply papers on or by March 26, 2026,\n 6 which will address any objections that may be received.\n 7 VI. ALLOCATION OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT\n 8 63. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and as set forth in the\n 9 Notice, all Settlement Class Members who want to participate in the distribution of\n 10\n the Net Settlement Fund (i.e., the $1.75 million Settlement Amount, plus interest\n 11\n earned thereon, less: (i) Taxes; (ii) Notice and Administration Costs; and (iii) any\n 12\n attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs awarded by the\n 13\n Court) must submit a valid Proof of Claim with all required information either online\n 14\n or postmarked no later than March 3, 2026. See Craig Decl., Ex. A (Notice) at 2, 8.\n 15\n As set forth in the Notice, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed among\n 16\n Settlement Class Members according to the Plan of Allocation, subject to the Plan\u2019s\n 17\n approval by the Court.\n 18\n 64. Lead Counsel developed the Plan of Allocation with the assistance of\n 19\n Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert and the Claims Administrator. The Plan of\n 20\n Allocation is detailed in the long-form Notice. See Craig Decl., Ex. A at 4-8. The\n 21\n 22 Notice is posted online at the Settlement website, is downloadable, and upon request,\n\n 23 will be mailed to any potential Settlement Class Member. The objective of the Plan\n\n 24 is to equitably distribute the Net Settlement Fund to those Settlement Class Members\n 25 who suffered economic losses as a proximate result of Defendants\u2019 alleged\n 26 violations of the Exchange Act, as opposed to losses caused by market, industry,\n 27 Company-specific factors or factors unrelated to the alleged violation of law. Under\n 28 the Plan, each Authorized Claimant will receive their pro rata share of the Net\n 29\n 19\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.644 Page 23\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 Settlement Fund based on their total Recognized Loss Amount as compared to the\n 2 total Recognized Loss Amounts of all Authorized Claimants. See id. As described\n 3 in the Notice, calculations under the Plan of Allocation are not intended to be\n 4 estimates of, nor indicative of, the amounts that Settlement Class Members might\n 5 have been able to recover after a trial or estimates of the amounts that will be paid\n 6 to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. Instead, the calculations under\n 7 the Plan of Allocation are a method to weigh the claims of Settlement Class\n 8 Members against one another for the purposes of making an equitable allocation of\n 9 the Net Settlement Fund. See id.\n 10\n 65. The Plan of Allocation is based on an out-of-pocket theory of damages\n 11\n consistent with Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and reflects an assessment of the\n 12\n damages that Plaintiffs contend could have been recovered under the theories of\n 13\n liability asserted in the Action. More specifically, the Plan of Allocation reflects,\n 14\n and is based on, Plaintiffs\u2019 allegation that the price of Flux Power common stock\n 15\n was artificially inflated during the period between November 15, 2021 and February\n 16\n 14, 2025, both dates inclusive, due to Defendants\u2019 alleged materially false and\n 17\n misleading statements. The Plan is based on the premise that the decreases in the\n 18\n price of Flux Power common stock following the six partial corrective disclosures\n 19\n alleged in the Complaint may be used to measure the alleged artificial inflation in\n 20\n the price of Flux Power common stock prior to these disclosures.\n 21\n 22 66. An individual Claimant\u2019s recovery under the Plan of Allocation will\n\n 23 depend on several factors, including the number of valid claims filed by other\n\n 24 Claimants and how many shares of Flux Power common stock the Claimant\n 25 purchased, acquired, or sold during the Settlement Class Period, and when that\n 26 Claimant bought, acquired, or sold the shares. If a Claimant has an overall market\n 27 gain with respect to their overall transactions in Flux Power common stock during\n 28 the Settlement Class Period, or if the Claimant purchased shares during the\n 29\n 20\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.645 Page 24\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 Settlement Class Period, but did not hold any of those shares through at least one of\n 2 the alleged partial disclosures, the Claimant\u2019s recovery under the Plan of Allocation\n 3 will be zero, as any loss suffered would not have been caused by the revelation of\n 4 the alleged fraud. Lead Counsel believes that the Plan of Allocation will result in a\n 5 fair and equitable distribution of the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class\n 6 Members who submit valid claims.\n 7 67. If the prorated payment to be distributed to any Authorized Claimant is\n 8 less than $10.00, no distribution will be made to that Authorized Claimant. See id.\n 9 In Lead Counsel\u2019s experience, processing and sending a check for less than $10.00\n 10\n is cost prohibitive.\n 11\n 68. The Net Settlement Fund in its entirety will be distributed to Authorized\n 12\n Claimants and if any funds remain after the initial distribution (for example, due to\n 13\n uncashed or returned checks), further distributions to Authorized Claimants who\n 14\n would receive at least $10.00 from such a re-distribution will be conducted as long\n 15\n as they are cost effective. Id. If Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims\n 16\n Administrator, deems a further distribution not cost effective, any funds remaining\n 17\n in the Net Settlement Fund shall be donated to a non-profit charitable organization\n 18\n selected by Lead Counsel. Id.\n 19\n 69. In sum, the Plan of Allocation was designed to allocate the proceeds of\n 20\n the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members based on the losses they\n 21\n 22 suffered on transactions in Flux Power common stock that were attributable to the\n\n 23 conduct alleged in the Complaint. It does not favor Plaintiffs over any other\n\n 24 Settlement Class Member. Accordingly, Lead Counsel respectfully submits that the\n 25 Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court.\n 26 70. To date, no objections to the proposed Plan of Allocation have been\n 27 received or filed on the Court\u2019s docket.\n 28\n 29\n 21\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.646 Page 25\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 VII. LEAD COUNSEL\u2019S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES,\n REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND AWARDS\n 2 TO PLAINTIFFS\n 3\n 71. In addition to seeking final approval of the Settlement and Plan of\n 4\n Allocation, Lead Counsel is applying for a fee award of one-third of the Settlement\n 5\n Fund (i.e., $583,333.33 plus interest accrued thereon). Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel also\n 6\n request reimbursement in the amount of $65,904.07 for out-of-pocket expenses\n 7\n incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel in connection with the prosecution and resolution of\n 8\n the Action, and awards to Plaintiffs in the amount of $7,500 each, or $15,000 in total,\n 9\n for reimbursement of costs, including lost wages, incurred directly related to their\n 10\n representation of the Settlement Class pursuant to as authorized by the PSLRA (15\n 11\n U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4)).\n 12\n 72. The legal authorities supporting the requested fees and expenses are set\n 13\n 14 forth in the concurrently filed Fee Application. The primary factual bases for the\n\n 15 requested fees and expenses are set forth below.\n\n 16 A. The Fee Application\n\n 17 1. The Outcome Achieved is the Result of the Significant Time\n and Labor that Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel Devoted to the Action\n 18\n 19 73. Attached hereto as Exhibits 2-3 are declarations from Rosen Law and\n\n 20 BES in support of an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and reimbursement of litigation\n\n 21 expenses. Each declaration sets forth a table reflecting the position, hours, rate, and\n 22 total lodestar of each individual who worked on this case and a summary of expenses\n 23 by category. The firms\u2019 respective r\u00e9sum\u00e9s are attached hereto as Exhibits 6-7.\n 24 74. The following is a summary chart of the hours expended and lodestar\n 25 amounts using current rates for the two firms:\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 22\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.647 Page 26\n of 32\n\n\n\n LAW FIRM HOURS LODESTAR\n 1\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 370.23 $439,953.90\n 2 BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 275.25 $252,781.25\n TOTAL 645.48 $692,735.15\n 3\n 75. The lodestar charts presented in the declarations from Plaintiffs\u2019\n 4\n 5 Counsel were prepared from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared\n\n 6 and maintained by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel. Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel will not request or receive\n\n 7 any additional compensation for the time they will spend preparing their reply\n 8 papers, preparing for and attending the final approval hearing, overseeing the claims\n 9 administration process, responding to Settlement Class Members\u2019 inquiries\n 10 regarding the Settlement, and preparing the Motion for Class Distribution Order.\n 11 76. As set forth in detail in Exhibits 2-3, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have\n 12 collectively expended a total of 645.48 hours in the investigation and prosecution of\n 13 the Action. The resulting total lodestar is $692,735.15. The requested fee of one-\n 14 third of the Settlement Fund equals $583,333.33 (plus interest earned at the same\n 15 rate as the Settlement Fund), and therefore represents a multiplier of 0.84 to\n 16 Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel\u2019s lodestar. This fractional (or \u201cnegative\u201d) multiplier is\n 17 reasonable and well within the range of fee multipliers typically awarded in\n 18 comparable securities class actions and in other class actions involving significant\n 19 contingency fee risk, in this Circuit and elsewhere.\n 20 77. The rates billed by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel (ranging from $1,050 to $1,550\n 21\n for partners, $730 to $850 for associates, and $375 to $425 for paralegals, Exs. 2-3\n 22\n \u00b66) are comparable to peer plaintiff and defense firms litigating matters of similar\n 23\n magnitude. See Ex. 10 (survey of peer plaintiff and defense law firm billing rates).\n 24\n 78. Throughout this case, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel devoted substantial time to\n 25\n the prosecution of the Action, as detailed above. Rosen Law and BES maintained\n 26\n control of, and monitored the work performed by, lawyers and other personnel on\n 27\n this case. I personally devoted substantial time to this case and was personally\n 28\n 29\n 23\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.648 Page 27\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 involved in drafting or reviewing and editing all pleadings, court filings, and other\n 2 correspondence prepared on behalf of Plaintiffs upon Rosen Law\u2019s appointment as\n 3 Lead Counsel, communicating with Plaintiffs and additional Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel on a\n 4 regular basis, engaging with counsel for Defendants on a variety of matters, and was\n 5 intimately involved in Settlement negotiations. Other experienced attorneys at the\n 6 two firms also drafted, reviewed and/or edited pleadings, court filings, and other\n 7 correspondence prepared on behalf of Plaintiffs and were involved in Settlement\n 8 negotiations and other matters. Other attorneys and paralegals also worked on\n 9 matters appropriate to their skill and experience level. Throughout the litigation,\n 10\n Lead Counsel maintained an appropriate level of staffing that avoided unnecessary\n 11\n duplication of effort and ensured the efficient prosecution of this litigation.\n 12\n 79. As demonstrated by the firms\u2019 respective r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, Exs. 6-7, Plaintiffs\u2019\n 13\n Counsel are highly experienced and skilled law firms that focus their practices on\n 14\n securities class action litigation. Indeed, Rosen Law and BES have substantial\n 15\n experience in litigating securities fraud class actions and have negotiated scores of\n 16\n other securities class action settlements, which have been approved in courts\n 17\n throughout the country. I believe Lead Counsel\u2019s experience added valuable\n 18\n leverage in the settlement negotiations.\n 19\n 2. Standing and Caliber of Opposing Counsel\n 20\n 80. The quality of work performed by Lead Counsel in attaining the\n 21\n 22 Settlement should also be evaluated considering the quality of the opposition. Here,\n\n 23 Defendants were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. and\n\n 24 Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, firms with national reputations\n 25 for the tenacious defense of class actions and other complex civil matters. In the\n 26 face of this experienced and formidable opposition, Lead Counsel were able to\n 27 develop a case that was sufficiently strong to nonetheless persuade Defendants to\n 28 settle the case on terms that were highly favorable to the Settlement Class.\n 29\n 24\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.649 Page 28\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 3. The Risks of Litigation and the Need to Ensure the\n Availability of Competent Counsel in High-Risk Contingent\n 2 Securities Cases\n 3\n 81. This prosecution was undertaken by Lead Counsel on a fully contingent\n 4\n basis. From the outset, Lead Counsel understood that they were embarking on a\n 5\n complex, expensive, and lengthy litigation with no guarantee of ever being\n 6\n compensated for the substantial investment of time and money the case would\n 7\n require. In undertaking that responsibility, Lead Counsel were obligated to ensure\n 8\n that sufficient resources were dedicated to the prosecution of the Action, that funds\n 9\n were available to compensate attorneys and staff, and to cover the considerable\n 10\n litigation costs required by a case like this one.\n 11\n 82. With an average lag time of many years for complex cases like this one\n 12\n to conclude, the financial burden on contingent-fee counsel is far greater than on a\n 13\n 14 firm that is paid on an ongoing basis. Indeed, Lead Counsel received no\n\n 15 compensation during nearly a year and half of litigation and incurred $65,904.07 in\n\n 16 out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses in prosecuting the Action.\n\n 17 83. Lead Counsel also bore the risk that no recovery would be achieved.\n 18 As discussed above, from the outset, this case presented multiple risks and\n 19 uncertainties that could have prevented any recovery whatsoever. Despite the most\n 20 vigorous and competent of efforts, success in contingent-fee litigation like this one\n 21 is never assured. Lead Counsel know from experience that the commencement of a\n 22 class action does not guarantee a settlement. See supra \u00b645. To the contrary, it takes\n 23 hard work and diligence by skilled counsel to develop the facts and theories that are\n 24 needed to sustain a complaint or win at trial, or to induce sophisticated defendants\n 25 to engage in serious settlement negotiations at meaningful levels. And, even when\n 26 that effort is put forth, sometimes you still lose. Id.\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 25\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.650 Page 29\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 84. Moreover, courts have repeatedly recognized that it is in the public\n 2 interest to have experienced and able counsel enforce the securities laws and\n 3 regulations pertaining to the duties of officers and directors of public companies.\n 4 See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 320 n.4 (2007)\n 5 (\u201cprivate securities litigation is an indispensable tool with which defrauded investors\n 6 can recover their losses \u2013 a matter crucial to the integrity of domestic capital\n 7 markets.\u201d) (internal quotation marks omitted). As recognized by Congress through\n 8 the passage of the PSLRA, vigorous private enforcement of the federal securities\n 9 laws can only occur if private investors take an active role in protecting the interests\n 10\n of shareholders. If this important public policy is to be carried out, the courts should\n 11\n award fees that adequately compensate plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, taking into account the\n 12\n risks undertaken in prosecuting a securities class action.\n 13\n 4. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Fee Application\n 14\n 85. As noted above, as of March 5, 2026, notice has been provided to\n 15\n 18,921 potential Settlement Class Members and their nominees informing them that\n 16\n Lead Counsel would apply for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in an amount not to exceed\n 17\n one-third of the Settlement Fund. Craig Decl. \u00b69; Exs. A (Notice) and C (Postcard\n 18\n Notice). In addition, the Court-approved Summary Notice was published in\n 19\n Investor\u2019s Business Daily and transmitted over the GlobeNewswire. Id. \u00b610; Ex. D\n 20\n (confirmations of Summary Notice publication). To date, no objections to the\n 21\n 22 attorneys\u2019 fees or expenses requested have been received or filed. Any later-filed\n\n 23 objections will be addressed in Plaintiffs\u2019 reply papers.\n\n 24 86. In sum, Lead Counsel accepted this case on a fully contingent basis,\n 25 committed significant resources to it, and prosecuted it without any compensation\n 26 or guarantee of success. Based on the result obtained, the quality of the work\n 27 performed, the risks of the Action, and the contingent nature of the representation,\n 28 Lead Counsel respectfully submits that a fee award of one-third of the Settlement\n 29\n 26\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.651 Page 30\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 Amount, which equates to a multiplier of 0.84, is fair and reasonable, and is in line\n 2 with the fee awards that courts in this Circuit and others have granted in comparable\n 3 cases.\n 4 5. Plaintiffs Support the Fee Application\n 5 87. As set forth in the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs, Mr. Paulson and\n 6 Mr. Clark each concluded that Lead Counsel\u2019s requested fee is fair and reasonable\n 7 based on the work performed, the recovery obtained for the Settlement Class, and\n 8 the risks of the Action. See Exs. 4-5, \u00b6\u00b69-10. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Clark have each\n 9 been intimately involved in this case since the lead plaintiff motion stage, and their\n 10\n endorsements of Lead Counsel\u2019s fee request supports the reasonableness of the\n 11\n request and should be given weight in the Court\u2019s consideration of the fee award.\n 12\n B. The Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses Incurred\n 13 by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel is Fair and Reasonable\n 14 88. Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel seek reimbursement of a total of $65,904.07 in\n 15\n litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel during the prosecution of this\n 16\n Action, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The request for reimbursement of\n 17\n litigation expenses is appropriate, fair, and reasonable and should be approved in the\n 18\n amounts submitted herein.\n 19\n 89. The firms\u2019 declarations break down by category all expenses incurred\n 20\n by Rosen Law and BES, respectively. Exs. 2-3 \u00b6\u00b67-8.\n 21\n 90. The Postcard Notice and long-form Notice informed potential\n 22\n Settlement Class Members that Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel would seek reimbursement of\n 23\n expenses in an amount not to exceed $75,000. The total amount requested by\n 24\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel is only $65,904.07. To date, no objections have been raised as\n 25\n 26 to the maximum amount of expenses set forth in the Postcard Notice and Notice. If\n\n 27 any objection to the request for reimbursement of litigation expenses is made after\n\n 28 the date of this filing, Plaintiffs will address it in their reply papers.\n\n 29\n 27\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.652 Page 31\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 91. From the beginning of the case, Lead Counsel were aware that they\n 2 might never recover any of their expenses. Accordingly, Lead Counsel were\n 3 motivated to, and did, take steps to assure that only necessary expenses were incurred\n 4 for the vigorous and efficient prosecution of the case.\n 5 92. The largest component of expenses, $18,034.50, was expended on the\n 6 retention of a private investigation firm to assist Lead Counsel in their factual\n 7 investigation into Plaintiffs\u2019 claims. Another large component of expenses,\n 8 $15,550.00, was expended on Plaintiffs\u2019 share of mediation fees paid for the services\n 9 of Mr. Meyer. Another large component of expenses, $5,400.00, was expended on\n 10\n the retention of an expert in the field of financial analysis, loss causation and\n 11\n damages. The expert was consulted at different points throughout the litigation,\n 12\n including on matters related to the preparation of the amended complaint, on matters\n 13\n relating to the negotiation of the Settlement, and on preparation of the proposed Plan\n 14\n of Allocation.\n 15\n 93. The other litigation expenses for which Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel seek\n 16\n reimbursement are the types of expenses that are necessarily incurred in litigation\n 17\n and routinely charged to clients billed by the hour. These expenses include, among\n 18\n others, costs of on-line legal and factual research, fees for press releases and notice\n 19\n to class members, copying costs, and postage and delivery expenses.\n 20\n C. Awards to Plaintiffs\n 21\n 94. Finally, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Clark worked closely with Plaintiffs\u2019\n 22\n Counsel throughout the pendency of this Action in connection with their service as\n 23\n 24 Plaintiffs. For example, they each: (a) collected and produced documents related to\n\n 25 their transactions in Flux Power common stock to their counsel; (b) moved to be\n\n 26 appointed as lead plaintiff in the Action; (c) reviewed all significant pleadings and\n 27 briefs filed in the Action; (d) regularly communicated with their attorneys via email\n 28 and telephone about case developments and litigation strategy; (e) reviewed Court\n 29\n 28\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.653 Page 32\n of 32\n\n\n\n 1 orders and discussed them with their attorneys; (f) communicated with their counsel\n 2 regarding mediation related topics and made themselves available during the\n 3 mediation and settlement negotiations; (g) evaluated and approved the Settlement\n 4 Amount; and (h) communicated with counsel regarding the process for finalizing the\n 5 Settlement. See Exs. 4-5 \u00b65. Accordingly, they seek awards of $7,500 each ($15,000\n 6 in total) as reimbursement for their time spent on this action that they otherwise\n 7 would have spent on their job, investing, or other activities. Id. \u00b6\u00b612-13.\n 8 95. The $15,000 in total requested awards to Plaintiffs represents\n 9 approximately 0.9% of the $1.75 million Settlement Amount.\n 10\n 96. The litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel and time spent\n 11\n by Plaintiffs were reasonable and necessary to represent the Settlement Class and\n 12\n achieve the Settlement.\n 13\n VIII. CONCLUSION\n 14\n 97. For all the reasons set forth above, the Settlement and Plan of\n 15\n Allocation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The requested\n 16\n attorneys\u2019 fee in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Amount, the request for\n 17\n reimbursement of $65,904.07 in litigation expenses, and the requested awards of\n 18\n $15,000 total for Plaintiffs, should also be approved.\n 19\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n 20\n America that the foregoing is true and correct.\n 21\n 22\n Executed on this, the 5th day of March 2026, at Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.\n 23\n s/ Joshua Baker\n 24 Joshua Baker\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 29\n 30 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BAKER; No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:56:57.847096-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317428","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Joshua Baker","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804861/","id":479804861,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/3/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:39.976104-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:09:41.808653-07:00","sha1":"5503c18cd099240969bd8bef5ff238200b034300","page_count":34,"file_size":2968743,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.654 Page 1\n of 34\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.655 Page 2\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n 4 ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5 Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 6 Plaintiff,\n CLASS ACTION\n 7 v.\n 8\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n 9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n10 SCHEIWE,\n11 Defendants.\n12\n13\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG CONCERNING: (A) MAILING\n14 OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE AND EMAILING OF LONG NOTICE AND\n PROOF OF CLAIM; (B) PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE;\n15\n (C) REPORT ON REQUSTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS;\n16 AND (D) CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.656 Page 3\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n I, Margery Craig, declare as follows:\n 2\n 1. I am a Project Manager at Strategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d), a\n 3\n nationally-recognized class action administration firm. I have over nineteen years of\n 4\n experience specializing in the administration of class action cases. SCS was\n 5\n established in April 1999 and has administered over five hundred and seventy-five\n 6\n (575) class action cases since its inception. I submit this declaration in order to\n 7\n provide the Court and the Parties with information regarding the notification of the\n 8\n Settlement to potential Settlement Class Members, as well as updates concerning\n 9\n other aspects of the Settlement administration process.1 I have personal knowledge\n10\n of the facts set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, I could and would testify\n11\n competently thereto.\n12\n 2. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order Granting Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for\n13\n Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, dated December 10, 2025 (Dkt.\n14\n No. 68, the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), SCS was appointed and approved as the\n15\n Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the\n16\n processing of claims in connection with the above-captioned action.\n17\n18 MAILING OF POSTCARD NOTICE AND EMAILING OF LINKS TO\n19 LONG NOTICE AND PROOF OF CLAIM\n 3. SCS sent the Depository Trust Company (\u201cDTC\u201d) a Notice of\n20\n Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cLong Notice\u201d) and Proof of\n21\n Claim and Release Form (\u201cProof of Claim\u201d, and together with the Long Notice,\n22\n \u201cLong Notice and Proof of Claim\u201d) for the DTC to publish on its Legal Notice\n23\n System (\u201cLENS\u201d) on December 23, 2025. LENS provides DTC participants the\n24\n ability to search and download legal notices as well as receive e-mail alerts based\n25\n26 1\n All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined have the\n27 meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement, filed August 27, 2025\n (Dkt. No. 60-1, the \u201cStipulation\u201d).\n28\n 2\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.657 Page 4\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n on particular notices or particular CUSIPs once a legal notice is posted. Exhibit A\n 2\n is a copy of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim.\n 3\n 4. As in most class actions of this nature, the vast majority of potential\n 4\n Settlement Class Members are expected to be beneficial purchasers whose\n 5\n securities are held in \u201cstreet name\u201d \u2014 i.e., the securities are purchased by\n 6\n brokerage firms, banks, institutions and other third-party nominees in the name of\n 7\n the nominee, on behalf of the beneficial purchasers. The names and addresses of\n 8\n these beneficial purchasers are known only to the nominees. SCS maintains and\n 9\n continually updates its proprietary master list of brokerage firms, banks,\n10\n institutions and other third-party nominees. As of the date of this declaration,\n11\n SCS\u2019s proprietary master list consisted of 1,049 banks and brokerage companies\n12\n (\u201cNominee Account Holders\u201d), as well as 1,414 mutual funds, insurance\n13\n companies, pension funds, and money managers (\u201cInstitutional Groups\u201d). On\n14\n December 23, 2025, SCS caused a letter to be mailed or e-mailed to the 2,463\n15\n nominees contained in the SCS master mailing list. The letter notified them of the\n16\n Settlement and requested that, within 10 calendar days from the date of the letter or\n17\n email, they either (a) send the Postcard Notice or email the link to the location of\n18\n the Long Notice and Proof of Claim on the Settlement webpage to their customers\n19\n who may be beneficial purchasers/owners or (b) provide SCS with a list of names,\n20\n last known addresses, and email addresses of their beneficial purchasers/owners so\n21\n that SCS could promptly either mail the Postcard Notice or email the link to the\n22\n location of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim directly to such beneficial\n23\n purchasers/owners. A copy of the letter sent to these nominees is attached as\n24\n Exhibit B.\n25\n 5. To provide actual notice to all persons or entities who purchased the\n26\n publicly traded common stock of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d) during\n27\n the period from November 15, 2021 through February 14, 2025, both dates\n28\n 3\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.658 Page 5\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n inclusive (the \u201cSettlement Class Period\u201d), pursuant to the Preliminary Approval\n 2\n Order, SCS printed and mailed the Postcard Notice to potential Settlement Class\n 3\n Members. A true and correct copy of the Postcard Notice is attached as Exhibit C.\n 4\n 6. SCS mailed, by first class mail, postage prepaid, the Postcard\n 5\n Notice to 1,378 people/organizations identified in Flux Power\u2019s transfer records\n 6\n that were provided to SCS by counsel for Defendants on December 11, 2025. The\n 7\n records provided to SCS reflect the 1,378 individuals and entities that purchased\n 8\n Flux Power publicly traded common stock for their own accounts, or for the\n 9\n account(s) of their clients, during the Settlement Class Period. The transfer record\n10\n mailing was completed on December 24, 2025. SCS received 293 additional\n11\n names and addresses of potential Settlement Class Members from individuals or\n12\n nominees requesting that SCS mail copies of the Postcard Notice. SCS also\n13\n received requests from three nominees for 4,655 copies of the Postcard Notice, in\n14\n total, so that these nominees could forward them to their customers. To date, 6,326\n15\n Postcard Notices have been mailed to potential Settlement Class Members.2\n16\n 7. Of the 6,326 Postcard Notices mailed, 397 were returned as\n17\n undeliverable. Of these, the United States Postal Service provided forwarding\n18\n addresses for 14, and SCS immediately mailed another Postcard Notice to the\n19\n updated addresses. The remaining 383 Postcard Notices returned as undeliverable\n20\n were \u201cskip-traced\u201d to obtain updated addresses, and 205 were re-mailed to updated\n21\n addresses.\n22\n 8. Additionally, SCS emailed the link to the Long Notice and Proof of\n23\n Claim to 5,506 email addresses provided by individuals or nominees, and SCS was\n24\n notified by one nominee that it emailed 7,149 of its customers the link to the Long\n25\n26 2\n SCS received two requests from potential Settlement Class Member for the Long\n27 Notice and Proof of Claim to be mailed to them. SCS immediately mailed the\n Long Notice and Proof of Claim to the potential Settlement Class Members.\n28\n 4\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.659 Page 6\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n Notice and Proof of Claim on the Settlement webpage. To date, 12,655 emails\n 2\n have been sent with the link to the Long Notice and Proof of Claim.\n 3\n 9. In total, 18,981 notices (either via a mailed Postcard Notice or an\n 4\n emailed link to the location of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim) were sent to\n 5\n potential Settlement Class Members.\n 6\n PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE\n 7\n 10. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Summary Notice of\n 8\n Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement (\u201cSummary Notice\u201d) was\n 9\n published electronically once on GlobeNewswire and in print once in the Investor\u2019s\n10\n Business Daily on January 19, 2026, as shown in the confirmations of publication\n11\n attached hereto as Exhibit D.\n12\n TOLL-FREE PHONE LINE\n13\n 11. SCS maintains a toll-free telephone number (1-866-274-4004) that\n14\n Settlement Class Members may call to obtain information about the Settlement\n15\n and/or request copies of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim. SCS has promptly\n16\n responded to each telephone inquiry and addressed Settlement Class Member\n17\n inquiries.\n18\n SETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n19\n 12. On December 23, 2025, SCS established a dedicated webpage for\n20\n this Settlement on its website at www.strategicclaims.net/flux. The webpage is\n21\n accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The webpage contains the current\n22\n status; the case deadlines; the online claim filing link; important case documents,\n23\n such as the Long Notice and Proof of Claim, the Preliminary Approval Order, and\n24\n the Stipulation with exhibits; and documents for Representative Filers, such as the\n25\n letter sent to nominees, the electronic filing instructions, and the electronic filing\n26\n template. SCS will continue to maintain and update the webpage throughout the\n27\n28\n 5\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.660 Page 7\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n Settlement administration process. To date, the webpage has received 1,675\n 2\n views from 729 unique users.\n 3\n REPORT ON EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS\n 4\n 13. The Postcard Notice, Long Notice, Summary Notice, and\n 5\n Settlement website informed potential Settlement Class Members that written\n 6\n requests for exclusion are to be mailed to SCS such that they are received no later\n 7\n than March 12, 2026. SCS has been monitoring all mail delivered for this case.\n 8\n As of the date of this declaration, SCS has not received any request for exclusion.\n 9\n 14. According to the Long Notice, Postcard Notice, and Summary\n10\n Notice, Settlement Class Members seeking to object to the Settlement, any part of\n11\n the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees\n12\n and expenses or application for an award to Plaintiff, and/or who think the Court\n13\n should not approve the Settlement, must be submitted to Lead Counsel and\n14\n counsel for Defendants, as well as filed with the Clerk of the Court, no later than\n15\n March 12, 2026. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has not received any\n16\n objections, and SCS has not been notified that any objections were submitted.\n17\n CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n18\n19 15. The Postcard Notice, Long Notice, Summary Notice, and the\n20 Settlement website informed Settlement Class Members that the deadline for claims\n21 submission was March 3, 2026. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has received\n22 3,473 claims. SCS is currently conducting quality assurance reviews of the\n23 submitted claims, such as verifying that claims include the required supporting\n24 documentation and identifying duplicated claims. Once this audit process is\n25 complete, claimants with incomplete or invalid claims will be given an opportunity\n26 to cure their deficiencies, to the extent that their deficiencies may be cured. With\n27 these steps currently outstanding, the number of claims considered valid has not yet\n28\n 6\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.661 Page 8\n of 34\n\n\n\n 1\n been finally determined. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the\n 2\n United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.\n 3\n Signed this 5th day of March 2026, in Media, Pennsylvania.\n 4\n 5\n ________________________\n 6 Margery Craig\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 7\n DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG, Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 EXHIBIT\n PageID.662 Page 9 A\n of 34\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n\n ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on behalf of Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n all others similarly situated,\n Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n Plaintiff,\n CLASS ACTION\n v.\n\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., RONALD\n F. DUTT, and CHARLES A. SCHEIWE,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED\n SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION\nIf you purchased publicly traded common stock of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d) during the\nperiod between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (\u201cSettlement Class\nPeriod\u201d), you could get a payment from a proposed class action settlement (\u201cSettlement\u201d).\n Under law, a federal court has authorized this Notice. This is not attorney advertising.\n \uf0b7 If approved by the Court, the Settlement will provide $1,750,000 (\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d), plus\n interest as it accrues, minus attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, administrative expenses, and net of any taxes\n on interest, to pay claims of investors who purchased Flux Power publicly traded common stock\n during the Settlement Class Period.\n \uf0b7 The approximate recovery, after deduction of attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses approved by the Court,\n is an average of $0.08 per damaged share of Flux Power common stock. This estimate is based on\n the assumptions set forth in the following two paragraphs. Your actual recovery, if any, will depend\n on the aggregate losses of all Settlement Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold Flux\n Power common stock, the purchase and sale prices, and the total number and amount of claims\n filed.\n \uf0b7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (\u201cLead Counsel\u201d) intend to ask the Court to award them fees of up to one-\n third of the Settlement Amount, or $583,333.33, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more\n than $75,000, and an award to Plaintiffs not to exceed $15,000 in total. Collectively, the attorneys\u2019\n fees and expenses and award to Plaintiffs are estimated to average up to $0.05 per damaged share\n of Flux Power common stock. If approved by the Court, these amounts will be paid from the\n Settlement Fund.\n \uf0b7 The Settlement represents an estimated average recovery of $0.12 per damaged share of Flux\n Power common stock for the approximately 14.1 million damaged shares estimated during the\n Settlement Class Period. Plaintiffs estimate that the average damages per share that would be\n recoverable if Plaintiffs had prevailed on each claim alleged was approximately $0.65 per damaged\n share. Defendants estimate this figure to be approximately $0.50 per damaged share. Shares may\n have been traded more than once during the Settlement Class Period. These estimates solely reflect\n the average recovery per damaged share of Flux Power common stock. The indicated average\n recovery per share will be the total average recovery for all purchasers of that share. This is not an\n 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.663 Page 10\n of 34\n\n estimate of the actual recovery per share you should expect. Your actual recovery will depend on\n the aggregate losses of all Settlement Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold Flux\n Power common stock, and the total number of claims filed.\n \uf0b7 The Settlement resolves the Action concerning whether Defendants Flux Power, Ronald F. Dutt,\n and Charles A. Scheiwe violated the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and/or\n omissions of material fact in various filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission\n or in other public statements to investors. Defendants deny each and every claim and contention\n alleged in the Action and deny any misconduct or wrongdoing whatsoever, including by any of\n Flux Power\u2019s officers, directors, or employees.\n \uf0b7 Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do not act. If you do not act, you may\n permanently forfeit your right to recover on this claim. Therefore, you should read this Notice\n carefully.\n YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT\n SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM The only way to get a payment.\n NO LATER THAN\n MARCH 3, 2026\n EXCLUDE YOURSELF Get no payment. This is the only option that allows\n NO LATER THAN you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against\n MARCH 12, 2026 Defendants about the legal claims in this case.\n OBJECT NO LATER THAN Write to the Court and explain why you object to the\n MARCH 12, 2026 Settlement.\n GO TO A HEARING ON Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the\n APRIL 2, 2026 Settlement no later than March 12, 2026.\n DO NOTHING Get no payment. Give up rights.\n INQUIRIES\nPlease do not contact the Court regarding this Notice. All inquiries concerning this Notice, the Proof\nof Claim and Release Form (\u201cProof of Claim\u201d), or any other questions by Settlement Class Members\nshould be directed to:\n Flux Power Securities Litigation Phillip Kim\n c/o Strategic Claims Services THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n P.O. Box 230 OR 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 New York, NY 10016\n Media, PA 19063 Tel: 212-686-1060\n Tel: 866-274-4004 Fax: 212-202-3827\n Fax: 610-565-7985 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n Email: info@strategicclaims.net\n DEFINITIONS\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the\nStipulation of Settlement, dated August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n COMMON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT\n1. Why did I get this Notice?\n You or someone in your family may have purchased publicly traded Flux Power common stock\n between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025, both dates inclusive.\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.664 Page 11\n of 34\n\n2. What is this lawsuit about?\n The case is known as Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n (S.D. Cal.) (\u201cAction\u201d). The Action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern\n District of California.\n The Action involves Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by\n making false and misleading statements in Flux Power\u2019s filings with the U.S. Securities and\n Exchange Commission or other public statements to investors concerning, among other things,\n Flux Power\u2019s financial statements, accounting for inventory, and internal control over financial\n reporting. The Complaint asserts that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions artificially\n inflated the price of Flux Power common stock during the Settlement Class Period, and that the\n stock price dropped in response to certain subsequent disclosures. Defendants have denied and\n continue to deny the allegations in the Complaint and all charges of wrongdoing or liability against\n Flux Power or any of its officers, directors, or employees. The Settlement shall in no event be\n construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission or concession by Defendants with respect\n to any claim or any fault or wrongdoing or damage to the Settlement Class Members or any other\n person. The Settlement resolves all of the claims in the Action, as well as certain other claims or\n potential claims.\n3. Why is this a class action?\n In a class action, one or more persons and/or entities, called plaintiffs, sue on behalf of all persons\n and/or entities who have similar claims. All of these persons and/or entities are referred to\n collectively as a class, and these individual persons and/or entities are known as class members.\n One court resolves all of the issues for all class members, except for those class members who\n exclude themselves from the class.\n4. Why is there a Settlement?\n Plaintiffs and Defendants do not agree regarding the merits of Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations and\n Defendants\u2019 defenses with respect to liability or the amount of damages per share, if any, that\n would be recoverable if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial on each claim. The issues on which\n Plaintiffs and Defendants disagree include: (1) whether any Defendants made statements or\n omissions that were materially false or misleading or otherwise actionable under federal securities\n law; (2) whether any Defendants acted with scienter; (3) to the extent any statements or omissions\n were materially false or misleading, whether any subsequent disclosures corrected any prior false\n or misleading statements or omissions by Defendants; (4) the causes of the loss in the value of the\n stock; and (5) the amount of damages, if any, that could be recovered at trial.\n This matter has not gone to trial. Instead, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to settle the case.\n Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe the Settlement is best for all Settlement Class Members\n because of the risks associated with continued litigation and the nature of the defenses Defendants\n would raise. Among the reasons that Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe the Settlement is fair is\n the fact that there is uncertainty about whether they will prevail on Defendants\u2019 pending motions\n to dismiss, whether they would be able to prevail on a motion for class certification, whether they\n would be able to prove their claims at trial, and whether they will be able to prove that the alleged\n misstatements and omissions actually caused the Settlement Class any damages, and the amount\n of damages, if any.\n Even if Plaintiffs were to win at trial, and also prevail on any appeal brought by Defendants,\n Plaintiffs might not be able to collect some, or all, of any judgment the class would be awarded.\n Moreover, litigation of this type is usually expensive, and it appears that, even if Plaintiffs\u2019\n allegations were eventually found to be true, the total amount of damages to which Settlement\n Class Members would be entitled could be substantially reduced.\n 3\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.665 Page 12\n of 34\n\n5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?\n The Settlement Class consists of those persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Flux\n Power common stock between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025, both dates inclusive.\n6. Are there exceptions to being included?\n Yes. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons who suffered no compensable losses;\n and (b) Defendants; the present and former officers, directors, or control persons of Flux Power at\n all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,\n successors, predecessors, or assigns; present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors,\n and predecessors of Flux Power; and any entity in which any of the persons excluded under this\n subsection (b) has or had a controlling or majority ownership interest at any time. Also excluded\n from the Settlement Class are those persons or entities who file valid and timely requests for\n exclusion from the Settlement Class.\n7. I am still not sure whether I am included.\n If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. For more information,\n you can contact the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, by phone at (866) 274-4004,\n by email at info@strategicclaims.net, or by facsimile at (610) 565-7985; visit the website\n www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX; or fill out and return the Proof of Claim and Release Form\n described in Question 9, to see if you qualify.\n8. What does the Settlement provide?\n a. What is the Settlement Fund?\n The proposed Settlement provides that Defendants pay $1,750,000 into a Settlement Fund. The\n Settlement is subject to Court approval. Also, subject to the Court\u2019s approval, a portion of the\n Settlement Fund will be used to pay attorneys\u2019 fees and reasonable litigation expenses to Lead\n Counsel and any award to Plaintiffs. A portion of the Settlement Fund also will be used to pay\n taxes due on interest earned by the Settlement Fund, if necessary, and the costs of the claims\n administration, including the costs of printing and mailing notice and the costs of publishing\n notice. After the foregoing deductions from the Settlement Fund have been made, the amount\n remaining (\u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d) will be distributed according to the Plan of Allocation to be\n approved by the Court to Settlement Class Members who submit timely, valid Proofs of Claim.\n b. What can you expect to receive under the proposed Settlement?\n Your share of the Net Settlement Fund will or may depend on: (i) the number of claims filed; (ii)\n the dates you purchased and sold Flux Power publicly traded common stock; (iii) the prices of\n your purchases and sales; (iv) the amount of administrative costs, including the costs of notice;\n and (v) the amounts awarded by the Court to Lead Counsel for attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, and expenses\n and any awards to Plaintiffs.\n The Claims Administrator will determine each Settlement Class Member\u2019s pro rata share of the\n Net Settlement Fund based upon each Settlement Class Member\u2019s valid \u201cRecognized Loss.\u201d The\n Recognized Loss formula is not intended to be an estimate of the amount that a Settlement Class\n Member might have been able to recover after a trial; it also is not an estimate of the amount that\n will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. The Recognized Loss formula is\n the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately allocated to the Settlement\n Class Members with valid claims.\n The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit a Proof of\n Claim and whose claims for recovery are allowed by the Claims Administrator pursuant to the\n terms of the Stipulation or by order of the Court under the below Plan of Allocation (\u201cAuthorized\n Claimants\u201d), which reflects Plaintiffs\u2019 contention that because of the alleged misrepresentations\n\n 4\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.666 Page 13\n of 34\n\n made by Defendants, the prices of Flux Power common stock were artificially inflated during the\n relevant period and that certain subsequent disclosures caused changes in the inflated prices of\n Flux Power common stock. Defendants have denied these allegations.\n PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION\n The Plan of Allocation is a matter separate and apart from the proposed Settlement, and any\n decision by the Court concerning the Plan of Allocation shall not affect the validity or finality of\n the proposed Settlement. The Court may approve the Plan of Allocation with or without\n modifications agreed to among the Parties, or another plan of allocation, without further notice to\n Settlement Class Members. Any orders regarding a modification of the Plan of Allocation will be\n posted to the Claims Administrator\u2019s website: www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX.\n The Claims Administrator shall determine the pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund of each\n Authorized Claimant based upon each Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss. Please Note: The\n Recognized Loss formula, set forth below, is not intended to be an estimate of the amount that a\n Settlement Class Member might have been able to recover after a trial, nor is it an estimate of the\n amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. The Recognized Loss\n formula is the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately allocated to the\n Authorized Claimants. To the extent there are sufficient funds in the Net Settlement Fund, each\n Authorized Claimant will receive an amount equal to the Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss\n and subject to the provisions in the following paragraphs. If, however, the amount in the Net\n Settlement Fund is not sufficient to permit payment of the total Recognized Loss of each\n Authorized Claimant, then each Authorized Claimant shall be paid the percentage of the Net\n Settlement Fund that each Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss bears to the total Recognized\n Losses of all Authorized Claimants and subject to the provisions in the preceding paragraph (i.e.,\n \u201cpro rata share\u201d). No distribution will be made on a claim where the potential distribution amount\n is less than ten dollars ($10.00) in cash.\n If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks, or otherwise, after\n the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants\n who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution\n checks, then any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund six months after the initial\n distribution of such funds shall be used: (i) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the\n initial distribution to Authorized Claimants; (ii) second, to pay any additional Administrative Costs\n incurred in administering the Settlement; and (iii) finally, to make a second distribution to\n Authorized Claimants who cashed their checks from the initial distribution and who would receive\n at least $10.00 from such second distribution, after payment of the estimated costs or fees to be\n incurred in administering the Net Settlement Fund and in making this second distribution, if such\n second distribution is economically feasible. Six months after such second distribution, if\n undertaken, or if such second distribution is not undertaken, if any funds remain in the Net\n Settlement Fund after the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have\n Authorized Claimants who are entitled to participate in this Settlement cash their checks, any funds\n remaining in the Net Settlement Fund shall be donated to a non-profit charitable organization(s)\n selected by Lead Counsel.\n THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING YOUR RECOGNIZED LOSS:\n Each Authorized Claimant shall be allocated a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on\n their Recognized Loss as compared to the total Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants.\n Recognized Losses for publicly traded Flux Power common stock purchased during the Settlement\n Class Period will be calculated as follows:\n\n 5\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.667 Page 14\n of 34\n\n (A) For shares purchased during the Settlement Class Period and sold during the\n Settlement Class Period, the Recognized Loss per share will be the lesser of:\n (1) the inflation per share upon purchase (as set forth in Inflation Table A\n below) less the inflation per share upon sale (as set forth in Inflation Table A\n below); or (2) the purchase price per share minus the sales price per share.\n (B) For shares purchased during the Settlement Class Period and sold during the\n period from February 18, 2025 through May 16, 2025, inclusive, the\n Recognized Loss will be the lesser of: (1) the inflation per share upon purchase\n (as set forth in Inflation Table A below); or (2) the difference between the\n purchase price per share and the average closing share price as of date of sale\n provided in Table B below.\n (C) For shares purchased during the Settlement Class Period and retained as of the\n close of trading on May 16, 2025, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser of: (1)\n the inflation per share upon purchase (as set forth in Inflation Table A below);\n or (2) the purchase price per share minus $1.61 1 per share.\n\n INFLATION TABLE A\n Period Inflation\n November 15, 2021 to September 5, 2024 $1.16 per share\n September 6, 2024 to September 30, 2024 $1.05 per share\n October 1, 2024 to November 17, 2024 $0.91 per share\n November 18, 2024 to November 21, 2024 $0.79 per share\n November 22, 2024 to January 7, 2025 $0.46 per share\n January 8, 2025 to February 14, 2025 $0.19 per share\n After February 14, 2025 $0.00 per share\n\n Table B\n Average Average\n Closing Closing Closing Closing\n Date Price Price Date Price Price\n 2/18/2025 $1.46 $1.46 4/3/2025 $1.53 $1.56\n 2/19/2025 $1.42 $1.44 4/4/2025 $1.46 $1.55\n 2/20/2025 $1.49 $1.46 4/7/2025 $1.43 $1.55\n 2/21/2025 $1.53 $1.48 4/8/2025 $1.39 $1.55\n 2/24/2025 $1.43 $1.47 4/9/2025 $1.54 $1.55\n 2/25/2025 $1.39 $1.45 4/10/2025 $1.51 $1.54\n 2/26/2025 $1.38 $1.44 4/11/2025 $1.49 $1.54\n\n1\n Pursuant to Section 21(D)(e)(1) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, \u201cin any private\naction arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to establish damages by reference to the market\nprice of a security, the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the\npurchase or sale price paid or received, as appropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and mean\ntrading price of that security during the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the information\ncorrecting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated.\u201d The mean daily\nclosing trading price of Flux Power\u2019s shares during the 90-day period beginning on February 18, 2025\nthrough and including May 16, 2025 was $1.61.\n\n 6\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.668 Page 15\n of 34\n\n Table B\n Average Average\n Closing Closing Closing Closing\n Date Price Price Date Price Price\n 2/27/2025 $1.26 $1.42 4/14/2025 $1.48 $1.54\n 2/28/2025 $1.28 $1.40 4/15/2025 $1.49 $1.54\n 3/3/2025 $1.29 $1.39 4/16/2025 $1.38 $1.54\n 3/4/2025 $1.21 $1.38 4/17/2025 $1.40 $1.53\n 3/5/2025 $1.21 $1.36 4/21/2025 $1.44 $1.53\n 3/6/2025 $1.34 $1.36 4/22/2025 $1.51 $1.53\n 3/7/2025 $1.41 $1.36 4/23/2025 $1.70 $1.53\n 3/10/2025 $1.31 $1.36 4/24/2025 $1.65 $1.54\n 3/11/2025 $1.42 $1.36 4/25/2025 $1.68 $1.54\n 3/12/2025 $1.35 $1.36 4/28/2025 $1.70 $1.54\n 3/13/2025 $1.36 $1.36 4/29/2025 $1.72 $1.55\n 3/14/2025 $1.41 $1.37 4/30/2025 $1.69 $1.55\n 3/17/2025 $1.82 $1.39 5/1/2025 $1.73 $1.55\n 3/18/2025 $1.82 $1.41 5/2/2025 $1.71 $1.56\n 3/19/2025 $1.62 $1.42 5/5/2025 $1.81 $1.56\n 3/20/2025 $1.63 $1.43 5/6/2025 $1.77 $1.56\n 3/21/2025 $1.95 $1.45 5/7/2025 $1.91 $1.57\n 3/24/2025 $2.10 $1.48 5/8/2025 $1.97 $1.58\n 3/25/2025 $2.07 $1.50 5/9/2025 $1.89 $1.58\n 3/26/2025 $1.94 $1.51 5/12/2025 $2.03 $1.59\n 3/27/2025 $2.03 $1.53 5/13/2025 $1.99 $1.60\n 3/28/2025 $1.88 $1.55 5/14/2025 $1.83 $1.60\n 3/31/2025 $1.72 $1.55 5/15/2025 $1.90 $1.61\n 4/1/2025 $1.64 $1.55 5/16/2025 $1.90 $1.61\n 4/2/2025 $1.63 $1.56\n\n To the extent a Claimant had a trading gain or \u201cbroke even\u201d from their overall transactions in Flux\n Power common stock during the Settlement Class Period, their Recognized Loss will be zero and\n the Claimant will not be entitled to a share of the Net Settlement Fund. To the extent that a\n Claimant suffered a trading loss on their overall transactions in Flux Power common stock during\n the Settlement Class Period, but that trading loss was less than the Recognized Loss calculated\n above, then the Recognized Loss shall be limited to the amount of the Claimant\u2019s actual trading\n loss.\n For purposes of calculating your Recognized Loss, the date of purchase or sale is the \u201ccontract\u201d or\n \u201ctrade\u201d date and not the \u201csettlement\u201d or \u201cpayment\u201d date. The receipt or grant by gift, inheritance\n or operation of law of Flux Power common stock shall not be deemed a purchase or sale for the\n calculation of an Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss. The covering purchase of a short sale\n is not an eligible purchase.\n For purposes of calculating your Recognized Loss, all purchases and sales shall be matched on a\n First In First Out (\u201cFIFO\u201d) basis in chronological order. Therefore, on the Proof of Claim enclosed\n with this Notice, you must provide all your purchases and sales of Flux Power publicly traded\n common stock during the period from November 15, 2021 through and including May 16, 2025.\n 7\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.669 Page 16\n of 34\n\n Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court shall be conclusive against all\n Claimants. No person shall have any claim against Defendants, Defendants\u2019 counsel, Plaintiffs,\n Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator or other agent designated by Lead Counsel based on\n the distributions made substantially in accordance with the Stipulation and the Settlement\n contained therein, the Plan of Allocation, or further orders of the Court. Each Claimant shall be\n deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the Claimant\u2019s Proof of\n Claim. All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect\n of the processing of the claims submitted in connection with the Settlement, or otherwise involved\n in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund shall be\n released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement, and all Settlement\n Class Members, whether or not they are to receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, will be\n barred from making any further claim against the Net Settlement Fund beyond the amount\n allocated to them as provided in any distribution orders entered by the Court.\n9. How can I get a payment?\n To qualify for a payment, you must send in a form entitled \u201cProof of Claim and Release Form.\u201d\n This form is attached to this Notice. You may also obtain this form on the Settlement website at\n www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, and sign it in\n the location indicated. The Proof of Claim and Release Form may be completed in two ways: (1)\n by completing and submitting it electronically at www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX by 11:59 p.m.\n ET on March 3, 2026; or (2) by mailing the claim form together with all documentation requested\n in the form, postmarked no later than March 3, 2026, to the Claims Administrator at:\n Flux Power Securities Litigation\n c/o Strategic Claims Services\n 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\n P.O. Box 230\n Media, PA 19063\n Fax: 610-565-7985\n info@strategicclaims.net\n The Claims Administrator will process your claim and determine whether you are an Authorized\n Claimant.\n10. What am I giving up to get a payment or stay in the Class?\n Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by the March 12, 2026 deadline, you will\n remain a member of the Settlement Class and will be bound by the release of claims against the\n Defendants and other Released Parties if the Settlement is approved. That means you and all other\n Settlement Class Members and each of their respective parent entities, associates, affiliates,\n subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, attorneys, immediate family members, heirs,\n representatives, administrators, executors, devisees, legatees, and estates will release (agreeing\n never to sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit) as against the Defendants and other\n Released Parties any and all claims which arise out of, are based upon or relate in any way to the\n purchase of Flux Power publicly traded common stock during the Settlement Class Period. It\n means that all of the Court\u2019s orders will apply to you and legally bind you. That means you will\n accept a share of the Net Settlement Fund as the sole compensation for any losses you suffered in\n the purchase or sale of Flux Power common stock during the Settlement Class Period. The specific\n terms of the release are included in the Stipulation.\n11. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?\n If you do not want to receive a payment from this Settlement, and you want to keep any right you\n may have to sue or continue to sue Defendants or other Released Parties on your own about the\n 8\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.670 Page 17\n of 34\n\n claims being released in this Settlement, then you must take steps to exclude yourself from the\n Settlement. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send an email or mail a letter that\n (A) clearly indicates your name, address, phone number and e-mail contact information (if any)\n and states that you \u201crequest to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Kassam v. Flux Power\n Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-113 (S.D. Cal.);\u201d (B) states the date, number of shares and\n dollar amount of each Flux Power common stock purchase during the Settlement Class Period,\n and any sale transactions; and (C) states the number of shares of Flux Power common stock held\n by you as of the opening of trading on November 15, 2021 and the close of trading on February\n 14, 2025. To be valid, such request for exclusion must be submitted with documentary proof (i) of\n each purchase and, if applicable, sale transaction of Flux Power common stock during the\n Settlement Class Period, and (ii) demonstrating your status as a beneficial owner of the Flux Power\n common stock. Any such request for exclusion must be signed (electronically if by email) and\n submitted by you, as the beneficial owner, under penalty of perjury. You must email or mail your\n exclusion request, to be received no later than March 12, 2026, to the Claims Administrator at the\n following address:\n Flux Power Securities Litigation\n c/o Strategic Claims Services\n 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\n P.O. Box 230\n Media, PA 19063\n info@strategicclaims.net\n You cannot exclude yourself by telephone.\n If you properly exclude yourself, you will not receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund,\n you cannot object to the Settlement, and you will not be legally bound by the Final Judgment in\n this case.\n12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants for the same thing later?\n No. Unless you followed the procedure outlined in this Notice and the Court\u2019s Preliminary\n Approval Order to exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue the Defendants or other Released\n Parties for the claims being released in this Settlement. If you have a pending lawsuit related to\n any Released Claims, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately, since you must exclude\n yourself from this Settlement Class to continue your own lawsuit.\n13. Do I have a lawyer in this case?\n The Court appointed The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other\n Settlement Class Members. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one\n at your own expense. Contact information for The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is provided above.\n14. How will the lawyers be paid?\n Lead Counsel have expended considerable time litigating this action on a contingent fee basis and\n have paid for the expenses of the case themselves. They have not been paid attorneys\u2019 fees or\n reimbursed for their expenses in advance of this Settlement. Lead Counsel have done so with the\n expectation that, if they are successful in recovering money for the Settlement Class, they will\n receive attorneys\u2019 fees and be reimbursed for their litigation expenses from the Settlement Fund,\n as is customary in this type of litigation. Lead Counsel will not receive attorneys\u2019 fees or be\n reimbursed for their litigation expenses except from the Settlement Fund. Therefore, Lead Counsel\n will file a motion asking the Court at the Settlement Hearing to make an award of attorneys\u2019 fees\n in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, or $583,333.33, for reimbursement\n of reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed $75,000, and an award to Plaintiffs in an amount\n\n 9\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.671 Page 18\n of 34\n\n not to exceed $15,000 in total. The Court may award less than these amounts. Any amounts\n awarded by the Court will come out of the Settlement Fund.\n15. How do I tell the Court that I object to the Settlement?\n You can tell the Court you do not agree with the Settlement, any part of the Settlement, the Plan\n of Allocation, Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, or application for an award\n to Plaintiffs, and that you think the Court should not approve any or all of the foregoing, by mailing\n a letter stating that you object to the Settlement in the matter of as Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings,\n Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-113 (S.D. Cal.). Be sure to include (1) your name, address, and\n telephone number; (2) a list of all purchases and sales of Flux Power common stock during the\n Settlement Class Period in order to show membership in the Settlement Class; (3) all grounds for\n the objection, including any legal support known to you or your counsel; (4) the name, address\n and telephone number of all counsel, if any, who represent you; and (5) the number of times you\n and/or your counsel has filed an objection to a class action settlement in the last five years, the\n nature of each such objection in each case, the jurisdiction in each case, and the name of the issuer\n of the security or seller of the product or service at issue in each case. Attendance at the Settlement\n Hearing is not necessary. Objectors wishing to be heard orally at the Settlement Hearing are\n required to indicate in their written objection (or in a separate writing that is submitted in\n accordance with the deadline and after instruction pertinent to the submission of a written\n objection) that they intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing and identify any witnesses they may\n call to testify or exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. Be sure\n to serve copies of any objections, papers, and briefs to each of the addresses listed below, and file\n proof of service upon lead Counsel and Counsel for Defendants with the Clerk of the Court, to be\n received no later than March 12, 2026:\n Clerk of the Court LEAD COUNSEL: COUNSEL FOR\n United States District Court THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. DEFENDANTS:\n Southern District of California Phillip Kim WILSON SONSINI\n 333 West Broadway 275 Madison Avenue GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.\n Suite 420 40th Floor Caz Hashemi\n San Diego, CA 92101 New York, NY 10016 650 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n WILSON ELSER\n MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &\n DICKER LLP\n David Aveni\n 401 W. A Street, Suite 1900\n San Diego, CA 92101\n16. What is the difference between objecting and requesting exclusion?\n Objecting is simply telling the Court you do not like something about the Settlement or some\n portion thereof. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. Requesting exclusion is\n telling the Court you do not want to be part of the Settlement Class and Settlement. If you exclude\n yourself, you cannot object to the Settlement because it no longer concerns you. If you stay in the\n Settlement Class and object, but your objection is overruled, you will not be allowed a second\n opportunity to exclude yourself.\n17. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?\n The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on April 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. PT, at the U.S. District\n Court, Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, Courtroom\n\n 10\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.672 Page 19\n of 34\n\n 4C, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, or by telephonic or videoconference means as\n directed by the Court.\n At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate\n and whether to approve the Settlement. If there are objections, the Court will consider them, and\n the Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide\n whether to approve the Plan of Allocation, as well as how much to pay Lead Counsel for attorneys\u2019\n fees and expenses and how much to award to Plaintiffs.\n18. Do I have to come to the hearing?\n No. Lead Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. However, you are welcome to\n attend at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk\n about it. As long as you mail your written objection on time, the Court will consider it.\n19. What happens if I do nothing at all?\n If you do nothing, you will not receive a payment from the Settlement. However, unless you\n exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any\n other lawsuit against Defendants or the Released Parties about the Released Claims (as defined in\n the Stipulation) ever again.\n\n\n\nDATED: December 10, 2025 _____________________________________\n BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES\n DISTRICT COURT FOR THE\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.673 Page 20\n of 34\n\n PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM\n\nDeadline for Submission: March 3, 2026\n\nIF YOU PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF FLUX POWER\nHOLDINGS, INC. (\u201cFLUX POWER\u201d) BETWEEN NOVEMBER 15, 2021 AND FEBRUARY 14, 2025,\nBOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (\u201cSETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD\u201d), YOU ARE A \u201cSETTLEMENT\nCLASS MEMBER\u201d AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT\nPROCEEDS. (EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS; THE\nPRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR CONTROL PERSONS OF FLUX POWER\nAT ALL RELEVANT TIMES; THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, LEGAL\nREPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS OF SUCH EXCLUDED PERSONS;\nAND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH ANY EXCLUDED PERSON HAS OR HAD A CONTROLLING OR\nMAJORITY OWNERSHIP INTEREST AT ANY TIME. ALSO EXCLUDED ARE THOSE WHO\nVALIDLY OPT OUT AND THOSE WITH NO COMPENSATORY LOSSES).\n\nIF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A\nPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM (\u201cPROOF OF CLAIM\u201d) IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE\nFOR ANY SETTLEMENT BENEFITS. YOU CAN COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THE ELECTRONIC\nVERSION OF THIS PROOF OF CLAIM BY 11:59 P.M. ET ON MARCH 3, 2026 AT\nWWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/FLUX.\n\nIF YOU DO NOT COMPLETE AND SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS PROOF OF\nCLAIM, YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SIGN THIS PROOF OF CLAIM AND MAIL IT BY FIRST\nCLASS MAIL, POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MARCH 3, 2026 TO STRATEGIC CLAIMS\nSERVICES, THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:\n\n Flux Power Securities Litigation\n c/o Strategic Claims Services\n 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\n P.O. Box 230\n Media, PA 19063\n Tel.: 866-274-4004\n Fax: 610-565-7985\n info@strategicclaims.net\n\nYOUR FAILURE TO SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM BY MARCH 3, 2026 WILL SUBJECT YOUR CLAIM\nTO REJECTION AND PRECLUDE YOU FROM RECEIVING ANY MONEY IN CONNECTION\nWITH THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. DO NOT MAIL OR DELIVER YOUR CLAIM TO\nTHE COURT OR TO ANY OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL, AS ANY SUCH CLAIM WILL\nBE DEEMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM ONLY TO THE\nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOT\nSUBMIT A PROPER PROOF OF CLAIM, YOU WILL NOT SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT, BUT\nYOU NEVERTHELESS WILL BE BOUND BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT UNLESS\nYOU EXCLUDE YOURSELF.\n\nSUBMISSION OF A PROOF OF CLAIM DOES NOT ASSURE THAT YOU WILL SHARE IN THE\nPROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT.\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.674 Page 21\n of 34\n\n CLAIMANT\u2019S STATEMENT\n\n1. I (we) purchased the publicly traded common stock of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d)\n during the Settlement Class Period. (Do not submit this Proof of Claim if you did not purchase publicly\n traded Flux Power common stock during the Settlement Class Period.)\n\n2. By submitting this Proof of Claim, I (we) state that I (we) believe in good faith that I am (we are) a\n Settlement Class Member(s) as defined above or am (are) acting for such person(s); that I am (we are)\n not a Defendant(s) in the Action or anyone excluded from the Settlement Class; that I (we) have read\n and understand the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cNotice\u201d); that I\n (we) believe that I am (we are) entitled to receive a share of the Net Settlement Fund; that I (we) elect\n to participate in the proposed Settlement; and that I (we) have not filed a request for exclusion. (If you\n are acting in a representative capacity on behalf of a Settlement Class Member [e.g., as an executor,\n administrator, trustee, or other representative], you must submit evidence of your current authority to\n act on behalf of that Settlement Class Member. Such evidence would include, for example, letters\n testamentary, letters of administration, or a copy of the trust documents.)\n\n3. I (we) consent to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to all questions concerning the validity of\n this Proof of Claim. I (we) understand and agree that my (our) claim may be subject to investigation\n and discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provided that such investigation and\n discovery shall be limited to my (our) status as a Settlement Class Member(s) and the validity and\n amount of my (our) claim. No discovery shall be allowed on the merits of the Action or Settlement in\n connection with processing of the Proof of Claim.\n\n4. I (we) have set forth where requested below all relevant information with respect to each purchase of\n Flux Power publicly traded common stock during the time period requested below, and each sale, if\n any, of the same. I (we) agree to furnish additional information to the Claims Administrator to support\n this claim if requested to do so.\n\n5. I (we) have enclosed photocopies of the stockbroker\u2019s confirmation slips, stockbroker\u2019s statements, or\n other documents evidencing each purchase and sale of Flux Power publicly traded common stock\n listed below in support of my (our) claim. (IF ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN YOUR\n POSSESSION, PLEASE OBTAIN A COPY OR EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS FROM YOUR\n BROKER OR TAX ADVISOR BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE\n AND PROCESS YOUR CLAIM.)\n\n6. I (we) understand that the information contained in this Proof of Claim is subject to such verification\n as the Claims Administrator may request or as the Court may direct, and I (we) agree to cooperate in\n any such verification. (The information requested herein is designed to provide the minimum amount\n of information necessary to process most simple claims. The Claims Administrator may request\n additional information as required to efficiently and reliably calculate your Recognized Loss. In some\n cases, the Claims Administrator may condition acceptance of the claim upon the production of\n additional information, including, where applicable, information concerning transactions in any\n derivative securities, such as options.)\n\n7. Upon the occurrence of the Court\u2019s approval of the Settlement, I (we) agree and acknowledge that my\n (our) signature(s) hereto shall effect and constitute a full and complete release, remise, and discharge\n by me (us) and my (our) parent entities, associates, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors,\n assigns, attorneys, immediate family members, heirs, representatives, administrators, executors,\n\n 13\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.675 Page 22\n of 34\n\n devisees, legatees, and estates (or, if I am (we are) submitting this Proof of Claim on behalf of a\n corporation, a partnership, an estate, or one or more other persons, by them and by their parent entities,\n associates, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, attorneys, immediate family\n members, heirs, representatives, administrators, executors, devisees, legatees, and estates) of each of\n the \u201cReleased Parties\u201d of all \u201cReleased Claims,\u201d as those terms are defined in the Stipulation of\n Settlement, dated August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\n8. Upon the occurrence of the Court\u2019s approval of the Settlement, I (we) agree and acknowledge that my\n (our) signature(s) hereto shall effect and constitute a covenant by me (us) and my (our) parent entities,\n associates, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, attorneys, immediate family\n members, heirs, representatives, administrators, executors, devisees, legatees, and estates (or, if I am\n (we are) submitting this Proof of Claim on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or one or\n more other persons, by them and by their parent entities, associates, affiliates, subsidiaries,\n predecessors, successors, assigns, attorneys, immediate family members, heirs, representatives,\n administrators, executors, devisees, legatees, and estates) to permanently refrain from prosecuting or\n attempting to prosecute any Released Claims against any of the Released Parties.\n\n9. \u201cReleased Parties\u201d has the meaning defined in the Stipulation.\n\n10. \u201cReleased Claims\u201d has the meaning defined in the Stipulation.\n\n11. \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d has the meaning defined in the Stipulation.\n\n12. I (we) agree and acknowledge that I (we) may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from\n those which I (we) now know or believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but I (we)\n agree and acknowledge that, upon the Effective Date, as defined in the Stipulation, I (we) shall be\n deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled\n and released any and all Released Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent\n or non-contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed,\n upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but\n not limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of fiduciary\n duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or\n additional facts. I (we) agree and acknowledge that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for\n and a key element of the Settlement of which this release is a part.\n\n13. NOTICE REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL FILERS: Representatives with the authority to file on\n behalf of (a) accounts of multiple Persons and/or (b) institutional accounts with large numbers of\n transactions (\u201cRepresentative Filers\u201d) must submit information regarding their clients\u2019 transactions in\n the approved electronic spreadsheet format, which is available by request to the Claims Administrator\n at efile@strategicclaims.net or by visiting the website www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX. One\n spreadsheet may contain the information for multiple Persons and institutional accounts who constitute\n distinct legal entities (\u201cLegal Entities\u201d), but all Representative Filers MUST also submit a manually\n signed Proof of Claim and Release Form, as well as proof of authority to file (see Item 2 of the\n Claimant\u2019s Statement) along with the electronic spreadsheet. The transactions and holdings in Flux\n Power publicly traded common stock should be reported in the electronic file so that each resulting\n Claim corresponds to a single Legal Entity, regardless of the number of individually managed accounts\n the Legal Entity has, as only one Claim will be processed per Legal Entity (e.g. a Representative Filer\n reporting the transactions for a fund with multiple sub-accounts should report one total holding at the\n start of the Settlement Class Period, one total holding at the end of the Settlement Class Period, and a\n\n 14\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.676 Page 23\n of 34\n\n single set of transactions that includes all transactions made by the Legal Entity across their sub-\n accounts; this would constitute and be processed as a single Claim). The Claims Administrator\n reserves the right to combine a Legal Entity\u2019s accounts into a single Claim prior to processing in the\n event that a Legal Entity\u2019s accounts are divided across multiple Claims when submitted by the\n Representative Filer. The Claims Administrator also reserves the right to request additional\n documentary proof regarding a Legal Entity\u2019s transactions and holdings in Flux Power common stock\n to prove and accurately process the Claim. No claims submitted in electronic spreadsheet format will\n be considered to have been properly submitted unless the Claims Administrator issues to the Claimant\n a written acknowledgment of receipt and acceptance of electronically submitted data.\n\n14. NOTICE REGARDING ONLINE FILING: Claimants who are not Representative Filers may submit\n their claims online using the electronic version of the Proof of Claim and Release Form hosted at\n www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX. If you are not acting as a Representative Filer, you do not need to\n contact the Claims Administrator prior to filing; you will receive an automated e-mail confirming\n receipt once your Proof of Claim and Release Form has been submitted. If you are unsure if you\n should submit your claim as a Representative Filer, please contact the Claims Administrator at\n info@strategicclaims.net or (866) 274-4004. If you are not a Representative Filer, but your claim\n contains a large number of transactions, the Claims Administrator may request that you also submit\n an electronic spreadsheet showing your transactions to accompany your Proof of Claim and Release\n Form.\n\n15. In order to provide accurate claims processing, you must provide all transactions in Flux Power\n publicly traded common stock between November 15, 2021 and May 16, 2025, both dates inclusive.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.677 Page 24\n of 34\n FLUX POWER\n I. CLAIMANT INFORMATION\nBeneficial Owner Name:\n\nRecord Owner Name:\n\nAddress:\n\n\n\n\nCity State ZIP\n\nForeign Province Foreign Country\n\nDay Phone Evening Phone\n\nEmail\n\n Social Security Number (for individuals): OR Taxpayer Identification Number (for estates, trusts,\n corporations, etc.):\n\n\n II. SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC. (\u201cFLUX POWER\u201d)\n PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK\n\n Beginning Holdings:\n A. State the total number of shares of Flux Power publicly traded __________\n common stock held at the opening of trading on November 15, 2021\n (must be documented). If none, write \u201czero\u201d or \u201c0.\u201d\n\n Purchases:\n B. Separately list each and every purchase of Flux Power publicly traded common stock between\n November 15, 2021 and May 16, 2025, both dates inclusive, and provide the following information\n (must be documented):\n\n Trade Date Total Cost\n (List (Excluding\n Chronologically) Number of Shares Price per Commissions,\n (Month/Day/Year) Purchased Share Taxes, and Fees)\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.678 Page 25\n of 34\n FLUX POWER\nSales:\nC. Separately list each and every sale of Flux Power publicly traded common stock between November\n15, 2021 and May 16, 2025, both dates inclusive, and provide the following information (must be\ndocumented):\n\n Trade Date Amount Received\n (List (Excluding\n Chronologically) Number of Shares Price per Commissions,\n (Month/Day/Year) Sold Share Taxes, and Fees)\n\n\n\n\nEnding Holdings:\nD. State the total number of Flux Power publicly traded common stock __________\n held at the close of trading on May 16, 2025 (must be documented).\n\nIf additional space is needed, attach separate, numbered sheets, giving all required information,\nsubstantially in the same format, and print your name and Social Security or Taxpayer\nIdentification number at the top of each sheet.\n\nIII. SUBSTITUTE FORM W-9\n\nRequest for Taxpayer Identification Number:\n\nEnter taxpayer identification number below for the Beneficial Owner(s). For most individuals, this is your\nSocial Security Number. The Internal Revenue Service (\u201cI.R.S.\u201d) requires such taxpayer identification\nnumber. If you fail to provide this information, your claim may be rejected.\n\n Social Security Number (for or Taxpayer Identification Number\n individuals) (for estates, trusts, corporations, etc.)\n\n _____________________________ _______________________________\n _\n\nIV. CERTIFICATION\n\nI (We) submit this Proof of Claim under the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement described in the\nNotice. I (We) also submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District\nof California with respect to my (our) claim as a Settlement Class Member(s) and for purposes of enforcing\nthe release and covenant not to sue set forth herein. I (We) further acknowledge that I am (we are) bound\nby and subject to the terms of any judgment that may be entered in this Action. I (We) have not submitted\nany other claim covering the same purchases or sales of Flux Power common stock during the Settlement\nClass Period and know of no other Person having done so on my (our) behalf.\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.679 Page 26\n of 34\n FLUX POWER\nI (We) certify that I am (we are) NOT subject to backup withholding under the provisions of Section 3406\n(a)(1)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code because: (a) I am (We are) exempt from backup withholding; or\n(b) I (We) have not been notified by the I.R.S. that I am (we are) subject to backup withholding as a result\nof a failure to report all interest or dividends; or (c) the I.R.S. has notified me (us) that I am (we are) no\nlonger subject to backup withholding.\n\nNOTE: If you have been notified by the I.R.S. that you are subject to backup withholding, please strike\nout the language that you are not subject to backup withholding in the certification above.\n\nUNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, I (WE)\nCERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION I (WE) PROVIDED ON THIS PROOF OF CLAIM\nAND RELEASE FORM IS TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE.\n\n Signature of Claimant (If this claim is being made\n on behalf of Joint Claimants, then each must sign):\n\n ________________________________________\n (Signature)\n\n\n ________________________________________\n (Signature)\n\n ________________________________________\n (Capacity of person(s) signing, e.g. beneficial\n purchaser(s), executor, administrator, trustee, etc.)\n \uf096 Check here if proof of authority to file is enclosed.\n (See Item 2 under Claimant\u2019s Statement)\n\n\nDate: ____________________\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.680 Page 27\n of 34\n\nTHIS PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE AT\nWWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/FLUX NO LATER THAN 11:59 P.M. ET ON MARCH 3,\n2026, OR POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MARCH 3, 2026 AND MUST BE MAILED TO:\n\n Flux Power Securities Litigation\n c/o Strategic Claims Services\n 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\n P.O. Box 230\n Media, PA 19063\n Tel.: 866-274-4004\n Fax: 610-565-7985\n info@strategicclaims.net\n\nA Proof of Claim received by the Claims Administrator shall be deemed to have been submitted when\nposted, if mailed by March 3, 2026, and if a postmark is indicated on the envelope and it is mailed first\nclass and addressed in accordance with the above instructions. In all other cases, a Proof of Claim shall\nbe deemed to have been submitted when actually received by the Claims Administrator.\n\nYou should be aware that it will take a significant amount of time to process fully all of the Proofs of\nClaim and to administer the Settlement. This work will be completed as promptly as time permits, given\nthe need to investigate and tabulate each Proof of Claim. Please notify the Claims Administrator of any\nchange of address.\n\n REMINDER CHECKLIST\n\n o Please be sure to sign this Proof of Claim on page 18. If this Proof of Claim is submitted on behalf\n of joint claimants, then both claimants must sign.\n\n o Please remember to attach supporting documents. Do NOT send any stock certificates. Keep\n copies of everything you submit.\n\n o Do NOT use highlighter on the Proof of Claim or any supporting documents.\n\n o If you move or change your address, telephone number, or email address, please submit the new\n information to the Claims Administrator, as well as any other information that will assist us in\n contacting you. NOTE: Failure to submit updated information to the Claims Administrator may\n result in the Claims Administrator\u2019s inability to contact you regarding issues with your claim or to\n deliver payment to you.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.681 Page 28\n of 34\n\n Flux Power Securities Litigation\nc/o Strategic Claims Services\n600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205\nMedia, PA 19063\n\nIMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE \u2013 PLEASE FORWARD\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 EXHIBIT\n PageID.682 Page 29 B\n of 34\n REQUEST FOR NAMES, EMAILS AND ADDRESSES OF CLASS MEMBERS\n STRATEGIC CLAIMS SERVICES\n 600 N. JACKSON STREET, SUITE 205\n MEDIA, PA 19063\n PHONE: (610) 565-9202 EMAIL: info@strategicclaims.net FAX: (610) 565-7985\n\nDecember 23, 2025\n\nThis letter is being sent to all entities whose names have been made available to us, or which we believe may know of\npotential Settlement Class Members.\nWe request that you assist us in identifying any individuals/entities who fit the following description:\nALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF FLUX POWER HOLDINGS,\nINC. (\u201cFLUX POWER\u201d) DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 15, 2021 AND FEBRUARY 14, 2025, BOTH DATES\nINCLUSIVE.\nExcluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Persons who suffered no compensable losses, (b) Defendants; the\npresent and former officers, directors, or control persons of Flux Power at all relevant times; members of their\nimmediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, or assigns; present and former\nparents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, and predecessors of Flux Power; and any entity in which any of the\npersons excluded under this subsection (b) has or had a controlling or majority ownership interest at any time.\nThe information below may assist you in finding the above requested information:\n\n Flux Power Securities Litigation Security Identifiers:\n Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n Claim Filing Deadline: March 3, 2026 Cusip Number: 344057203 (old)\n Exclusion Deadline: March 12, 2026 Cusip Number: 344057302 (new)\n Objection Deadline: March 12, 2026 ISIN: US3440572036 (old)\n Notice To Appear Deadline: March 12, 2026 ISIN: US3440573026 (new)\n Settlement Hearing: April 2, 2026 Ticker Symbol: NASDAQ: FLUX\n\n PER COURT ORDER, PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE.\nPlease comply in one of the following ways:\n 1. If you have no beneficial purchasers/owners, please advise us in writing; or\n 2. Supply us with names, last known addresses, and email addresses (to the extent known) of your\n beneficial purchasers/owners and we will do the emailing of the link to the location of the Notice of\n Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cLong Notice\u201d) and the Proof of Claim and Release\n Form (\u201cProof of Claim\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cLong Notice and Proof of Claim\u201d) or mailing of the Postcard\n Notice. Please provide us this information electronically. If you are not able to do this, labels will be\n accepted, but it is important that a hardcopy list also be submitted of your clients; or\n 3. Advise us of how many beneficial purchasers/owners you have, and we will supply you with ample\n postcards to do the mailing. After the receipt of the Postcard Notices, you have ten (10) calendar days to\n mail them; or\n 4. Request links to the location of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim and email the link to each of your\n beneficial purchasers/owners within ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof.\nYou can bill us for any reasonable expenses actually incurred and not to exceed:\n \uf0b7 $0.02 per Long Notice and Proof of Claim link emailed, OR\n \uf0b7 $0.02 per name, address and email address if you are providing us the records, OR\n \uf0b7 $0.02 per name and address, including materials, plus postage at the pre-sort rate used by the Claims Administrator if\n you are requesting the Postcard Notice and performing the mailing.\nAll invoices must be received within 30 days of this letter.\nYou are on record as having been notified of the legal matter. A copy of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim and other\nimportant case-related documents are available on our website at www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX. You can also\nrequest a copy via email at info@strategicclaims.net.\nThank you for your prompt response.\n\nSincerely,\nClaims Administrator\nFlux Power Securities Litigation\n\f Court-Ordered Legal Notice Flux Power Securities Litigation\n c/o Strategic Claims Services\n Forwarding Service Requested 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205\n Media, PA 19063\n\n Important Notice about a Securities\n Class Action Settlement\n\n You may be entitled to a payment.\nThis Notice may affect your legal rights.\n\n\n Please read it carefully.\n Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n Document 70-3\n of 34\n Filed 03/05/26\n PageID.683\n Page 30\n\f Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL (S.D. Cal.)\n THIS CARD ONLY PROVIDES LIMITED INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.\n PLEASE VISIT WWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/FLUX OR CALL 1-866-274-4004 FOR MORE INFORMATION.\nThere has been a proposed Settlement of all claims against Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d) and certain of its officers and\ndirectors (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d). The Settlement resolves a lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of the federal\nsecurities laws, Defendants misled investors about Flux Power\u2019s financial statements and internal controls, issuing materially false and\nmisleading statements and causing damages to Settlement Class Members. Defendants deny any wrongdoing.\nYou received this Notice because you or someone in your family may have purchased Flux Power common stock between November\n15, 2021 and February 14, 2025, both dates inclusive. The Settlement provides that, in exchange for the settlement and dismissal and\nrelease of Defendants, a fund consisting of $1,750,000 (\u201cSettlement Fund\u201d), less attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, will be divided among\nall Settlement Class Members who submit valid Proof of Claim and Release Forms (\u201cProof of Claim\u201d). For a full description of the\nSettlement, your rights, and to make a claim, please view the Stipulation of Settlement at www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX and please\nrequest a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cLong Notice\u201d) and Proof of Claim by contacting\nthe Claims Administrator in any of the following ways: (1) mail: Flux Power Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600\nN. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (2) call: toll free, (866) 274-4004; (3) fax: (610) 565-7985; (4) email:\ninfo@strategicclaims.net; or (5) visit the website: www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX.\nTo qualify for payment, you must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator. A copy of the Proof of Claim can be found on\nthe website. PROOF OF CLAIMS ARE DUE BY MARCH 3, 2026 TO FLUX POWER SECURITIES LITIGATION, C/O\nSTRATEGIC CLAIMS SERVICES, P.O. BOX 230, 600 N. JACKSON STREET, SUITE 205, MEDIA, PA 19063 OR SUBMITTED\nONLINE AT WWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/FLUX. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude\n Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL\n\n\n\n\nyourself by March 12, 2026, or you will not be able to sue the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself,\nyou cannot get money from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by March 12, 2026. The Long Notice\nexplains how to exclude yourself or to object.\nThe Court will hold a hearing on April 2, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. PT at Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, Courtroom 4C, 221\nWest Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, or via remote means at the Court\u2019s direction, to consider whether to approve the Settlement,\nthe Plan of Allocation, a request for attorneys\u2019 fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus actual expenses up to $75,000 for\nlitigating the case and negotiating the Settlement, and a compensatory Award to Plaintiffs not to exceed $7,500 each or $15,000 total\n(\u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d). You may attend the hearing and ask to be heard by the Court, but you do not have to. The Court reserves the\nright to hold the Settlement Hearing by remote means. You may, but are not required to, attend the hearing and ask to be heard by the\nCourt. For more information, call (866) 274-4004, or visit www.strategicclaims.net/FLUX.\n Document 70-3\n of 34\n Filed 03/05/26\n PageID.684\n Page 31\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.685EXHIBIT\n Page 32 D\n of 34\nMargery Craig\n\nFrom: donotreply@globenewswire.com\nSent: Monday, January 19, 2026 8:01 AM\nTo: Margery Craig\nCc: Josephine Bravata; Margery Craig; lrosen@rosenlegal.com\nSubject: GlobeNewswire Release Distribution Confirmation: The Rosen Law Firm PA\n\n\n\n\n Boost the trust and credibility of your next press release. Get CLEAR Verified by GlobeNewswire\n\n\n\n\n Release Distribution Confirmation\n\n The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement on\n Behalf of Purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of Flux Power\n Holdings, Inc. \u2013 FLUX\n Cross time: 01/19/26 08:00 AM ET: Eastern Time - View release on GlobeNewswire.com\n\n This email message serves as a formal confirmation that your release was transmitted on\n GlobeNewswire's distribution network as requested, including any fax or email broadcasts.\n\n If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please reply to this message, contact your account\n manager, or call our Customer Service Center at 800-307-6627, or 310-642-6930\n\n\n This message was distributed by GlobeNewswire.\n 2321 Rosecrans Ave. Ste 2200, El Segundo, CA, 90245, USA. +1-800-307-6627. www.globenewswire.com\n\n You received this email because you have an account with GlobeNewswire.\n\n If you have any questions, please send an email to support@globenewswire.com or Contact Us\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.686 Page 33\n of 34\n\n\n\n AFFIDAVIT\n\n\n\n STATE OF NEW JERSEY )\n ) ss:\n CITY OF MONMOUTH JUNCTION, in the COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX )\n\n , beingOechsner,\n I, Keith duly sworn, depose\n being and saydepose\n duly sworn, that I am\n andthe Advertising\n say Clerk\n that I am the of the Publisher\n advertising clerk of the Publisher of\n\n of THE WALLBUSINESS\n INVESTORS STREET JOURNAL, a daily national\n DAILY, a weekly national newspaper\n newspaperof\n ofgeneral\n generalcirculation\n circulationthroughout\n throughout the\n\n the United\n United States,\n States, and the\n and that thatnotice\n the notice attached\n attached toAffidavit\n to this this Affidavit has been\n has been regularly\n regularly\n\n published in INVESTORS BUSINESS\n THE WALL STREET DAILY for National distribution for\n JOURNAL\n\n 3\n 1 insertion(s) on the following date(s):\n\n JAN-19-2026;\n JAN-30-2023,FEB-06-2023,FEB-13-2023;\n\n FLUX POWER\n ADVERTISER: MILLER\n ; LEGALHOLDINGS, INC.\n SERV CHICAGO;\n\n and that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n\n\n\n _____________________________________\n\n\n\n\n Sworn to before me this\n 20 day\n 13 dayofof January 2026\n February 2023\n\n\n\n\n _____________________________________\n Notary Public\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-3 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.687 Page 34\n of 34\nINVESTORS.COM MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE WEEK OF JANUARY 19, 2026 A11\n BIG CAP GROWTH ETF (SPYG) VS SMALL CAP GROWTH ETF (SLYG) GROWTH ETF (IUSG) VS VALUE ETF (IUSV) 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net\nNvidia Corp (NVDA) 15.02% SPX Technologies (SPXC) 1.21% Nvidia Corp (NVDA) 14.23% Microsoft (MSFT) 6.96%\n Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV\nMicrosoft Corp (MSFT) 6.81% Armstrong Wrld (AWI) 1.18% Microsoft Corp (MSFT) 6.46% Apple (AAPL) 6.41%\n Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg\nMeta Platforms (META) 5.18% Seerling Infrastructure (STRL)\n 1.14% Meta Platforms (META) 4.91% Amazon.com (AMZN) 3.47%\nApple Inc (AAPL) 4.93% Dycom Industries (DY) 1.10% Apple Inc (AAPL) 4.68% ExxonMobile (XOM) 1.83%\n D+ Mgd Inc +2 +5 +3 13.30 -0.01 A FranchPrtnr +2+10 +11 22.16 -0.04 $ 4.9 bil 877-721-1926\nAmazon.com Inc (AMZN) 4.33% Federal Signal (FSS) 1.08% Broadcom (AVGO) 4.63% Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) 1.69% E Ttl Rrtn +0 +0 -2.0 8.44 0.00 Invesco Funds A B Intl Gro +4 +3 +3 76.78 0.17\n C+ Ris Dv +2 +4 +6 92.55 0.24 $ 125 bil 800-959-4246 A+ Opportunity +4+12 +5 56.44 0.03\n 121 176 A BiotchDisc +0+14 +3 165.36 -2.3 B- ActiveAlloc +3 +6 +3 15.35 0.07 LKCM Funds\n 114 165\n A+ Gr Op +1 +1 +4 44.12 0.18 A+ Cap Appr +1 +1 +8 86.15 0.60 $ 1.2 bil 800-688-5526\n 107\n D Inc +0 +1 0 8.43 -0.01 A Charter +1 +4 +8 21.52 0.03 A- SmallCapEq +6+14 +6 23.23 0.29\n 154\n B- S/MC Gr +4 +1 0 38.86 0.29 B Comstock +3 +9 +11 31.73 0.06 Loomis Sayles Fds\n 100\n 143 Franklin Templeton A1 B+ DiscvryMCG +6 +5 +2 28.59 0.40 $ 7.4 bil 800-633-3330\nWhen the line is heading up, big cap growth funds are outperforming small cap growth funds. When the line is heading up, growth funds are outperforming value funds $ 55.0 bil 800-632-2301 C+ Div Inc +3 +7 +7 27.02 0.11 D+ Bond +0 +1 +1 12.28 -0.02\n Feb May Aug 2025 Nov Feb May Aug 2025 Nov C- Inc +2 +5 +4 2.54 0.00 B- Dvsfd Div +3 +7 +7 18.83 0.09 Lord Abbett A\n B- Util +3 -2 +8 24.55 0.23 C+ Eq & Income +3 +7 +5 11.28 0.04 $ 41.6 bil 888-522-2388\n\nTop Growth Funds Top Growth Funds 36 Mo\n Performance\n Rating Fund\n YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net\n % % After Asset NAV\n Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg\n Franklin Templeton Adv\n $ 44.3 bil 800-632-2301\n B- Cnvrt Sec +3 +6 +4 24.53 0.04\n C+ Eq-Wtd 500 +4 +7 +6 75.01 0.37\n A Global Fd +1 +4 +4 87.79 0.07\n A+ Gold & SM +12+17 +13 66.38 0.10\n B+ Affilted\n A- Div Gro\n A- Gro Opp\n +4 +8 +8\n +2 +5 +9\n +4 +0 +2\n 20.82 0.15\n 25.58 0.13\n 27.85 0.18\nLast 3 months (all total returns) Last 3 years (all total returns) A Gro & Inc +3 +7 +13 70.10n 0.16 FrankTemp/Temp A B Gr & Income +4+10 +9 23.57 0.13 D- HI Muni +1 +1 +1 10.70 0.00\n Performance Performance A+ Gro Company+2 +7 +12 48.68n 0.18 $ 16.3 bil 800-632-2301 E HY Mun +1 +1 +1 8.33 0.00 E Int TxFr +1 +2 +1 10.39 0.00\n % Change Rating $ Net % Change Rating $ Net\nMutual Fund | Last 3 Mo | 36 mos | Assets Mutual Fund | YTD | 3 years | Assets A+ GroDiscover +1 +2 +10 70.65n 0.49 A Dev Mrkt +7+12 +3 28.38 0.23 A+ Main SAC +1 +4 +10 30.60 0.09 A- Itl Val +3+11 +7 10.83 -0.01\n A Gro Strat +5 +3 +7 71.96n 0.72 B- Foreign +5 +8 +6 9.92 0.02 B- Main St MC +4 +7 +6 29.85 0.21 B- MA Bal +2 +4 +4 13.76 0.03\nFairholme:Fairholme +29 A- 1.264 bil ProFunds:Semiconduct +6 A+ 515.00 mil\n C- High Income +1 +2 +2 8.15n 0.00 E Gl Bond +1 +1 -2.0 7.19 0.02 A Main Street +0 +3 +8 62.85 0.11 E Natl TF +1 +1 +1 10.36 0.00\nBaron Partners Fund +21 A+ 4.158 bil Rydex:NASDAQ 2x +2 A+ 1.216 bil D- Int Bond +0 +0 0 10.37n -0.01 B+ Growth +3 +7 +5 29.10 0.08 E Muni Income +1 +1 0 11.75 0.00 Lord Abbett I\nFidelity Sel Defense +16 A+ 3.232 bil ProFunds:UltraNASDAQ +2 A+ 1.664 bil E IntMuniInc +1 +1 +2 10.33n 0.00 A World +2 +6 +6 18.19 0.04 A- Rising Div +1 +4 +9 26.86 0.06 $ 49.2 bil 888-522-2388\nBaron Focused Gro +14 A+ 1.928 bil Alger Inst:Focus Eqty +2 A+ 398.90 mil A- IntlDiscvry +6 +7 +5 60.29n 0.20 Frost Family of Fund E RO Muni Opp +1 +1 +1 6.62 0.00 D+ Bond Deb +1 +2 +1 7.28 -0.01\nHarbor:Sm Cap Val +14 C+ 1.558 bil Alger Inst:Cap App +1 A+ 1.263 bil B- Intl Growth +5 +5 +5 23.92n 0.16 $ 4.4 bil 877-713-7678 E Ro NY Mun +1 +0 0 14.47 0.00 C- Flt Rte +1 +2 +4 8.10 0.00\nThird Avenue:Value +14 B+ 796.30 mil Alger:Capital Apprec +1 A+ 1.232 bil B- Intl Sm Cap +2 +7 +5 37.65n 0.10 A+ Gro Eqty -1 +0 +10 14.40 -0.03 A S&P 500 Idx +1 +5 +10 72.86 0.19 C- High Yld +1 +2 +1 6.43 0.00\nWasatch:Ultra Gro +14 D+ 386.00 mil Permanent Port:Aggr Gr +5 A+ 365.60 mil A Intl Value +3+10 +11 14.58n 0.02 D+ Tot Rtn Bd +1 +0 +2 9.74 -0.01 A+ SC Value +9+17 +15 27.60 0.46 A- Intl Eq +5+10 +6 19.11 0.04\n D- InvGradeBon +0 +0 -1.0 7.32n 0.00 C SlRskModIn +3 +5 +2 12.35 0.04 D Sh Dur +0 +1 +1 3.89 0.00\nMairs & Power:Sml Cap +14 C 240.30 mil Fidelity Sel Comm Serv +1 A+ 2.208 bil\n A Japan +6 +9 +4 21.04n 0.16 \u2013G\u2013H\u2013I\u2013 A SP MLP Al +3 +9 +20 8.57 -0.01\nVanguard PrmCp Cre +13 A 13.788 bil Fidelity Adv Comm Serv +1 A+ 139.40 mil A- Japan Sm Co +5 +9 +5 17.63n 0.14 GAMCO Funds A- SP MLP In +4+11 +18 6.15 0.01 \u2013M\u2013N\u2013O\u2013\nInvesco Discovery +13 A 2.162 bil Alger II:Spectra +1 A+ 1.637 bil A+ LargeCapSto +3 +8 +14 66.72n 0.22 $ 977 mil 800-422-3554 A+ Tech +7 +8 +6 62.37 0.80 MainStay Fds A\nFidelity Mid Cap Value +13 A- 1.277 bil Morg Stan I:Growth +1 A+ 2.374 bil B- Low-PrcdStk +4 +8 +8 42.96n 0.34 A+ Gold +10+20 +17 51.14n -0.26 Invesco Funds P $ 9.1 bil 800-624-6782\nFidelity Adv MCV +13 B+ 212.40 mil TRowePrice Glbl Tech +3 A+ 2.948 bil E LT Muni Inc +0 +1 +1 10.66n 0.00 A+ Growth -1 +1 +9 124.12n 0.06 $ 3.0 bil 800-959-4246 D+ MK HY CB +1 +2 +1 5.24 0.00\nVanguard PRIMECAP +13 A+ 71.755 bil Morg Stan Insight +2 A+ 811.80 mil A+ LvrgdCoStk +5 +4 +10 46.02n 0.62 Gartmore Funds A+ Summit +1 -1 +6 29.08 0.11 A+ Wnslw LCG -1 -2 +8 8.70 0.02\n E MA Muni Inc +1 +2 +1 11.57n 0.01 $ 1.2 bil 800-848-0920 Invesco Funds Y MainStay Fds I\nFidelity Srs Sm Cap Opp +13 A- 4.802 bil Columbia:Sel Gl Tch +9 A+ 1.746 bil\n A MagellanFun +2 +1 +9 15.18n 0.13 A Natnwide +1 +3 +9 27.91 0.10 $ 22.0 bil 800-959-4246 $ 4.1 bil 800-624-6782\nFidelity Value Strat +12 B- 608.90 mil Fidelity BlueChp G;Series +1 A+ 14.673 bil A+ MegaCapStoc+2 +8 +15 31.95n 0.07 GE Elfun/S&S A S&P500 Idx +1 +5 +10 73.65 0.19\n C+ Dev Mkt +5+10 0 35.95 0.12\nSB&H Trust:SC Value +12 B 386.60 mil ProFunds:UltraBull +3 A+ 204.90 mil A- MidCapValue +7+14 +11 33.54n 0.40 $ 6.1 bil 800-242-0134 A Discovery +10+15 +5 140.82 2.79 Mairs&Power\nFidelity Adv Val Str +12 B- 379.50 mil Fidelity Blue Chip Gr +1 A+ 72.124 bil B- Mid-CapStoc +5+10 +9 48.93n 0.70 A+ Trusts +1 +5 +11 94.86n 0.25 C OppenItlGro +4 +5 +2 26.38 0.01 $ 6.5 bil 800-304-7404\nPRIMECAP:Odyssey Growth +12 A+ 5.433 bil Rydex:S&P 500 2x +3 A+ 179.50 mil B+ Multi-Asset +3 +5 +7 68.49n 0.16 GMO Trust Class III A SP MLP Sl +3+10 +20 10.02 0.00 A &PowerGrowt+2 +4 +9 183.78n 1.34\nFidelity Value Fund +12 B- 7.878 bil Fidelity Gro Co;Series +2 A+ 20.326 bil E Muni Income +1 +1 +1 12.40n 0.01 $ 5.8 bil Ivy Funds Marsico Funds\n A+ NASDAQComId+1+4 +11 298.61n 0.73 A Quality +3 +7 +11 35.88 0.02 $ 30.0 bil 800 523-1918 $ 2.0 bil 888-860-8686\nLKCM:Small Cap Eq +12 A- 319.20 mil Baron Fifth Ave Gro 0 A+ 609.10 mil\n A+ NewMillenni +2 +6 +15 68.45n 0.45 GMO Trust Class IV B BalancedFun +2 +3 +5 26.09 0.10 A+ Foc +1 +2 +10 28.41n 0.27\nFidelity Stk Sel SC;S +12 B+ 2.713 bil Fidelity Gro Company +2 A+ 71.629 bil C+ NewMktsInc +1 +3 +1 13.87n 0.01 $ 3.2 bil A+ Glbl +4 +5 +9 30.15n 0.23\n A Core Equity +3 +4 +9 17.57 0.11\nFidelity Adv Stk SSC +12 B+ 1.741 bil FidelityAdv Srs Gro Opp +1 A+ 1 bil A+ OTC +1 +6 +11 24.53n 0.08 A- EmerCtryDbt +2 +7 +3 23.00 0.04 A- Glbl Growth +3 +6 +6 39.08 0.10 A+ Grow +1 +2 +8 25.18n 0.14\nFidelity Adv Val +12 B- 127.40 mil Transam:Cap Growth 0 A+ 495.30 mil B Overseas +3 +4 +5 74.19n 0.25 A+ Intl Equity +4+15 +10 35.19 0.20 A LargeCapGro -1 +1 +9 40.19 0.08 A+ MCGF +9+10 +7 60.78n 1.03\nDiamond Hill Sm Cap +12 B+ 150.60 mil Baron Opportunity -1 A+ 968.50 mil A PacificBasi +7 +9 +4 41.45n 0.31 GMO Trust Class VI D+ MidCapGrowt+5 +1 -1.0 23.90 0.20 Mass Mutual\nThird Avenue:SC Val +12 B- 167.80 mil Virtus:Silvant FG -2 A+ 965.90 mil B+ Puritan +2 +5 +7 26.63n 0.12 $ 3.6 bil A+ Science&Tec +6 +8 +9 61.40 0.73 $ 1.8 bil 888-309-3539\n D Real Estate +4 +2 +4 39.19n 0.30 A- EmergingMkt+7+11 +1 31.10 0.20 A+ Bl Ch +0 +1 +9 19.12 0.02\nHigh (11/00) 6.2%Low (9/25) 1.22% 36 Mo\n Performance\n YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net\n % % After Asset NAV\n 36 Mo\n Performance\n YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net\n % % After Asset NAV\n D Sh-Tm Bond +0 +1 +1 8.52n -0.01 Goldman \u2013J\u2013K\u2013L\u2013 MassMutual Select\n Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg C+ Sm Cap Disc +7+12 +7 24.89n 0.28 $ 18.6 bil 800-621-2550 Janus Henderson A $ 7.4 bil 888-309-3539\n24-Jun 1.42% 24-Dec 1.30% 25-Jun 1.37% A- Sm Cap Gro +8 +9 +4 37.59n 0.36 E DynMuniInc +1 +1 +2 15.32 0.00 $ 31.4 bil 877-335-2687 C+ MCG +5 +5 +3 17.48 0.07\n A SrsTotMkIdx +2 +5 +10 22.64 0.07 $ 681 mil 877-208-0098\n24-Jul 1.46% 25-Jan 1.39% 25-Jul 1.35% C+ Sm Cap Val +7+11 +8 21.43n 0.30 B Emg Mkts +6 +9 +1 32.39 0.26 A+ Forty +0 +0 +8 55.79 0.23 A S&P500 +2 +5 +10 14.75 0.04\n D SrsTrsBillI +0 +1 +2 9.95 0.00 A- Glbl Eq Inc +2 +6 +9 25.42n -0.04\n A- SrsSmCapOpp+7+14 +7 17.42n 0.26 D- Hi Yld Mun +1 +1 +2 9.11 0.00 Janus Henderson C Matthew 25 Fund\n24-Aug 1.47% 25-Feb 1.51% 25-Aug 1.31% B+ TotalIntlId +4 +8 +6 18.02n 0.03 Fidelity Funds I\n A Stk Sel AC +2 +7 +10 91.56n 0.39 A Itl E Ins +4+10 +9 18.91 0.00 $ 31.4 bil 877-335-2687 $ 330 mil 888-625-3863\n A TotalMarket +2 +5 +10 190.57n 0.60 $ 1192 bil 877-208-0098\n24-Sep 1.45% 25-Mar 1.53% 25-Sep 1.22% C+ StratDiv&In +3 +5 +6 18.11n 0.02 A+ LC Gro Ins -1 +0 +10 36.17 0.03 B- Balanced +1 +3 +6 47.75 0.12 A+ 25 Fund +2+10 +9 36.44n 0.32\n E USBondIndex +0 +0 -1.0 10.58n -0.01 A Em Asia +7 +8 +2 72.07 0.47\n24-Oct 1.41% 25-Apr 1.70% 25-Oct 1.19% E Tax-FreeBon +1 +1 +1 11.13n 0.00 A Lrg Cp Core +1 +4 +8 33.79 0.12 JHF III DispVal Matthews Asian Funds\n A+ USSustainId +2 +6 +12 31.00n 0.07 A Intl Vl +3+10 +11 14.58 0.01\n B Telecom&Uti +2 -4 +8 34.29n 0.39 A US Eqty Ins +1 +5 +8 64.68 0.10 $ 39.4 bil 888-972-8696 $ 2.3 bil 800-789-2742\n24-Nov 1.40% 25-May 1.58% 25-Nov 1.23% B ZEROExtMktI +7+10 +6 16.22n 0.15 Fidelity Funds K6\n A- Tot IE +5 +8 +7 15.62n 0.06 GoodHaven Fds B+ Ds Val +5 +8 +11 26.00 0.18 A Jpn +7+10 +3 25.76n 0.26\n A- ZEROIntlInd +4 +8 +6 15.35n 0.04 $ 1682 bil 800-544-6666\n D- Total Bond +0 +0 0 9.69n -0.01 $ 261 mil 855-654-6639 B- DVMC +6 +8 +8 29.07 0.27 Mercury Funds A\n36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net A+ ZEROLrgCapI +1 +5 +11 24.74n 0.07 B+ Puritan +2 +4 +7 17.65 0.07\nPerformance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV A+ Trend +3 +4 +11 204.15n 1.68 A- Fund +2 +7 +12 52.07n -0.29 JHITFunLgCpCorFd $ 225 mil 888-456-9518\nRating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg\n A ZEROTotMktI +2 +5 +10 24.10n 0.07 Fidelity Funds O\n C Value Discv +3+11 +7 39.88n 0.06 Gotham $ 3.2 bil 800-225-5291 A+ HouseGrowth -1 +3 +8 94.84n -0.06\n Fidelity Adv Focus Funds A $ 1192 bil 877-208-0098\n$ 2.0 bil 800-582-6757 C+ Kauf Sm Cap +4 +6 0 47.54 0.21 B- Value Fund +7+13 +9 14.75n 0.13 $ 2.7 bil 877-974-6852 A HancockFdmn+3+6 +8 67.82 0.46 Metropolitan West\n $ 1.6 bil 877-208-0098 A+ Cap Dev +3 +8 +14 28.40n 0.10\nA ImpctEquity +1 +4 +7 38.00n 0.07 A- MDT L +4+10 +11 35.87 0.02 A+ Worldwide +3 +5 +8 37.53n 0.24 A- AbsoluteRtn +1 +4 +12 21.70 0.08 John Hancock $ 35.6 bil 800-241-4671\n A- FnSv +1+10 +11 38.03 0.33 A+ Dvs Stk +3 +6 +11 39.56n 0.27\nA Impct Intl +2 +7 +7 11.62 0.00 A MDT MG +2 +0 +8 66.47 0.12 Fidelity Adv Funds Fidelity Select Funds A+ EnhancedRtn+2 +7 14.96 0.08 $ 25.7 bil 800-225-5291 E Total Rtn +0 +0 -1.0 9.19 -0.02\n Fidelity Funds Pr\nDoubleLine Funds C- StratValDiv +3 +6 +9 6.55 0.01 $ 1192 bil 877-208-0098 $ 102 bil 877-208-0098 A+ Index Plus +1 +7 +14 33.18 0.19 D- HancockBond+0 +1 -1.0 13.76 -0.02 D+ Uncons Bd +0 +1 +1 10.49 -0.01\n $ 1682 bil 877-208-0098\n$ 47.8 bil 877-354-6311 D UltShrtBnd +0 +1 +2 9.32 0.00 D Ltd Trm Bnd +0 +1 +1 11.64n -0.01 A- Sel Banking +3+17 +12 35.01n 0.57 Green Century A- IntG +5 +8 +4 36.81 0.16 MFS Funds A\n A- FreedomI206 +3 +6 +7 17.92 0.04\nD- Cr Fxd In +0 +0 0 9.37 -0.01 Federated Hermes R A+ Srs Gro Opp +1 +3 +9 17.67 0.06 B+ SelBioTech +0 +9 +2 25.05n -0.47 $ 1.3 bil 800-221-5519 John Hancock Class 1 $ 61.9 bil 800-225-2606\n Fidelity Funds Prm A Equity +2 +5 +10 103.01n 0.35 $ 22.6 bil 800-344-1029\nD Low Dur Bd +0 +1 +2 9.68 -0.01 $ 4.0 bil 800-341-7400 D+ Str In +1 +2 +2 12.17n 0.01 A SelBrkg&IM +5 +8 +13 199.83n 0.75 B AggrGrAlloc +3 +5 +5 32.70 0.16\n $ 1682 bil 877-208-0098 Guggenheim Funds Tru A+ BC Gro -1 +2 +9 65.05 0.13\nB Sh En CAPE +2 +3 +6 16.22 0.00 B- Kauf +1 +1 +1 5.67 0.02 Fidelity Adv Funds A A SelCnsmrDsc +4 +8 +6 72.15n 0.41 A- Core Equity +2 +5 +8 50.95 0.30\n B FreedomBl20 +2 +5 +6 13.98 0.03 $ 39.6 bil 800-820-0888 B+ MM Ls Ag +4 +7 +6 15.28 0.06\nD- Tot Rtn +0 +0 0 8.94 -0.02 Federated Hrms MDT MN $ 35.5 bil 877-208-0098 A- SelCnst&Hou +8 +5 +11 130.19n 1.47 D Corp Bond +1 +0 -2.0 12.59 0.00\n A- FreedomBl20 +3 +6 +7 15.09 0.05 A Lg Core +1 +4 +8 23.44 0.07 C+ MM Ls Bl +2 +4 +4 13.93 0.04 A- IntlIntrVal +4 +7 +4 45.17 0.20\nDWS Funds A $ 25.2 bil 800-341-7400 A- Biotech +0 +7 +4 37.36 -0.58 A+ SelCommServ+1 +5 +12 141.06n -0.31\n A- FreedomBl20 +3 +7 +7 15.52 0.06 D+ Macro Op +1 +2 +2 25.12 -0.01 B MM Ls Gr +3 +6 +5 14.76 0.05 B+ MassInvGro +2 +3 +7 42.19 0.17\n$ 17.5 bil 800-728-3337 C Hrms MDT MN-2 +4 21.43 -0.13 A+ Gold +12+15 +12 63.29 -0.03 A+ Sel Defense +11+16 +14 28.77n 0.31\n A- FreedomBl20 +3 +7 +7 15.51 0.05 D+ Sel Energy +7+13 +20 66.10n -0.33 D TR Bd +0 +0 -1.0 24.18 -0.03 A- MM2050Lf +3 +6 +6 14.11 0.05 A- Mass Inv Tr +2 +6 +8 36.35 0.17\nA+ Sci & Tech +1 +2 +11 44.55 0.23 Fidelity Funds A+ Inds +7+11 +10 59.59 0.67 A- FreedomBl20 +3 +7 +7 15.63 0.06 A+ SelEnv&AltE +3 +4 +9 48.60n 0.36 GuideMark Funds John Hancock Funds A D- MuniHighInc +1 +1 +1 7.47 0.00\nDWS Funds S $ 1682 bil 877-208-0098 A+ Semicnd +8+12 +23 120.36 1.76 A- FreedomBl20 +3 +7 +7 15.78 0.05 A+ Sel Gold +12+15 +13 65.69n -0.03 $ 1.3 bil 888-278-5809 $ 17.1 bil 800-225-5291 E Muni Income +1 +1 +1 8.21 0.00\n$ 17.5 bil 800-728-3337 B Overseas +3 +4 +6 15.39 0.05 A Stk Sl AC +2 +7 +10 91.00 0.39 Fidelity Funds S D+ Sel Health +2 +8 +3 28.93n -0.07 A Lg Cap Core +2 +6 +10 32.16n 0.10 B HancockBala +2 +5 +6 29.83 0.03 A+ Technology +1 +3 +8 62.46 0.22\nA+ Capital Gr -1 +0 +8 127.75n 0.30 A 500IndexFun +1 +5 +11 241.28n 0.63 Fidelity Adv Funds I\n B+ EmergMktsId+6 +8 +3 14.47n 0.05 $ 1192 bil 877-208-0098 D- SelMdTch&Dv+2 +8 +1 61.50n 0.31 GuideStone Funds JPMorgan A Class D- TotRetBond +0 +0 -1.0 9.67 -0.01\nA Core Eqty +2 +5 +10 36.53n 0.11 $ 80.5 bil 877-208-0098\n A- ExtendedMkt +6 +6 +5 106.54n 0.80 B+ Stk Sel SC +7+14 +8 45.39n 0.66 A- Sel Pharm +1+12 +9 31.29n -0.66 $ 20.8 bil 888-473-8637 $ 57.2 bil 800-480-4111 C TotalReturn +3 +5 +4 19.76 0.05\nA CROCI Intl +3+12 +8 69.31n -0.09 A+ Eq Gro +1 +2 +11 26.93 0.19\n A Flex500Inde +1 +5 +11 29.55 0.07 Fidelity Funds Series A- SelRetailin +7+11 +4 19.11n 0.11 A- Agg All +2 +5 +7 14.10n 0.03 C+ Inv Bal +1 +3 +3 16.87 0.03 C- Utilities +3 -2 +5 25.38 0.23\nA Eq 500 Ix +1 +5 +10 158.71n 0.41 A- Fcsd EM +8+12 +4 45.85 0.24\n B+ FlexIntlInd +4 +8 +6 17.44 0.03 $ 1682 bil 800-544-8544 A+ Sel Semicnd +8+12 +24 46.72n 0.67 A Eqty Idx +1 +5 +11 68.36 0.16 C- Inv Csv Gr +1 +2 +2 13.18 0.01 MFS Funds I\nA+ LC Foc Gr +0 +2 +9 87.35n 0.46 C- Float +0 +2 +4 9.11 0.00\n E FlexUSBondI +0 +0 -1.0 9.26 -0.01 D 0-5YrInPBdI +0 +0 9.86 -0.01 B+ SelSW&ITSvc -7 -7 +6 23.57n -0.24 A+ Gro Eqty -1 -1 +7 27.01 0.03 B- Inv Gr&Inc +2 +4 +5 21.47 0.04 $ 57.8 bil 800-225-2606\nA S&P 500 Ix +1 +5 +11 54.90n 0.14 A+ Gr Opp +1 +3 +9 235.19 0.68\n B+ GlobalexUSI +4 +8 +6 19.42n 0.03 E 5+YrInfPBdI +1 -1 7.62 -0.01 A+ SelTechHard +5 +7 +11 142.16n 2.10 D- MD Bd +0 +1 -1.0 12.98 -0.01 B+ Inv Growth +2 +5 +7 29.12 0.09 A+ Growth +0 +1 +9 197.34 1.06\nEaton Vance Funds A E Int Mun +1 +1 +1 10.35 0.01\n E InflProtBdI +0 -1 0 9.14n -0.02 A+ All-Sctr +1 +4 +11 14.12 0.05 A+ SelTechnlgy +2 +3 +12 42.22n 0.22 Harbor Funds B- US Value +4 +9 +8 86.81 0.30 B- Intl Equity +2 +5 +7 41.35 -0.03\n$ 18.0 bil 800-262-1122 A- Intl CA +5 +6 +5 37.63 0.20\n E IntTrsBdIdx +0 +0 -1.0 9.85n -0.02 A+ BlueChp G +1 +5 +12 23.12n 0.08 B SelUtilitie +2 -4 +9 134.45n 1.94 $ 25.9 bil 800-422-1050 JPMorgan I Class B- MidCapGrowt+4 +0 +3 28.93 0.21\nA+ Gro +0 +2 +8 41.28 0.09 A- Intl Ds +6 +7 +5 59.91 0.20\nA- TM Gl Dv +3 +9 +7 20.31 0.00 B+ Internation +3 +7 +7 62.90n 0.05 A EM Oppty +6+10 +3 26.24 0.13 First Eagle Funds A+ Cap Apprec +0 +1 +8 116.15 0.23 $ 122 bil 800-480-4111 C+ MidCapValue +5 +8 +8 32.73 0.28\n B- Intl Gr +5 +5 +5 23.84 0.16\nA+ TMG1.0 +1 +5 +11 2965.97n 9.39 E LgTrTrsBdId +1 -2 -6.0 9.38n 0.00 B+ GlEXUSIdx +4 +8 +6 19.04 0.03 $ 22.5 bil 800-334-2143 B+ Internatl +4 +7 +6 56.96 0.11 A Equity Idx +1 +5 +11 104.06 0.27 A- Research +2 +5 +9 59.64 0.29\n D- Inv Grd +0 +0 -1.0 7.32 -0.01\nA+ TMG1.1 +1 +5 +10 133.49 0.42 A+ LrgCapGroId -1 +1 +12 46.03n 0.08 A+ Gro Co +2 +7 +12 27.77 0.10 A- Global +5 +8 +8 84.36 0.00 C+ Sm Cap Val +11+15 +5 47.42 0.95 C+ Equity Inc +3 +8 +8 25.60 0.09 C+ Value +4 +8 +8 52.31 0.39\n A+ MgCpStk +2 +8 +15 31.98 0.07\nA TMG1.2 +1 +5 +9 60.73 0.20 B LrgCapValId +4 +9 +9 21.57n 0.08 E Int DvMk BI +0 +0 8.52 0.01 A+ Gold +12+18 +15 63.87 -0.17 Harding Loevner A EuropeDynmc+3 +9 +9 42.37 -0.18 Mondrian\n A+ New Ins +1 +5 +12 49.31 0.21\nEaton Vance Funds I A- MidCapGroId +3 +0 +5 36.27n 0.20 B Intl Gro +5 +5 +5 20.11 0.14 A- OvSeas +5 +9 +6 31.94 -0.02 $ 9.9 bil 877-435-8105 A+ Gro Advtg +0 +0 +10 41.65 0.04 $ 1.1 bil 888-832-4386\n A- SC Gro +8 +9 +4 37.69 0.37\n$ 19.6 bil 800-262-1122 B MidCapIndex +5 +7 +7 38.79n 0.24 B+ Intl SC +3 +7 +5 18.45 0.15 A- US Value +4 +8 +10 24.83 0.03 B- IE +5 +8 +4 28.52 0.16 A+ Itl Val +3+13 +13 21.13 0.04 A- MndrnIntlVE +2 +7 +9 17.64n -0.02\n B+ Stk SSC +7+14 +8 45.63 0.66\nD+ AC SMID +6 +7 +5 39.03 0.30 B- MidCapValId +6 +9 +7 31.00n 0.20 A+ Intl Val +3+10 +11 16.11 0.02 FPA Flexible FxdInc Hartford Funds A A+ LgCp Gro +0 -1 +10 81.80 0.08 Morgan Stanley Inst\n D+ Str In +1 +1 +2 12.17 0.01\nD+ Flt Rt +1 +1 +3 8.11 0.00 D RealEstateI +3 +2 +3 16.71n 0.12 D- Inv Gd Bd +0 +0 0 10.21 -0.01 $ 25.5 bil 800-982-4372 $ 33.0 bil 888-843-7824 B LgCp Val +5+10 +10 21.99 0.10 $ 227 bil 800-548-7786\n D- Tot Bd +0 +0 0 9.68 -0.01\nC Gl M AR +1 +4 +4 8.91 0.00 B+ SAIEMIndex +6 +8 +3 18.64 0.06 B Lrg Cap Val +4 +9 +8 19.01 0.08 D+ FlexibleFxd +0 +1 +2 10.39 -0.01 D+ Bal Income +2 +4 +2 14.83 0.03 B MdCp Gro +4 +1 +3 51.41 0.19 A+ Disc +4 -4 -5.0 17.28 -0.24\n Fidelity Freedom Funds\nC- Inc Bstn +0 +2 +3 5.30 0.01 C SAIEMLVIdx +2 +2 +4 11.72 0.00 C+ SC Discv +7+12 +7 11.73 0.13 FPA Funds B+ Cap Appr +2 +5 +5 44.69 0.11 A US Eq +1 +2 +10 27.04 0.06 D+ Gl Fr +0 -1 +4 29.74 -0.15\n $ 362 bil 877-208-0098\nE Nat Mu I +1 +1 +1 9.14 0.00 A SAIEMValIdx +6+11 +6 17.90 0.08 Fidelity Invest Funds $ 25.5 bil 800-982-4372 A Core Equity +1 +5 +8 54.70 0.11 A+ US GARP Eq +0 +2 +13 96.35 0.32 A+ Growth +1 -4 0 62.78 -0.88\n C- Freedom2010 +1 +2 +2 14.96n 0.01\nEdgewood Growth Institutional C SAIHighInco +1 +3 9.53 0.00 C Freedom2015 +1 +3 +3 12.30n 0.01 $ 1192 bil 800-544-6666 D New Income +0 +1 +2 10.09 -0.01 B Div & Gro +2 +8 +8 35.32 0.09 A+ US LCC + +1 +4 +11 23.77 0.05 A+ StanInsight +2 -6 -2.0 46.64 -0.72\n$ 11.2 bil 800-791-4226 E SAIInfltnFo +4 +7 +4 90.41 -0.73 C Freedom2020 +2 +3 +3 15.62n 0.02 D+ AssetMgr20%+1 +2 +2 14.51n 0.00 FPA Funds Trust C Equity Inc +4 +8 +7 20.95 0.10 C+ Val Advtg +3 +8 +9 37.53 0.15 MorganStanleyPathway\nA Growth +1 +3 +4 31.74 0.04 A SAIIntValId +3+11 +10 12.95 0.03 C+ Freedom2025 +2 +4 +4 15.21n 0.03 C AssetMgr40%+2 +3 +3 14.30n 0.03 $ 25.5 bil 800-982-4372 A+ Growth Opps +0 +1 +5 63.18 0.05 JPMorgan L Class $ 7.0 bil 888-673-9950\nEuroPac Gold Fd B+ SAIIntlInde +3 +7 +7 18.06 0.01 B- Freedom2030 +2 +4 +5 20.00n 0.04 C+ AssetMgr50%+2 +4 +4 22.24n 0.05 B+ Crescent +3 +6 +8 44.26 0.07 D MidCap +5 +2 -1.0 20.69 0.17 $ 7.3 bil 800-480-4111 E Core FI +0 +0 -1.0 6.88n 0.00\n$ 542 mil 888-558-5851 A- SAIIntlSMA +6+11 +3 15.92 0.02 B Freedom2035 +2 +5 +6 18.20n 0.04 B- AssetMgr60%+2 +4 +5 17.43n 0.04 Franklin Allocation A Hartford Funds I B+ Em Mkt Eq +6+11 +1 44.52 0.48 Munder Funds\nA+ Gold +11+17 +8 21.98 0.08 C+ SAIItlLowVo +2 +4 +4 13.10 -0.03 A- Freedom2040 +3 +6 +7 13.77n 0.04 B AssetMgr70%+2 +5 +6 30.82n 0.09 $ 78.9 bil 800-632-2301 $ 31.4 bil 888-843-7824 C MdCp Val +5 +7 +7 33.39 0.23 $ 3.4 bil 800-539-3863\n A SAIItlMomId +4 +8 +7 18.84 0.00 A- Freedom2045 +3 +7 +7 16.45n 0.06 A- AssetMgr85%+3 +6 +7 31.12n 0.10 A- Coreflo +2 +5 +5 25.05 0.11 A Intl Value +3+11 +13 24.79 0.00 JPMorgan R Class A Intl SmCp +4+10 +6 20.67 0.08\n \u2013F\u2013 C+ SAIItlQlIdx +4 +5 +4 14.59 0.03 A- Freedom2050 +3 +7 +8 16.72n 0.06 A- Balanced +1 +4 +7 32.55n 0.06 B- Glbl Al +2 +5 +5 17.56 0.07 A- Schr EM E +6+11 +3 24.35 0.23 $ 69.8 bil 800-480-4111 Munder Funds Cl A\nFairholme D SAILowDurIn +0 +1 +2 10.04 0.00 A- Freedom2060 +3 +7 +7 17.86n 0.07 A+ BlueChipGr +1 +5 +11 268.72n 0.93 B- Modt +1 +4 +4 16.81 0.03 B SchrIntlStk +3 +4 +6 22.20 -0.01 D- Core Bond +0 +0 0 10.48 -0.01 $ 929 mil 800-539-3863\n$ 1.5 bil 866-202-2263 E SAI LT TBI +1 -2 -6.0 6.80 0.00 Fidelity Freedom Funds A E CA Muni Inc +1 +1 +1 12.45n 0.00 Franklin Mutual A C- StratIncome +1 +1 +1 8.07 0.00 D- Core Pl Bd +0 +1 0 7.35 -0.01 A+ Multi-Cap +3 +8 +11 60.19 0.50\nA- Fairholme +9+29 +5 41.50n 0.74 E SAIMuniInc +1 +1 +1 9.98 0.00 $ 362 bil 877-208-0098 A+ Cap App +4 +9 +10 47.87n 0.34 $ 3.9 bil 800-632-2301 Heartland Funds C- High Yield +0 +2 +3 6.62 0.00 A S&P500Index +1 +5 +10 28.07 0.08\nFAM Value D SAIShortTmB +0 +1 +1 9.74 -0.01 A- Freedom2055 +3 +7 +7 19.43n 0.07 C+ Capital&Inc +2 +3 +4 11.03n 0.03 A- MutEuropean+3 +9 +10 32.57 -0.07 $ 1.3 bil 800-432-7856 D Sh Dur Bd +0 +1 +1 10.94 -0.01 Nationwide Fds R6\n$ 1.7 bil 800-932-3271 E SAITax-Free +1 +1 +1 10.16 0.00 A- Freedom2045 +3 +6 +6 15.79 0.06 A ChinaRegion +8 +9 +2 58.81n 0.29 B MutGlbDisc +2 +6 +8 31.57 -0.04 A- Value +8+13 +9 54.77n 0.90 A+ US Res EnEq +1 +5 +11 48.38 0.09 $ 1.4 bil 800-848-0920\nC+ Value +4 +7 +7 103.31n 0.89 D SAITotalBd +0 +0 0 9.17 -0.01 A- Freedom2050 +3 +6 +6 15.91 0.06 A+ Contrafund +1 +5 +12 24.57n 0.12 C+ Mut Shares +3 +8 +6 26.15 0.09 Hennessy Funds Kinetics Funds A BNYM DUSC +1 +4 +10 18.29 0.04\nFederated Hermes A SAIUSLCIdx +2 +5 +11 27.64 0.07 A- Freedom2055 +3 +6 +6 17.98 0.07 B+ Convertible +5 +4 +5 38.39n 0.11 Franklin Tax Free A1 $ 3.8 bil 800-966-4354 $ 1.5 bil 800-930-3828 Nationwide Funds\n$ 7.0 bil 800-341-7400 B SAIUSLowVol +1 +4 +8 23.14 0.02 A- Freedom2060 +3 +6 +6 16.47 0.07 A+ Discpln Eq +3 +6 +10 74.22n 0.42 $ 55.0 bil 800-632-2301 A Crnst Gro +4+10 +12 34.75 0.32 A+ Internet +10 -6 +10 100.46n -1.1 $ 1.1 bil 800-848-0920\nA+ Hrms MDTLC -1 +2 +13 42.06 0.01 A+ SAIUSMoment+2 +2 +9 19.42 0.12 Fidelity Freedom Funds Pr A+ Dividend Gr +4+10 +12 44.26n 0.28 E CA TF Inc +1 +1 +1 6.80 0.00 A+ Crnst MdCp +8+11 +15 26.26 0.50 A- Paradigm +13 +4 +15 119.57n 0.78 A S&P 500 +1 +5 +11 31.20 0.09\nFederated Hermes Int A+ SAIUSQualId +0 +3 +11 23.86 0.02 $ 362 bil 877-208-0098 B+ Dvsd Intl +4 +8 +5 50.64n 0.10 E Fed TF Inc +1 +1 +1 10.82 0.00 A Focus +10 -1 +9 40.44 0.69 Laudus Funds Natixis Funds\n$ 21.0 bil 800-341-7400 E SAIUSTrsBd +0 +0 -1.0 8.86 -0.02 C+ Frdm I 2025 +2 +3 +4 20.65 0.02 C+ EmMktsDebt +1 +3 +2 8.57 0.02 E NY TF Inc +1 +1 0 9.89 0.01 A Japan +6 +5 +2 46.70 0.49 $ 2.3 bil 800-648-5300 $ 31.0 bil 800-225-5478\nC- In HYB +0 +2 +2 9.03 0.00 B+ SAIUSValInd +2+10 +11 13.68 0.01 B- Frdm I 2030 +2 +3 +5 23.01 0.02 A Emerg Asia +7 +8 +2 70.83n 0.45 D- Hi Yld +1 +2 +1 8.93 0.00 Hodges Fund A+ SelectLgCap +0 +1 +8 25.89n 0.05 D Inv GB +1 +1 0 9.95 0.00\nA+ MDT AC +1 +6 +13 53.32 -0.04 D- ShTermBondI+0 +1 +1 10.11n -0.01 B Frdm I 2035 +2 +4 +6 27.15 0.04 B+ Emerg Mkts +6 +8 +3 52.65n 0.45 Franklin Templeton A $ 352 mil 866-811-0224 Lazard Instl A+ LS Growth +0 +0 +11 33.14 0.00\nA- MDT SG +7 +8 +4 33.91 0.34 D- ShTrTrsBdId +0 +0 +1 10.35n -0.01 B+ Frdm I 2040 +2 +5 +7 29.50 0.06 B- EqtyDivInc +3 +9 +9 30.62n 0.04 $ 78.9 bil 800-632-2301 A+ Hodges +7 +9 +11 83.10n 0.72 $ 19.7 bil 800-823-6300 A- Oakmark +2 +9 +10 32.07 0.01\nE TR Bd +0 +0 -1.0 9.60 -0.01 B- SmCpValIdx +8+11 +6 30.40n 0.28 A- Frdm I 2045 +3 +5 +7 31.63 0.07 B Equity-Inc +3 +7 +10 85.88n 0.16 A+ Dyna +1 +2 +6 188.65 0.90 Homestead Funds A+ Emg Mkt Eq +5+14 +9 26.16 0.13 A+ US Eq Opp +0 +4 +10 47.89 0.05\nFederated Hermes IS B SmallCapInd +8 +9 +5 33.34n 0.28 A- Frdm I 2050 +3 +6 +7 31.72 0.07 C- FloatRateHI +0 +2 +4 9.12n 0.00 A Gro +2 +4 +6 137.76 0.91 $ 2.3 bil 800-258-3030 B- GlLstdInfr +2 +4 +9 18.54 0.15 Neuberger Berman Fds\n$ 25.2 bil 800-341-7400 E SrsBondIdx +0 +0 -1.0 9.16 -0.01 A- Frdm I 2055 +3 +6 +7 26.11 0.06 A+ Focused Stk +4 +6 +10 39.93n 0.35 A+ Gld&Pr Mtl +9+21 +14 50.38 -0.28 A Stock Index +1 +5 +11 49.69n 0.13 B- Int Str Eq +4 +6 +4 13.70 0.06 $ 33.1 bil 800-366-6264\nA- IntlSmallMi +4 +7 +5 51.83 0.16 A- SrsEmergMkt+7+10 +2 12.55 0.04 A- Frdm I 2060 +3 +6 +7 22.14 0.05 A+ Fund +0 +5 +12 112.70n 0.09 A+ Global Eq +2 +7 +10 28.73 0.03 IFP US Equity Fund A- Intl Eqty +4 +8 +6 19.53 0.06 C- LngSh +0 +1 20.07 0.01\nA+ KaufLrgCap +0 +0 +6 16.79 0.07 E SrsLgTmTrs +1 -2 -6.0 5.44 0.00 Fidelity Funds E GNMA +1 +1 0 10.43n -0.01 B+ Eq Inc +4 +7 +8 34.57 0.16 $ 1.6 bil 855-233-0437 Legg Mason I C+ LC Value +6+13 +8 53.95 0.18\n36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mo YTD 12Wk 5 Yr Net\nPerformance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV\nRating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg Tax Rtn Value Chg\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No.\n Plaintiff, 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n v. Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A. SCHEIWE, CLASS ACTION\n Defendants.\n SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT\n TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF FLUX POWER\n FREE WEBINAR HOLDINGS, INC. (\u201cFLUX POWER\u201d) FROM NOVEMBER 15, 2021 THROUGH FEBRUARY 14, 2025, BOTH\n DATES INCLUSIVE.\n\n\n\n A Smarter Way to\n YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District\n of California, that a hearing will be held on April 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. PT before the Honorable Jinsook Ohta,\n United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Edward J.\n Schwartz United States Courthouse, Courtroom 4C, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, or by telephonic\n or videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining:\n (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the\n\n\n\n\n Swing Trade ETFs\n sum of $1,750,000 (\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d) should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;\n (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate;\n (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees of up to one-third of the Settle-\n ment Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $75,000, and an award of no more than $15,000\n in total to Plaintiffs should be approved; and\n (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated\n August 27, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n Thursday, January 22 @ 1:30pm PT / 4:30pm ET If you purchased publicly traded Flux Power common stock during the period from November 15, 2021 through\n February 14, 2025, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release\n and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Flux Power common stock.\n You may obtain copies of the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cLong\n Notice\u201d) and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (\u201cProof of Claim\u201d) by writing to or calling Flux Power Securities\n Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel)\n (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.\n net/FLUX. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement\n Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than March\n In this free webinar, two members of the SwingTrader team, 3, 2026, to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written\n exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.\n Mike Webster (IBD Senior Market Strategist) and Justin Nielsen If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in the manner\n and form explained in the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received no later than March 12,\n (IBD Market Research Director), will demonstrate: 2026. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be\n bound by any judgment entered in the Action.\n \u2022\n How they determine which ETFs to add to the SwingTrader Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel\u2019s request for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees\n and reimbursement of expenses and an award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the\n Long Notice and received no later than March 12, 2026, by each of the following:\n model portfolio Clerk of the Court LEAD COUNSEL: COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:\n \u2022\n When to buy, when to cut losses and when to take pro\ufb01ts United States District Court\n Southern District of California\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,\n P.A.\n WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.\n Caz Hashemi\n \u2022\n How to swing trade leveraged and inverse ETFs 333 West Broadway\n Suite 420\n Phillip Kim\n 275 Madison Avenue\n 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304\n WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN\n San Diego, CA 92101 40th Floor & DICKER LLP\n New York, NY 10016 David Aveni\n investors.com/webinar 401 W. A Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101\n If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel:\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n Phillip Kim\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10016\n Tel: 212-686-1060\n PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK\u2019S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.\n Dated: December 10, 2025\n BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n \u00a9 2026 Investor\u2019s Business Daily, LLC. Investor\u2019s Business Daily, IBD, IBD Digital, IBD Live and Leaderboard are trademarks of Investor\u2019s Business Daily, LLC. FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n\n\u00a92026 Investor\u2019s Business Daily, LLC. All rights reserved.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:02.048606-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317429","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Margery Craig)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804862/","id":479804862,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/4/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:39.986373-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:09:43.659570-07:00","sha1":"69b8e248275f6990d2b9673b07b56640b98bfbb4","page_count":6,"file_size":178095,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.688 Page 1\n of 6\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.689 Page 2\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 4 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5 CLASS ACTION\n Plaintiff,\n 6 Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 7 v.\n 8\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n 9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n 10 SCHEIWE,\n\n 11 Defendants.\n 12\n 13\n 14 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 1\n 30 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.690 Page 3\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 I, Laurence M. Rosen, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am the managing partner of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cRosen\n 3 Law\u201d), Court-appointed Lead Counsel in this Action.1 I am an attorney duly\n 4 licensed to practice law in California and before this Court. I submit this Declaration\n 5 in support of Rosen Law\u2019s application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and\n 6 reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel in connection\n 7 with services rendered in this Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts\n 8 asserted herein.\n 9 2. A copy of Rosen Law\u2019s r\u00e9sum\u00e9 is attached to the Declaration of Joshua\n 10 Baker as Exhibit 6.\n 11 3. Rosen Law has been involved in this Action since its inception in\n 12 November 2024. Rosen Law has rendered the following legal services in connection\n 13 with the prosecution of this Action: (a) conducted an extensive factual investigation,\n 14 which included the review of publicly available documents about Flux Power\n 15 Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d) and the individual defendants; (b) filed the initial\n 16 complaint; (c) filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel; (d)\n 17 coordinated with additional counsel for Plaintiffs throughout the litigation; (e)\n 18 consulted with a private investigator concerning the allegations in this Action; (f)\n 19 consulted with a damages expert; (g) researched, drafted and filed the Amended\n 20 Complaint on behalf of Plaintiffs; (h) reviewed Defendants\u2019 two motions to dismiss\n 21 the Amended Complaint; (i) participated in a mediation with Robert A. Meyer of\n 22 JAMS, including drafting a detailed mediation statement and reviewing\n 23 Defendants\u2019 mediation statement; (j) negotiated an agreement on the terms of a\n 24 settlement; (k) negotiated the written settlement documents; (l) crafted the Plan of\n 25\n 26 1\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings\n 27 ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (Dkt. No.\n 28 60-1) (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\n 29\n 2\n 30 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.691 Page 4\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 Allocation in consultation with Strategic Claims Services that treats Plaintiffs and\n 2 all other members of the Settlement Class fairly; (m) presented those settlement\n 3 terms to this Court by way of a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed\n 4 settlement; (n) attended a hearing on the preliminary approval motion and submitted\n 5 supplemental information per the Court\u2019s request; (o) oversaw the provision of\n 6 Notice to the proposed Settlement Class and monitored the work of the Claims\n 7 Administrator; and (p) prepared a motion for final approval of the Settlement.\n 8 4. The chart below summarizes the hours, rate, and lodestar of each\n 9 Rosen Law attorney and professional staff who worked on this matter, through\n 10 March 4, 2026, and the lodestar calculation for those individuals based on their\n 11 hourly rate at the time the work was performed. The schedule was prepared from\n 12 contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by Rosen\n 13 Law. The hourly rates reflect Rosen Law\u2019s current hourly rates, support for which\n 14 is provided in the accompanying memorandum of law. The firm\u2019s rates are set based\n 15 on periodic analysis of rates used by firms performing comparable work and that\n 16 have been approved by courts. Different timekeepers within the same employment\n 17 category (e.g., partners, counsel, associates) may have different rates based on a\n 18 variety of factors, including years of practice, years at the firm, year in the current\n 19 position, relevant experience, relative expertise, and the rates of similarly\n 20 experienced peers at our firm or other firms.\n 21 5. I have reviewed these time and expense records to prepare this\n 22 declaration. The purpose of this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the time\n 23 entries and expenses and the necessity for, and reasonableness of, the time and\n 24 expenses committed to the litigation. I believe that the time reflected in the firm\u2019s\n 25 lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment will be sought, as stated\n 26 in this Declaration, are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective\n 27 and efficient prosecution and resolution of the litigation.\n 28\n 29\n 3\n 30 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.692 Page 5\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 6. The total number of hours spent on the litigation of this Action by my\n 2 firm through March 4, 2026 is 370.23. The total lodestar amount for the firm based\n 3 on the firm\u2019s current rates is $439,953.90. My firm\u2019s lodestar figures are based upon\n 4 the firm\u2019s hourly rates, which do not include costs for expense items. A breakdown\n 5 of the lodestar is set forth in the chart below:\n 6\n 7 TOTAL HOURS AND LODESTAR\n\n 8\n Name and Position Total Hours Hourly Rate Total Lodestar\n 9 Phillip Kim (P) 58.40 $1,550 $90,520.00\n 10 Joshua Baker (P) 225.60 $1,270 $286,512.00\n Eric Bi (A) 79.88 $730 $58,312.40\n 11 Ryan Hedrick (A) 0.90 $850 $765.00\n 12 Christie Buzzetti (A) 0.60 $730 $438.00\n Ian McDowell (A) 3.25 $730 $2,372.50\n 13\n Olivia Simkins (A) 0.20 $730 $146.00\n 14 Yitzchok Fishbach (A) 1.00 $730 $730.00\n 15 Eduardo Texidor (PL) 0.40 $395 $158.00\n Total: 370.23 $439,953.90\n 16\n (P) - Partner; (C) \u2013 Counsel; (A) \u2013 Associate; (PL) - Paralegal\n 17 7. My firm incurred a total of $59,529.07 in unreimbursed expenses in\n 18 connection with the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows:\n 19\n 20 TOTAL EXPENSES\n 21\n Category Amount\n 22 Investigator Fees $18,034.50\n 23 Online Legal Research, Document Retrieval, and $604.68\n Hosting Fees\n 24\n Pro Hac Vice Fees $448.00\n 25 Financial Expert Fees $5,400.00\n 26 Court Reporter Transcript Fees $235.80\n Mediation Fees $11,625.00\n 27 Press Releases and Notice to Class Members Fees $16,952.00\n 28 Travel, Transportation, Hotels, and Meals Fees $6,229.09\n 29\n 4\n 30 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-4 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.693 Page 6\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 TOTAL EXPENSES $59,529.07\n 8. The expenses incurred are reflected in the books and records\n 2\n contemporaneously prepared by the firm. These books and records are prepared\n 3\n from expense vouchers, invoices, and other billing records, and are an accurate\n 4\n record of the expenses incurred. I have reviewed the expenses for which\n 5\n reimbursement is sought and confirmed that they were reasonably necessary for the\n 6\n effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the litigation and reasonable in\n 7\n amount. The expenses are all of a type that would normally be charged to a fee-\n 8\n paying client in the private legal marketplace.\n 9\n 10 9. My firm\u2019s compensation for services rendered and out-of-pocket\n\n 11 expenses incurred in this case was and is entirely contingent on the success of the\n\n 12 prosecution of the Action, and on the Court\u2019s approval of the fee and expense\n application. None of the attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses submitted to this Court has\n 13\n been paid from any source or has been the subject of any prior request or prior award\n 14\n in any litigation or other proceeding.\n 15\n 16\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n 17\n America that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n 18\n 19\n 20 Dated: March 5, 2026\n 21 /s/Laurence M. Rosen\n 22 Laurence M. Rosen\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 5\n 30 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:05.816616-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317430","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804863/","id":479804863,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/5/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:39.998034-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:04:51.026509-07:00","sha1":"0cb01f3082fd1a8ec621bdf534419e5e1cb4fbab","page_count":6,"file_size":171429,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.694 Page 1\n of 6\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 3\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.695 Page 2\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 4 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5 CLASS ACTION\n Plaintiff,\n 6 Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 7 v.\n 8\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n 9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n 10 SCHEIWE,\n\n 11 Defendants.\n 12\n 13\n 14 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 1\n 30 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.696 Page 3\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 I, Marion C. Passmore, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am a partner with the firm Bragar Eagel & Squire P.C. (\u201cBES\u201d),\n 3 additional counsel for Plaintiffs in this Action.1 I am an attorney duly licensed to\n 4 practice law in California and before this Court. I submit this Declaration in support\n 5 of Lead Counsel\u2019s application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and reimbursement\n 6 of litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel in connection with services\n 7 rendered in this Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts asserted herein.\n 8 2. A copy of BES\u2019s r\u00e9sum\u00e9 is attached to the Declaration of Joshua Baker\n 9 as Exhibit 7.\n 10 3. BES has been involved in this Action since December 2024. BES has\n 11 rendered the following legal services in connection with the prosecution of this\n 12 Action: (a) conducted a factual investigation, which included the review of publicly\n 13 available documents about Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (\u201cFlux Power\u201d) and the\n 14 individual defendants; (b) filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead\n 15 counsel; (c) coordinated with Lead Counsel throughout the litigation; (d) assisted\n 16 Lead Counsel in researching and drafting the Amended Complaint on behalf of\n 17 Plaintiffs; (e) reviewed Defendants\u2019 two motions to dismiss the Amended\n 18 Complaint; (f) participated in a mediation with Robert A. Meyer of JAMS,\n 19 including assisting Lead Counsel in drafting a detailed mediation statement and\n 20 reviewing Defendants\u2019 mediation statement; (g) assisted Lead Counsel in\n 21 negotiating the terms of the Settlement and moving for preliminary approval of the\n 22 Settlement; and (h) assisted Lead Counsel in preparing final approval and related\n 23 motions.\n 24\n 25\n 26 1\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings\n 27 ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (Dkt. No.\n 28 60-1) (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\n 29\n 2\n 30 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.697 Page 4\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 4. The chart below summarizes the hours, rate, and lodestar of each BES\n 2 attorney and professional staff who worked on this matter, through March 1, 2026,\n 3 and the lodestar calculation for those individuals based on their hourly rate at the\n 4 time the work was performed. The schedule was prepared from contemporaneous\n 5 daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by BES. The hourly rates\n 6 reflect BES\u2019s current hourly rates, support for which is provided in the\n 7 accompanying memorandum of law. The firm\u2019s rates are set based on periodic\n 8 analysis of rates used by firms performing comparable work and that have been\n 9 approved by courts. Different timekeepers within the same employment category\n 10 (e.g., partners, counsel, associates) may have different rates based on a variety of\n 11 factors, including years of practice, years at the firm, year in the current position,\n 12 relevant experience, relative expertise, and the rates of similarly experienced peers\n 13 at our firm or other firms.\n 14 5. I have reviewed these time and expense records to prepare this\n 15 declaration. The purpose of this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the time\n 16 entries and expenses and the necessity for, and reasonableness of, the time and\n 17 expenses committed to the litigation. I believe that the time reflected in the firm\u2019s\n 18 lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment will be sought, as stated\n 19 in this Declaration, are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective\n 20 and efficient prosecution and resolution of the litigation.\n 21 6. The total number of hours spent on the litigation of this Action by BES\n 22 through March 1, 2026 is 275.25. The total lodestar amount for the firm based on\n 23 the firm\u2019s current rates is $252,781.25. BES\u2019s lodestar figures are based upon the\n 24 firm\u2019s hourly rates, which do not include costs for expense items. A breakdown of\n 25 the lodestar is set forth in the chart below:\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 3\n 30 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.698 Page 5\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 TOTAL HOURS AND LODESTAR\n\n 2\n Name and Position Total Hours Hourly Rate Total Lodestar\n 3 Lawrence P. Eagel (P) 22.0 $1,200 $26,400.00\n 4 Brandon Walker (P) 32.75 $1,200 $39,300.00\n Melissa A. Fortunato (P) 27.25 $1,125 $30,656.25\n 5 Marion C. Passmore (P) 120.75 $1,050 $126,787.50\n 6 Dena Bielasz (PL) 24.5 $425 $10,412.50\n Anthony Bowling (PL) 41.5 $400 $16,600.00\n 7\n Anna Hoffman (PL) 7.0 $375 $2,625.00\n 8 Total: 275.25 $252,781.25\n 9 (P) - Partner; (C) \u2013 Counsel; (A) \u2013 Associate; (PL) - Paralegal\n 10 7. BES incurred a total of $6,375.00 in unreimbursed expenses in\n 11 connection with the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows:\n 12\n TOTAL EXPENSES\n 13\n 14 Category Amount\n 15 Nevada Local Counsel Fees for Lead Plaintiff Filings $2,500.00\n Mediation Fees $3,875.00\n 16 TOTAL EXPENSES $6,375.00\n 17 8. The expenses incurred are reflected in the books and records\n 18 contemporaneously prepared by the firm. These books and records are prepared\n 19 from expense vouchers, invoices, and other billing records, and are an accurate\n 20 record of the expenses incurred. I have reviewed the expenses for which\n 21 reimbursement is sought and confirmed that they were reasonably necessary for the\n 22 effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the litigation and reasonable in\n 23 amount. The expenses are all of a type that would normally be charged to a fee-\n 24 paying client in the private legal marketplace.\n 25 9. BES\u2019s compensation for services rendered and out-of-pocket expenses\n 26 incurred in this case was and is entirely contingent on the success of the prosecution\n 27 of the Action, and on the Court\u2019s approval of the fee and expense application. None\n 28\n 29\n 4\n 30 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-5 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.699 Page 6\n of 6\n\n\n\n 1 of the attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses submitted to this Court has been paid from any\n 2 source or has been the subject of any prior request or prior award in any litigation\n 3 or other proceeding.\n 4\n 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n 6 America that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n 7\n 8 Dated: March 3, 2026\n 9\n /s/Marion C. Passmore\n 10 Marion C. Passmore\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 29\n 5\n 30 DECLARATION OF MARION C. PASSMORE; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:14.257007-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317431","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 (Declaration of Marion C. Passmore","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804864/","id":479804864,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/6/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.008452-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:14:51.681789-07:00","sha1":"1375d9fbefe7678993ee7fa3093cb816dd237d1f","page_count":7,"file_size":443110,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.700 Page 1\n of 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 4\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.701 Page 2\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 2\n 3\n ASFA KASSAM, Individually and on No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n 4 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n 5 CLASS ACTION\n Plaintiff,\n 6 Hon. Jinsook Ohta\n 7 v.\n 8\n FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n 9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\n 10 SCHEIWE,\n\n 11 Defendants.\n 12\n 13\n 14 DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n 1\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.702 Page 3\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1 I, Brandon Paulson, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in the above-captioned\n 1\n 3 I submit this declaration in support of: (i)\n 4 motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement and approval of the\n 5 Plan of Allocation; and (ii)\n 6 and reimbursement of expenses, including approval of my request to recover the\n 7 reasonable costs and expenses I incurred in connection with my representation of\n 8 the Settlement Class in the prosecution of this Action.\n 9 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts described herein and I could\n 10 and would testify to those facts if called to do so. I intend nothing in this Declaration\n 11 to constitute a waiver, either general or specific, of the attorney-client privilege.\n 12 My Efforts in Overseeing the Litigation\n 13 3. By Order dated February 20, 2025, the Court: (a) appointed me as the\n 14 Lead Plaintiff in the Action; and (b) approved my selection of The Rosen Law Firm,\n 15 P.A. to serve as Lead Counsel. Dkt. No. 42.\n 16 4. I am aware of and understand the requirements and responsibilities of\n 17 a representative plaintiff in a securities class action, including those set forth in the\n 18 \u00a7 78u-4.\n 19 In fulfillment of my responsibilities as Lead Plaintiff, I have worked closely with\n 20 Lead Counsel regarding the litigation and resolution of this case.\n 21 5. Throughout the litigation, I have been in regular contact with and\n 22 received periodic updates from Lead Counsel on the progress of this Action,\n 23 including meaningful updates concerning major milestones in the case. I\n 24 participated in discussions concerning the prosecution of the Action, the strengths\n 25\n 26 1\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings\n 27 ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (Dkt. No.\n 28 60-1\n\n 2\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.703 Page 4\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1 and potential risks of the claims, and potential settlement. In particular, throughout\n 2 the course of this Action, I: (a) regularly communicated with attorneys at Rosen\n 3 Law regarding the status of the litigation and key events in the case; (b) compiled\n 4 and produced my trading records to my attorneys; (c) moved to be appointed Lead\n 5 Plaintiff in this Action; (d) received and reviewed significant pleadings filed in the\n 6 Action; (e)\n 7 consulted with my attorneys concerning the mediation; (g) consulted with counsel\n 8 regarding settlement negotiations; (h) evaluated the Settlement Amount, conferred\n 9 with counsel, and ultimately approved the Settlement; and (i) communicated with\n 10 counsel regarding the process of finalizing the Settlement.\n 11 6. In short, I have done my best to vigorously promote the interests of the\n 12 Settlement Class and to obtain the largest recovery possible under the\n 13 circumstances.\n 14 Approval of the Settlement\n 15 7. I support the Settlement of this Action for $1,750,000. As detailed in\n 16 the paragraphs above, through my active participation I was both well-informed of\n 17 the status and progress of the litigation, and the status and progress of the settlement\n 18 negotiations in this Action.\n 19 8. Based on my involvement in the prosecution and resolution of the\n 20 claims asserted in the Action, I believe that the proposed Settlement provides a fair,\n 21 reasonable, and adequate recovery for the Settlement Class, particularly considering\n 22 the risks and potential delay and expense of continued litigation, and I fully endorse\n 23 approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n 24 ,\n Reimbursement of Expenses, and Award to Plaintiffs\n 25\n 26 9.\n 27 amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable considering the\n 28 work Lead Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class.\n\n 3\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.704 Page 5\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1 10.\n 2 and amount of the work performed, the recovery obtained for the Settlement Class,\n 3 and the risks Lead Counsel bore in prosecuting this Action on behalf of myself and\n 4 the Settlement Class on a fully contingent basis, which included the fronting of all\n 5\n 6 The attorneys at Rosen Law guided me, presenting me with facts, understandable\n 7 legal analysis, and options for proceeding. In turn, I based my decisions in the action\n 8\n 9 Settlement Class zealously and effectively. I am generally aware of the hours that\n 10 ted to the Settlement Class without immediate\n 11\n 12 effectively to achieve this Settlement.\n 13 11. I further believe that the litigation expenses for which\n 14 Counsel have requested reimbursement are reasonable and represent costs and\n 15 expenses necessary for the prosecution and resolution of the claims in the Action.\n 16 Based on the foregoing, and consistent with my obligation to the Settlement Class\n 17 to obtain the best result\n 18\n 19 12.\n 20 costs and expenses is authorized under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4). I\n 21 respectfully request reimbursement for the time that I dedicated to this case directly\n 22 relating to my representation of the Settlement Class.\n 23 13. Over more than a year of litigation I devoted significant time to\n 24 representing the Settlement Class as the Lead Plaintiff and a putative Class\n 25 Representative in this Action, time that I otherwise would have spent at my job,\n 26 investing, or on other activities, and thus represented a cost to me. I am a retired\n 27 U.S. Marine with over seven years of investing experience. I estimate that my\n 28\n\n 4\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.705 Page 6\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1 hourly rate is equivalent to approximately $ /hour. I estimate that I spent\n 2 approximately hours overseeing the prosecution of this Action. I respectfully\n 3 request an award of $7,500 as compensation for the time I devoted to serving as the\n 4 Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Settlement Class. I believe that this is a fair and\n 5 reasonable compensation request for the time and effort I devoted to this litigation,\n 6 which was necessary to help achieve an excellent result for the Settlement Class.\n 7 14. In conclusion, I strongly endorse the Settlement as a fair, reasonable,\n 8 and adequate result for the Settlement Class. I respectfully request that the Court\n 9 approve: (a) the Settlement and Plan of Allocation\n 10\n 11 reimbursement pursuant to the PSLRA.\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n 5\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-6 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.706 Page 7\n of 7\n\n\n\n 1\n 2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n 3 America that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n 4\n 5 Dated: March ___, 2026\n 6\n 7\n 8 Brandon Paulson\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n 6\n DECLARATION OF BRANDON PAULSON; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:21.272651-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317432","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4 (Declaration of Brandon Paulson)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804865/","id":479804865,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/7/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.019610-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:31:50.752016-07:00","sha1":"9a3878e49462bee12040ad723e97fd7697a49a0a","page_count":6,"file_size":172876,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:30.468515-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317433","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Thomas Frank Clark)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804866/","id":479804866,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/8/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.029540-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:26:54.593299-07:00","sha1":"898cd0460805aea003d43de68ec69247bfe0648a","page_count":26,"file_size":286566,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.8.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.8.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.713 Page 1\n of 26\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 6\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.714 Page 2\n of 26\n\n\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n BIOGRAPHY\n\n I. ATTORNEYS\n\n LAURENCE ROSEN \u2013 MANAGING PARTNER\n\n Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned an\n\n M.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and\n\n a B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the Honorable\n\n Stanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Rosen\n\n entered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in\n\n New York City where he participated in a number of complex securities class action and derivative\n\n litigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey\n\n where he specialized in securities and business litigation.\n\n After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with Solton\n\n Rosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors\n\n exclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted to practice\n\n law in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Rosen is also admitted to\n\n practice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the country and the United\n\n States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2025 Lawdragon named Mr. Rosen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers. Mr. Rosen was also named by law360 as Titan of Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar for 2020. Mr. Rosen\n\n was selected to Super Lawyers in 2017-2024.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.715 Page 3\n of 26\n\n\n\n PHILLIP KIM \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a B.A.\n\n in Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to joining\n\n The Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York\n\n in the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a number of class\n\n action lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more than seven trials.\n\n Mr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr.\n\n Kim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the Southern,\n\n Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District\n\n of Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Southern District of Texas, the District of\n\n Maryland, and United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2025 Lawdragon named Mr. Kim as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers. In 2023-2024 Mr. Kim was selected to Super Lawyers. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best\n\n Lawyers in The Best Lawyers of America 2024-2026.\n\n JACOB A. GOLDBERG \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Goldberg is a 1988 graduate of Columbia University. Mr. Goldberg received his J.D.,\n\n cum laude, from the Temple University School of Law in 1992. For over 23 years, Mr. Goldberg\n\n has litigated complex cases at the highest levels, championing the rights of investors, employees\n\n and consumers. Mr. Goldberg has recovered over $200 million for investors in securities class\n\n actions. In addition to serving in leadership roles in securities class actions, Mr. Goldberg has\n\n litigated many cases under state corporations laws, against faithless boards of directors both on\n\n behalf of shareholders, in the mergers and acquisitions context, and, derivatively, on behalf of\n\n corporations, to remedy harm to the corporation itself. Mr. Goldberg is admitted to practice law\n\n in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, New York, the United States Supreme Court, the United\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.716 Page 4\n of 26\n\n\n\n States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, and various United States\n\n District Courts across the country.\n\n In 2019-2025 Lawdragon named Mr. Goldberg as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff\n\n Financial Lawyers.\n\n JONATHAN A. SAIDEL \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Saidel has had a long and distinguished career in Pennsylvania politics, as well as in\n\n the roles of attorney, accountant and author. He served as Philadelphia city controller for four\n\n consecutive terms, each time earning reelection by a wide margin, and enacting financial reforms\n\n that have saved taxpayers upwards of $500 million. Later, in 2010 he went on to campaign for\n\n lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, where he was runner-up to Scott Conklin by only a few\n\n thousand votes out of almost 1 million cast. A Lifelong resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Mr.\n\n Saidel\u2019s tireless dedication to fiscal discipline reduced the city's tax burden and spurred economic\n\n development. Mr. Saidel also pushed for important business tax incentives and expanded minority\n\n and small business lending, all of which have revitalized the city, helping it prosper and come back\n\n from the brink of bankruptcy in the early 1990's to become one of the most vibrant cities on the\n\n East Coast.\n\n Mr. Saidel\u2019s book, \"Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction\", is widely considered an\n\n essential guide for effective government and corporate governance and is required reading at many\n\n colleges and universities.\n\n Mr. Saidel received his JD from the Widener University of Law and is a graduate of Temple\n\n University. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of\n\n Government, and Drexel University's MBA Program. In addition to being a Certified Public\n\n Account, Jonathan is a recipient of the National Association of Local Government Auditor's\n\n Knighton Award, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence,\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.717 Page 5\n of 26\n\n\n\n multiple special project awards from the National Association of Local Government Auditors, and\n\n the \"Controller of the Year\" award, a peer recognition presented by the Pennsylvania City\n\n Controllers Association.\n\n SARA FUKS \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February\n\n 2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political\n\n Science, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at\n\n Dewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to\n\n prosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms. Fuks\n\n is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District\n\n Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of\n\n Michigan. Ms. Fuks was selected to SuperLawyers in 2021-2024 and SuperLawyers Rising Stars\n\n in 2017-2019. In 2025 Lawdragon named Ms. Fuks as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers.\n\n JONATHAN HORNE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received\n\n the Lederman/Milbank Law, Economics, and Business fellowship, and holds a B.A. in Economics\n\n & Philosophy from the University of Toronto. Mr. Horne began his practice at Kaye Scholer LLP.\n\n Mr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New York and the\n\n United States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and Eastern Districts\n\n of New York. Mr. Horne was named a Super Lawyer \u2013 Rising Star for the New York Metro Area\n\n every year since 2015. In 2025 Lawdragon named Mr. Horne as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff\n\n Financial Lawyers.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.718 Page 6\n of 26\n\n\n\n YU SHI \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude,\n\n from Columbia University in 2008. In 2024 and 2005, Lawdragon recognized Mr. Shi as one of\n\n the 500 Leading Plaintiffs Financial Lawyers. In 2022, Law360 named Mr. Shi as one of the\n\n nation\u2019s top securities attorneys under the age of 40. He has been selected to Super Lawyers each\n\n year since 2018. Mr. Shi began his career as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New\n\n York City Law Department\u2019s Economic Development Division. Mr. Shi joined The Rosen Law\n\n Firm in 2012 and focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in the\n\n State of New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York,\n\n Southern Districts of New York, and the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of\n\n Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n JONATHAN STERN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he\n\n was a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in\n\n Philosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation\n\n department of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation\n\n boutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is admitted\n\n to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and\n\n Eastern District Courts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. In\n\n 2024-25 Lawdragon named Mr. Stern as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n JING CHEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011,\n\n Juris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.719 Page 7\n of 26\n\n\n\n B.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is\n\n admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm,\n\n Ms. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years. In\n\n 2024-25 Lawdragon named Ms. Chen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n BRIAN ALEXANDER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Alexander graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2008. He received a\n\n B.A. from Cornell University, magna cum laude, in 2003. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm,\n\n Mr. Alexander practiced complex commercial litigation at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and other\n\n prominent law firms in New York. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J.\n\n Dearie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is admitted to\n\n practice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\n New York, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Alexander was\n\n recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025. In 2025 Lawdragon named\n\n Mr. Alexander as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n DANIEL TYRE-KARP \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm in May 2018, Mr. Tyre-Karp was a senior associate\n\n in the securities litigation and corporate governance group at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he\n\n advised corporate and individual clients on a variety of high-stakes regulatory and litigation\n\n matters in state and federal courts. Mr. Tyre-Karp\u2019s extensive experience includes working on\n\n several of the largest recent shareholder class action litigations (In re American International\n\n Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Docket No. 08-CV-4772 (S.D.N.Y.) and related opt-out\n\n actions; In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. 6949 (Del. Ch.)),\n\n participating in complex business and bankruptcy litigations (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings,\n\n Inc., et al, Docket No. 1:08-bk-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), and advising numerous clients facing\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.720 Page 8\n of 26\n\n\n\n FINRA and SEC investigations. Mr. Tyre-Karp graduated with honors from Wesleyan University\n\n in 2003 and received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2009, where he served\n\n as Senior Notes Editor of the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. He is admitted to practice\n\n in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n\n York. Mr. Tyre-Karp was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025-\n\n 2026. In 2025 Lawdragon named Mr. Tyre-Karp as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers.\n\n ERICA STONE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received\n\n her B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of\n\n Pennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States\n\n District Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, the District of New\n\n Jersey, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2024, Ms. Stone\n\n was selected to Super Lawyers. Ms. Stone was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones\n\n to Watch 2025-2026.\n\n JOSHUA BAKER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Baker graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2013. He received\n\n a B.A. from the University of Maryland in 2009. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Baker\n\n practiced complex commercial litigation for a New York firm. He is admitted to practice in New\n\n York, Massachusetts, and United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\n New York and the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Baker was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best\n\n Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025-2026.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.721 Page 9\n of 26\n\n\n\n MATTHEW P. SIBEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Siben has 25 years of experience prosecuting high-profile securities fraud class actions\n\n on behalf of individual institutional investors. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 2000,\n\n Mr. Siben joined Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach to focus on securities litigation. Mr.\n\n Siben was influential in developing the scheme liability theories necessary to hold Enron\u2019s\n\n investment bank partners liable for their role in falsifying Enron\u2019s financial statements. Mr. Siben\n\n also had primary responsibility for prosecuting the case against Citigroup, obtaining a $2 billion\n\n settlement on behalf of the class.\n\n In 2007, Mr. Siben joined litigation boutique Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP\n\n to prosecute class cases and create the firm\u2019s opt-out practice representing institutional investors\n\n in direct actions. Among other successes, Mr. Siben initiated and prosecuted the firm\u2019s first opt-\n\n out action against Tyco International. Representing several mutual funds, a public pension fund,\n\n and hedge funds including Leon Cooperman\u2019s Omega Partners, Mr. Siben settled the case against\n\n Tyco for $100 million. This settlement represented a significant multiplier over the recovery in the\n\n class case and continues to be a benchmark in opt-out litigation.\n\n Mr. Siben is admitted to the bars of California, Florida, New York, and the United States\n\n District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the United States District\n\n Courts for the Southern, Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the United States\n\n District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, and the United States District\n\n Court for the District of Colorado.\n\n ROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Howald is a graduate of Stanford Law School where she was a member of the Stanford\n\n Law Review. Ms. Howald earned her BA from Barnard College, magna cum laude. Ms. Howald\n\n joined the firm in 2021 and focuses her practice on securities litigation. For the last 15 years, Ms.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.722 Page 10\n of 26\n\n\n\n Howald has prosecuted major securities litigations. She was one of the lead attorneys in cases that\n\n achieved settlements of $250 million for injured investors, including Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d\n\n 679 (7th Cir. 2010) ($41.5 million), In re Mannkind Corp. Securities Litigation (C.D. California)\n\n ($23 million); In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation (Eastern District of Virginia) ($21.75\n\n million), In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) ($20 million), In re\n\n Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, 2001 WL 34062431 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ($13.75 million), In\n\n re Puda Coal Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($8.6 million following reconsideration of grant\n\n of summary judgment), Jenson v. Fiserv Trust Co., 256 F. App\u2019x. 924 (9th Cir. 2007) ($8.5 million\n\n recovered for victims of a Ponzi scheme). Ms. Howald is admitted to the bars of California, New\n\n York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the\n\n Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the\n\n United States Court of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\n GONEN HAKLAY \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Haklay graduated from Stanford University School of Law in 1995. He received a\n\n B.A. in Political Science from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1992. After several\n\n years as an associate at a large Philadelphia law firm, Mr. Haklay joined the Philadelphia District\n\n Attorney\u2019s office. As a prosecutor, he tried over 100 criminal jury cases and handled both capital\n\n and non-capital homicide cases. After 12 years as prosecutor, Mr. Haklay joined a prominent\n\n plaintiffs\u2019 firm where he tried over ten asbestos cases, recovering millions of dollars for his clients.\n\n As a young man, Mr. Haklay served as an infantryman in the Israel Defense Forces. Mr. Haklay\n\n is admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United\n\n States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Third Circuit\n\n Court of Appeals. Mr. Haklay was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\n\n 2025-2026.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.723 Page 11\n of 26\n\n\n\n MICHAEL COHEN \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Cohen focuses his practice on securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Prior to\n\n joining The Rosen Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Cohen was an associate in the litigation practice of\n\n Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, where he advised corporate and individual clients on a\n\n wide variety of litigation and regulatory matters in federal and state courts. He has also served as\n\n a law clerk to the Honorable Corinne Beckwith of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr.\n\n Cohen is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Eastern\n\n and Southern Districts of New York. Mr. Cohen was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\n Ones to Watch 2023-2026. In 2025, Mr. Cohen was recognized by ALM Law.com Elite Trial\n\n Lawyers, Rising Star of the Plaintiffs Bar.\n\n LEAH HEIFETZ-LI \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Heifetz-Li is a 2009 graduate of Columbia Law School, and received a B.A. from the\n\n University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heifetz-Li served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia S.\n\n Kern, New York State Supreme Court, New York County. She has extensive experience in class\n\n action litigation, having previously practiced at a large class action firm representing shareholders\n\n in merger and acquisition litigation as well as shareholder derivative actions. Ms. Heifetz-Li has\n\n worked on case teams that secured significant financial recoveries for stockholders as well as\n\n corporate governance reforms in the Delaware Court of Chancery and other courts throughout the\n\n country. Ms. Heifetz-Li was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n HENRY BLOXENHEIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bloxenheim graduated from Columbia Law School in 2023. Mr. Bloxenheim received\n\n his B.A. in Political Science, summa cum laude, from Brooklyn College. Mr. Bloxenheim is\n\n admitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Southern District\n\n and Eastern District of New York.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.724 Page 12\n of 26\n\n\n\n CHRISTIE BUZZETTI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Buzzetti graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2022. She received her B.A. in\n\n Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016. Ms. Buzzetti is admitted\n\n to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern\n\n District of New York. Ms. Buzzetti was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to\n\n Watch 2026.\n\n JOSHUA CLEVELAND \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Cleveland graduated from Rutgers Law School in 2024, where he served as State\n\n Constitutional Law Editor of the Rutgers University Law Review. After law school, he clerked for\n\n the Honorable Michael J. Kassel in Camden County, New Jersey, assisting on matters involving\n\n complex civil litigation. Before pursuing law, Joshua worked as a financial analyst for a global\n\n healthcare information technology company. He draws on this background to advise and represent\n\n clients in breach of fiduciary duty and shareholder derivative litigation. Joshua is admitted to\n\n practice in Pennsylvania. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Villanova University, with additional\n\n study at the London School of Economics.\n\n YITZCHOK (IZZY) FISHBACH \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Fishbach received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2022, where he\n\n served as the Articles Editor of the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review. He received\n\n his B.A. in Political Science from Binghamton University in 2019. Mr. Fishbach is admitted to\n\n practice in New York, Tennessee, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and\n\n Southern Districts of New York.\n\n LUKE FOLEY \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Foley received his J.D. from the William and Mary Law School in 2022. He received\n\n his B.A. in History and Citizenship & Civic Engagement from Syracuse University in 2016. Prior\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.725 Page 13\n of 26\n\n\n\n to joining the Rosen Law Firm in September 2023, Mr. Foley was the Law Clerk to the Hon.\n\n Barbara Buono Stanton of the New Jersey Superior Court, Passaic County. Mr. Foley is admitted\n\n to practice in Maryland.\n\n RYAN HEDRICK \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Hedrick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 2019. He received his\n\n B.A. in Linguistics and Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University in\n\n 2015. Mr. Hedrick joined the Rosen Law Firm in August 2019. Mr. Hedrick is admitted to practice\n\n in New York, New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts\n\n of New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and United States Court of\n\n Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Hedrick was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\n Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n HA SUNG (SCOTT) KIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Kim received his J.D. from the Columbia Law School in 2017. He received his B.A.,\n\n magna cum laude, from Wheaton College in 2013. Mr. Kim joined the Rosen Law Firm in January\n\n 2020. Mr. Kim is admitted to practice in New York. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best Lawyers as\n\n Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n IAN MCDOWELL \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. McDowell graduated cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law in\n\n 2022. He received his B.A. from James Madison University in 2016. Mr. McDowell is admitted\n\n to practice in Pennsylvania and Maryland as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern\n\n District of Pennsylvania. Mr. McDowell was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones\n\n to Watch 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.726 Page 14\n of 26\n\n\n\n OLIVIA SIMKINS \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Simkins is a 2024 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. She earned her B.A.\n\n in Linguistics and English cum laude from Tulane University in 2017. Ms. Simkins is admitted to\n\n practice in Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\n\n Pennsylvania.\n\n II. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n \u2022 Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $250 million.\n\n \u2022 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $110 million.\n\n \u2022 Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $48\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Silver Wheaton Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $41.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $30.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $29.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $28.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Vanguard Target Date Retirement Funds, (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $25\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Just Energy Group, Inc., (Canada). Rosen USA Lead Counsel. $25 million (cdn).\n\n \u2022 Walter Investment Management, (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $24 million.\n\n \u2022 Galena Biopharma, Inc., (D. Or.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20.165 million.\n\n \u2022 Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20 million.\n\n \u2022 El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20 million.\n\n \u2022 VEON Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $19.97 million, pending Court approval.\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.727 Page 15\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $14 million bankruptcy\n\n settlement. $2.075 million with auditor.\n\n \u2022 USA Technologies, Inc., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $15.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Zillow Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., (W.D. Wash.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $15 million.\n\n \u2022 Silvercorp Metals, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel. $14 million.\n\n \u2022 Sandridge Energy, Inc., (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13.945 million.\n\n \u2022 Astec Industries, Inc., (E.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $13.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Apron Holdings, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Canopy Growth Corporation, (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13 million.\n\n \u2022 SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (Shareholder Derivative) (Del. Ch.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel. $12.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Arrival SA, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11.275 million, pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 The RealReal, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11 million.\n\n \u2022 Full Truck Alliance Co. (E.D.N.Y.) and (NY. Sup.). Rosen Federal Lead Counsel. $10.25\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Quest Energy Partners LP, (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $10.1 million all classes.\n\n \u2022 Prosper Marketplace, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Class Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 PG&E Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 comScore, Inc. (Shareholder Derivative), Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $9.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Uxin Limited, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.5 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.728 Page 16\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Concordia International Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.25 million.\n\n \u2022 PPDAI Group Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9 million.\n\n \u2022 Puda Coal, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.7 million.\n\n \u2022 RINO International Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8,685,000.\n\n \u2022 Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc.,(E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.5 million,\n\n pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Acer Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7.75 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Montage Technology Group Limited, (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7.25 million.\n\n \u2022 AgFeed Industries, (M.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Sundial Growers, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Akazoo S.A., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $6.51 million.\n\n \u2022 Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM, Inc. Sec. Litig., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $6.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., (D. N.J.). Rosen Class Counsel. $6.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Bender v. Vertex Energy, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Sunlands Technology Group, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Covia Holdings Corp., (N.D. Ohio). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6 million.\n\n \u2022 FalconStor Software, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 Jumia Technologies AG, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 Momo, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 SOS Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.729 Page 17\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Missfresh Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.9039 million.\n\n \u2022 Compass Minerals International, (D. Kansas). Rosen Lead Counsel, $4.9 million.\n\n \u2022 State Street, (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.9 million.\n\n \u2022 Dada Nexus Limited, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.8 million.\n\n \u2022 Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.75 million and 25\n\n Bitcoins.\n\n \u2022 Altice USA Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.75 million.\n\n \u2022 KIOR, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Entropin, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sonus Networks, Inc., (D. Mass). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Uni-Pixel, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 China Expert Technology, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.2 million.\n\n \u2022 IDreamSky Technology Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.15 million.\n\n \u2022 Universal Travel Group, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.075 million.\n\n \u2022 Allegiant Travel Co., (D. Nev.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Zynerba Pharms., Inc., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Dapper Labs, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel, $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc., (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.9 million.\n\n \u2022 Caribou Biosciences, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3.9 million.\n\n \u2022 China Electric Motor, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3,778,333.33.\n\n \u2022 IsoRay, Inc., (E.D. Wash.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3,537,500.\n\n \u2022 Deer Consumer Products, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.55 million.\n\n \u2022 SAExploration Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). $3.55 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.730 Page 18\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 L&L Energy, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Tarena International, Inc., N (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. and Auditor, (S.D.N.Y.) & (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 StockerYale, Inc., (D.N.H.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3.4\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Textura Corporation, (N.D Ill.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Roka Bioscience, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.275 million.\n\n \u2022 Intrusion, Inc., (E.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Co-Lead Counsel. $3.2 million.\n\n \u2022 New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $3.15 million.\n\n \u2022 TierOne Corporation, (D. Neb.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.1 million.\n\n \u2022 GDS Holdings Limited, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Hanmi Financial Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Cadiz, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Fat Brands, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 China Finance Online Co. Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.731 Page 19\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Spectrum Pharms. Inc., (D. Nev.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.995 million.\n\n \u2022 MiMedx Group, Inc., (N.D. Ga.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.979 million.\n\n \u2022 Pegasus Communications Corp, (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.95 million.\n\n \u2022 Albany Molecular Research, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.868 million.\n\n \u2022 Lihua International, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.865 million.\n\n \u2022 TVIA, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.85 million.\n\n \u2022 New Source Energy Partners LP, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.85 million.\n\n \u2022 Innocoll Holdings Public Ltd., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.755 million.\n\n \u2022 GigaCloud Technology Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Sequans Communications, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Akari Therapeutics PLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Electric Last Mile Solutions, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Growlife, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million (cash and stock).\n\n \u2022 Tangoe, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Twitter, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.485\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 China Education Alliance, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.425 million.\n\n \u2022 Oasmia Pharmaceuticals AB., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Capstone Green Energy Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Cousnel. $2.25 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.732 Page 20\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 BioAmber, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 DouYu International Holdings Ltd., (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 NetApp, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Akers Biosciences, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Kanzhun Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 SkyPeople Fruit Juice, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Fuwei Films, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.15 million.\n\n \u2022 Gulf Resources, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.125 million.\n\n \u2022 PTC Inc., (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.1 million.\n\n \u2022 DS Healthcare Group, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.1 million.\n\n \u2022 Indivior PLC, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 Orient Paper, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 Mesoblast Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 GTT Communications, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 EHang Holdings Limited. (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel, $1,985,000.\n\n \u2022 Latch, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.95 million.\n\n \u2022 iBio, Inc., (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.875 million.\n\n \u2022 CD Projekt SA, No. CV-20-11627 (FMO)(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.). $1.85 million.\n\n \u2022 Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.8 million.\n\n \u2022 Electronic Game Card, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.755 million.\n\n \u2022 BMW AG, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.733 Page 21\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Flux Power Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.75 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Corrrevio Pharma Corp.,(S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Delstaff LLC (Merger Litigation), (Cal. Superior). $1.6425 million.\n\n \u2022 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc, (Cal. Superior). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $1.615 million.\n\n \u2022 Alliance MMA, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Nutracea, Inc., (D. Ariz.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Kraton Corporation, (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 RMG Networks Holding Corporation (Merger Litigation), (Del. Ch.). $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 BlueNRGY Group Ltd, f/k/a CBD Energy Ltd., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Ambow Education Holding Ltd., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Active Power, Inc., (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Northfield Laboratories, Inc., (N.D. Ill.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 PartsBase.com, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 China Natural Gas, Inc., (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 FAB Universal Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sogou, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.45 million.\n\n \u2022 Code Rebel Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.415 million.\n\n \u2022 Empyrean Bioscience, (N.D. Ga.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.4 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.734 Page 22\n of 26\n\n\n\n \u2022 Shattuck Labs, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Longeveron, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.395 million.\n\n \u2022 Agria, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Aterian, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.3 million.\n\n \u2022 CoCrystal Pharma, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.265 million.\n\n \u2022 Wins Financial Holdings, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.26 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\n\n \u2022 ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.215 million.\n\n \u2022 Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Himax Technologies, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 M.H. Meyerson & Co., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Izea, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Hywin Holdings Ltd. (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 India Globalization Capital, Inc., (D. Md.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 National Lampoon, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Lentuo International, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Katanga Mining Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Busybox.com, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n III. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. IS CURRENTLY\n LEAD COUNSEL\n\n In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-5296-RMB-JS (D.N.J.)\n\n Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.735 Page 23\n of 26\n\n\n\n In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Sec. Litig., No. CV 12-4621- JFW (PLAx) (C.D.\n\n Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\n Class Counsel.\n\n Handal v. Tenet Fintech Group, Inc., No. 21-cv-6461 (PKC)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Hoang v. ContextLogic, Inc., No. 21-cv-3930-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 22-cv-2359-EP-JRA (D.N.J.).\n\n Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., No. 21-CV-1987-FLA-A (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-45-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n In re DiDi Global Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-CV-5807 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Patterson v. TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd., No. 22-cv-3600-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Diaz v. The Gap, Inc., No. 22-cv-7371 (DG)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Armbruster v. Gaia, Inc., No. 22-CV-3267 (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pang v. Levitt (Core Scientific, Inc.), No. 22-CV-1191-LY (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Goodman v. Wheels Up Experience, Inc., No. 23-cv-2900 (OEM)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.).\n\n Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Enovix Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-71-SI (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc., No. 23-cv-8270 (LAK)(SN) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.736 Page 24\n of 26\n\n\n\n Lewandowski v. Tal Education Group, No. 23-cv-1769 (MEF) (JRA) (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Tan v. PacWest Bancorp., No. CV-23-1685 (JWH)(ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Maschhoff v. Polished.com, No. 22-cv-6605(NGG)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Pelham v. VBIT Tech. Corp., No. 23-CV-162-CFC-SRF (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., No. 23-cv-9630 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y.) Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-4565 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Taylor v. The Chemours Company, No. 24-cv-361-RGA (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc., No. 24-cv-2778-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Intel Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-2683-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., No. 24-cv-12119-LTS (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Nelson v. Sun Communities, Inc., No. 24-cv-13314-MAG (E.D. Mich.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Liberato v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., No. 4:25-cv-957-JST (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Drott v. Sana Biotechnology, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-512-BJR (W.D. Wash.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Evangelista v. Late Stage Asset Management, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-5292 (KAM) (MMH)\n\n (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.737 Page 25\n of 26\n\n\n\n Alvarez v. Pacira Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-322-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Lucid Alternative Fund LP v. Elastic N.V., No. 25-cv-785 (RPK)(SDE) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\n Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Britton v. Polestar Automotive Holdings UK PLC, No. 25-CV-840-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.).\n\n Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Karas v. Newmont Corp., No. 25-cv-341-DDD-KAS (D. Colo.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Cai v. Visa, Inc., No. 24-CV-8220-NW (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Buathongsri v. Zenas Biopharma, Inc., No. 25-cv-10988-FDS-JDH (D. Mass.). Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Micron Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 25-cv-191-BLW (D. Idaho). Rosen Co-\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Weber v. Nextracker, Inc., Nop. 24-cv-9467-PCP (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc., No. 24-cv-8959 (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Baker v. Cummins, Inc., No. 25-cv-430-TWP-MWK (S.D. Ind.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Collura v. Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., No. 24-cv-9027 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Banurs v. Li Auto, Inc., No. 24-cv-3470 (DG)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Rocket Pharms. Sec. Litig., No. 3:25-cv-10049-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Norrman v. KBR, Inc., No. 25-cv-4464 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 25-cv-4177-EKL (N.D. Cal.). Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Lee v. Quantum Corp., No. 25-cv-2770-PAB-CYC (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 24\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-8 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.738 Page 26\n of 26\n\n\n\n O\u2019Connor v. CTO Realty Growth, Inc., No. 25-cv-1516-AGM-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Rosen\n\n Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Jboor v. Replimune Group, Inc., No. 25-cv-12085-JEK (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pacella v. Hesai Group Inc., No. 24-cv-866 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Hickman v. Flywire Corp., No. 25-cv-4110 (FB) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp., No. 25-cv-6869-SVW (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Tamraz v. Reddit, Inc., No. 25-cv-5144-JD (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, No. 25-cv-326-JLH-\n\n LDH. Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Norrman v. KBR, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-4464 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 25\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:35.760309-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317434","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 6 (Firm resume of Rosen Law)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804867/","id":479804867,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/9/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.040202-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:30:42.585448-07:00","sha1":"adfa21b2332a6c9c769d0d5fa49e0a26bb8e0698","page_count":20,"file_size":586990,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.9.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.9.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.739 Page 1\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.740 Page 2\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n FIRM RESUME\n\n Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. represents clients in complex litigation throughout the\n country. Our practice focuses on prosecuting stockholder securities class actions, corporate\n governance actions, and merger actions in federal and state courts. Our attorneys have been\n appointed as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in hundreds of securities, corporate\n governance, and merger actions around the country. We also have strong practices in\n bankruptcy-related litigation and have been retained by creditor committees or post-\n confirmation trustees to litigate D&O and other claims for the benefit of the bankruptcy\n estate or creditors. We also have a breadth of experience to litigate a full range of commercial\n disputes.\n\n Our attorneys come from various legal backgrounds and collectively have decades of\n experience litigating securities class actions, corporate governance matters, merger actions,\n and consumer rights actions, obtaining over a billion dollars in recoveries for clients and\n class members. We litigate cases aggressively, from the initial investigation, through motion\n practice, discovery, trial and appeals. We are headquartered in New York City and have\n offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California and South Carolina.\n\n DERIVATIVE, SECURITIES, AND MERGER LITIGATION\n\n The core of our practice is representing stockholders prosecuting securities class actions,\n corporate governance actions, and merger actions.\n\n We have an active practice representing clients in cases pending in the Delaware Court of\n Chancery and have achieved success litigating matters involving stockholder rights,\n corporate governance, and limited partner rights. We are one of the nation\u2019s leading firms\n litigating complex legal issues under Delaware law applicable to alternative entities,\n including publicly-traded master limited partnerships and limited liability companies.\n\n In the master limited partnership field, we have frequently represent limited partners\n challenging the fairness of \u201cconflicted\u201d transactions between a publicly-traded partnership\n and its controlling parent entity. In In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., Derivative\n Litigation, we successfully tried claims before the Delaware Court of Chancery and obtained\n one of the only verdicts finding that independent directors of a master limited partnership\n acted with subjective bad faith when approving a conflicted transaction with the parent.\n 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 116 (April 20, 2015). 1\n\n In Mesirov v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., we obtained a favorable ruling from\n the Delaware Supreme Court, which clarified the standard applicable to certain conflicted\n transactions between the master limited partnership and its parent. 159 A.3d 242 (Del. March 28,\n 2017).\n\n\n\n\n 1 The case was subsequently dismissed on appeal due to plaintiff\u2019s loss of standing.\n\n\n\n SOUTH CAROLINA NEW YORK CALIFORNIA\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.741 Page 3\n of 20\n\n\n\n Representative Matters\n Derivative Actions\n\n \u2022 In re CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation: Consolidated\n Derivative Action, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM), United States District Court for\n the District of Minnesota. We were appointed lead counsel to pursue derivative\n claims on behalf of CenturyLink against certain of its current and former directors\n and officers. The claims arose out of the company\u2019s alleged practice of allowing its\n employees to add services or lines to accounts without customer permission,\n resulting in millions of dollars in unauthorized charges to CenturyLink customers.\n This case is in the final stages of settlement resolution.\n\n \u2022 Granite Construction Incorporated. - English v. Roberts, Case No. 3:19-cv-\n 04744-WHA (N.D. Cal.) We were counsel along with counsel in a related action\n pending in Delaware Chancery Court in derivative actions that alleged that\n Granite and certain of its directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by,\n inter alia, issuing and/or permitting the issuance of false and misleading\n statements concerning the Company\u2019s financial performance on four major\n construction projects (the \u201cProjects\u201d). The claims followed allegations in a\n securities class action arising out of the alleged misstatements and omissions. The\n claims were successfully settled for (1) a payment by Granite\u2019s insurers of\n $7,500,000 to Granite; and (2) the adoption of comprehensive corporate\n governance reforms.\n\n \u2022 Mesirov v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11314, Appeal No. 273,\n (Del. Supreme Court 2016). We prosecuted class and derivative claims on behalf\n of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (\u201cEEP\u201d) against EEP\u2019s general partner, parent,\n and affiliated entities. The claims arose out of a January 2015 \u201cdrop down\u201d\n transaction pursuant to which the general partner sold certain pipeline assets to\n EEP for $1 billion plus additional consideration in the form of a \u201cspecial tax\n allocation\u201d. We secured a favorable ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court,\n reversing in part the Chancery Court\u2019s dismissal of the action. The action was\n dismissed as a result of EEP\u2019s merger into Enbridge Inc., which deprived the\n plaintiff of standing. The EEP Special Committee that negotiated an increase in\n the merger price valued the derivative claims at $111.2 million and asserted that\n Enbridge\u2019s offer failed to account for this value. Reported decisions: 159 A.3d 242\n (Del. March 28, 2017) (reversing order of dismissal); 2018 Del. Ch. LEXIS 294 (Del.\n Ch. August 29, 2018) (denying in part motion to dismiss third amended complaint).\n The case has successfully settled.\n\n \u2022 In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8885 (Del. Ch.\n 2013). We were co-lead counsel prosecuting class and derivative claims on behalf\n of Activision\u2019s stockholders arising out of a conflicted transaction unfairly\n favoring Activision\u2019s senior management. The matter settled on the eve of trial\n for $275 million, by far the largest monetary settlement in the history of the\n\n www.bespc.com\n 2\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.742 Page 4\n of 20\n\n\n\n Delaware Court of Chancery and the largest cash derivative settlement in the\n country. In addition, the settlement provided significant corporate governance\n benefits to the class. Reported decision: 86 A.3d 531 (February 21, 2014) (court\n compelled foreign national directors of controlling stockholder to respond to\n discovery).\n\n \u2022 In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 7141 (Del. Ch.\n 2011). We prosecuted claims on behalf of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., a public\n master limited partnership, against its general partner and its sponsor, El Paso\n Corporation (now merged into Kinder Morgan, Inc.). The Court after trial found\n that the partnership was damaged in the amount of $171 million. 2 Reported\n decision: 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 116 (April 20, 2015)\n\n \u2022 In re Third Avenue Trust Stockholder & Derivative Litigation, Cons. C.A. No.\n 12184 (Del. Ch. 2016). We were co-lead counsel prosecuting claims for breach of\n fiduciary duty against the Trust\u2019s officers and its investment advisor arising out of\n the collapse of the Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund. The case settled for $25\n million.\n\n \u2022 In re Equifax, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-17, United States\n District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. We represented individual and\n institutional stockholders prosecuting derivative claims on behalf of Equifax\n against certain of Equifax\u2019s current and former officers and directors for breaches\n of fiduciary duty arising out of Equifax\u2019s 2017 data breach. We successfully settled\n this case.\n\n \u2022 Baron v. Sanborn, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04391-WHA, United States District\n Court for the Northern District of California. We represent a stockholder of\n LendingClub Corporation, an on-line marketplace platform that connects\n borrowers to lenders. The stockholder is bringing derivative claims on behalf of\n the company against certain current and former directors and officers arising out\n of the company\u2019s business practice of making false statements to potential\n borrowers concerning applicable fees and the loan approval process. The court\n appointed us co-lead counsel on April 25, 2019.\n\n \u2022 Meldon v. Thompson, et al., Civil Action No. 18-cv-10166, United States District\n Court for the District of New Jersey. We represented a stockholder of Freshpet,\n Inc., a manufacturer of foods for dogs and cats. The stockholder brought a\n derivative action on behalf of the company alleging that certain current and\n former directors and officers caused the company to make false and misleading\n statements about the company\u2019s business results and prospects. The claims arise\n out of the defendants\u2019 alleged failure to disclose expected decreases in revenues due to\n manufacturing problems and financial difficulties at the company\u2019s primary retail\n customers. We successfully settled this case and achieved corporate governance reforms\n\n 2 The case was subsequently dismissed on appeal due to plaintiff\u2019s loss of standing.\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 3\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.743 Page 5\n of 20\n\n\n as a term of settlement.\n\n \u2022 Walker v. Desisto, et al., Civil Action No. 17-10738-MLW, United States District\n Court for the District of Massachusetts. We represented a stockholder of Insulet\n Corporation bringing derivative claims on behalf of the company against certain of\n the company\u2019s current and former directors and officers for making false and\n misleading statements concerning market demand for the company\u2019s disposable\n insulin delivery system, \u201cOmniPod.\u201d We successfully settled this matter.\n\n \u2022 In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12711, Delaware Court\n of Chancery. We represented institutional asset managers prosecuting direct and\n derivative claims on behalf of Tesla arising out of Tesla\u2019s acquisition of SolarCity\n Corporation..\n\n \u2022 Brinckerhoff v. Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, L.L.C., C.A. No. 2427\n (Del. Ch. 2010). We prosecuted claims on behalf of TEPPCO\u2019s common unitholders\n claiming that in a series of transactions orchestrated by TEPPCO\u2019s general partner,\n TEPPCO had been shortchanged by hundreds of millions of dollars. The action\n was resolved by a merger which benefitted TEPPCO\u2019s unitholders by more than\n $400 million. Reported decision: 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 174 (November 25, 2008)\n (denial in part of motion to dismiss). We successfully settled this case.\n\n \u2022 Gerber v. Enterprise Products Holdings L.L.C., C.A. No. 5989 (Del. Ch. 2013). We\n served as lead counsel for derivative and class claims arising out of a variety of\n master limited partnership transactions, alleging that the general partner\u2019s\n approvals of the transactions were done in bad faith and in breach of the implied\n covenant of good faith and fair dealing. One action was settled by defendants\n agreeing to a merger that increased the value of the limited partnership units by\n approximately $400 million. In another action, after the trial court dismissed the\n complaint, we prevailed before the Delaware Supreme Court to reinstate the\n claims for breach 4mplyed covenant. The matters settled for $12.4 million for the\n Master Limited Partnership unitholders. Reported decision: 67 A.3d 400,\n overruled in part, 159 A.3d 242 (Del. June 10, 2013) (reversing order of dismissal).\n\n \u2022 In re Allegiant Travel Co. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 3:18-01864, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. We are co-lead\n counsel representing stockholders in a derivative action asserting claims against\n Allegiant\u2019s current and former officers and directors for breaches of duties owed\n to the company arising out of the company\u2019s failures to maintain the safety of its\n airplanes.\n\n \u2022 In re Mattel, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2021-0417 (Del. Ch.\n 2021). We were co-lead counsel representing stockholders in a derivative action\n asserting claims against Mattel\u2019s current and former officers and directors for\n breaches of duties owed to the company arising out their cover-up of known\n material misstatements in Mattel\u2019s reported financial results and known severe\n\n www.bespc.com\n 4\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.744 Page 6\n of 20\n\n\n\n weaknesses in its internal controls. The case was successfully settled for\n monetary relief and corporate governance reforms.\n\n \u2022 In re Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-\n 04293, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This case\n concerned alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain current and former\n officers and directors of Vanda relating to (1) the purported off-label promotion\n of Vanda Pharmaceutical Inc.\u2019s two commercially-available drugs: Fanapt\u00ae,\n which is FDA-approved to treat schizophrenia in adults, and Hetlioz\u00ae, which is\n FDA-approved to treat Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder (\u201cNon-24\u201d), a circadian\n rhythm disorder, as well as (2) the FDA\u2019s imposition of a partial clinical hold on\n clinical trials for tradipitant, a drug in Vanda\u2019s development pipeline. We\n successfully settled and obtained corporate governance reforms to help prevent\n similar breaches of duty in the future.\n\n \u2022 In re Alphabet Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.:\n 19CV341522, Superior Court, State of California, County of Santa Clara. Officers\n and directors of Alphabet made materially false and misleading statements\n regarding the Company\u2019s business, operations, and compliance policies. We\n represented shareholders along with other counsel and achieved a favorable\n settlement.\n\n \u2022 In re Impinj, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consol. CA. No. 1: 18-cv-1686, United\n States District Court for the District of Delaware. In this stockholder derivative\n action, we asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,\n insider selling and misappropriation of information, and violations of Section\n 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 on behalf of\n nominal defendant Impinj against certain of its officers and members of the\n Company\u2019s Board of Directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d). We successfully settled this case.\n\n Securities Class Actions\n\n \u2022 Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-05857-SI; Pirani v.\n Slack Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.); No. 20-16419 (9th Cir. 2021); Slack\n Technologies, LLC, f/k/a Slack Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 22-200 (2022). The\n plaintiff brought this class action case against Slack, alleging that Slack's\n registration statement was misleading because it did not disclose certain\n information in its registration statement about Slack's service disruptions and\n how customers were compensated for them. The district court and the Ninth\n Circuit found that the plaintiff did not have to show that he purchased registered\n shares, when registered and unregistered shares were sold at the same time\n under the same registration statement, to have standing to sue under Section 11\n of the Securities Act of 1933. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari\n and in a decision released in June 2023, the Court rejected certain Section 11\n arguments and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration\n of Plaintiff\u2019s Section 11 and Section 12 claims.\n\n www.bespc.com\n 5\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.745 Page 7\n of 20\n\n\n\n \u2022 Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:18 Civ. 3655, United States District\n Court for the Southern District of New York. We are lead counsel prosecuting\n claims for violations of the federal securities laws arising out of Gridsum\u2019s\n materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding its financial\n reporting. The Court appointed us lead counsel on September 17, 2018. The\n parties recently advised the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle\n to settle and are working on a formal settlement agreement and motion for\n approval of the settlement.\n\n \u2022 In re Vivint Solar, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00919, United\n States District Court for the District of Utah. We served as Lead Counsel to\n plaintiffs prosecuting claims for violations of the federal securities laws arising\n out of Vivint\u2019s alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company\u2019s\n legal battles and alleged financial harm stemming from alleged fraudulent sales.\n The case was successfully settled in mediation for the payment of $1,250,000, and\n the settlement was finally approved in May of 2022.\n\n \u2022 Stein, et al. v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-98, United\n States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Chattanooga. We\n served as counsel to two representative plaintiffs along with co-lead counsel for\n the class prosecuting federal securities class action arising out of USX\u2019s June 14,\n 2018, initial public offering (\u201cIPO\u201d). The initial complaint was filed on April 2,\n 2019, asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,\n against USX, certain executives, and the underwriters of its IPO, for issuing a\n Registration Statement and Prospectus (\u201cOffering Documents\u201d) containing\n material misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint alleged that the\n Offering Documents misrepresented USX\u2019s ability to maintain sufficient drivers to\n meet shippers\u2019 demands, while in reality, USX was experiencing acute driver\n shortages, had to shift drivers from its more profitable \u201cover-the-road\u201d (\u201cOTR\u201d)\n contracts to its fixed rate \u201cdedicated\u201d contracts, and suffered losses as a result.\n The case was successfully settled for $13.0 million, and the settlement was finally\n approved on July 12, 2023.\n\n \u2022 Ortmann v. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-01335, United\n States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 20, 2023, we were\n appointed Lead Counsel in this federal securities class action arising from\n Aurinia\u2019s false and misleading statements about its financial results. Specifically,\n the false and misleading statements and failures to disclose involve Aurinia\u2019s\n declining revenues and expected shortfalls in its 2022 sales outlook for\n LUPKYNIS. This case is ongoing.\n\n \u2022 Chang v. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:18-06965, United\n States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involved\n Helios's false and misleading statements about the sustainability of its new\n business model for MoviePass subscribers and data profitability. We negotiated\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 6\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.746 Page 8\n of 20\n\n\n\n a favorable settlement for the class resulting in the creation of a common fund of\n $8.25 million for qualifying class members.\n\n \u2022 In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:10-md-02185, United States\n District Court for the Southern District of Texas. We represent nine institutional\n asset managers that purchased BP stock on the London Stock Exchange and\n prosecuted claims against BP for violations of English securities laws arising out\n of BP\u2019s false and misleading statements concerning the safety of its offshore oil rigs\n and operations and false and misleading statements regarding the size of the oil\n spill. The claims were successfully resolved in March of 2021.\n\n \u2022 Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16 Civ. 1947, United States\n District Court for the Central District of California. We were co-lead counsel\n prosecuting a securities class action against NantKwest, a biotechnology company\n that develops immunotherapeutic agents for various clinical conditions and in\n which we are co-lead counsel for the plaintiff. The action resulted from\n NantKwest\u2019s false and misleading statements in connection with its initial public\n offering and failure to disclose errors in its financial filings with the SEC. On May\n 13, 2019, the Court granted final approval of a settlement that will provide $12\n million to the class. Reported decision: 2018\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137084 (August 13, 2018) (order granting class certification).\n\n \u2022 Cullinan v. Cemtrex, Inc., et al., Consolidated Case No. 2:17-cv-01067, United\n States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We were co-lead\n counsel prosecuting claims on behalf of a class of stockholders arising out of\n violations of the federal securities laws related to company insider\u2019s improper\n sales of stock and false and misleading statements concerning the company\u2019s\n business operations. The case was settled successfully in March 2018.\n\n Merger Litigation\n\n \u2022 In re: SCANA Corporation Public Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:18-cv-\n 0505-MBS (D.S.C.) (\u201cFederal Merger Action\u201d); KBC Asset Management NV v. Kevin\n Marsh, et al., Civil Action No. 2019-CP-4002522 (South Carolina, Richmond Co, Ct.\n of Common Pleas); Teresa Parler v. Kevin Marsh, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-CP-\n 40-06621 (South Carolina, Richmond Co, Ct. of Common Pleas) (collectively the\n \u201cSCANA Merger Actions\u201d). In the SCANA Merger Actions, we acted as co-lead\n counsel and lead derivative counsel in actions against certain former officers and\n directors of SCANA Corporation, a South Carolina based regulated electric and\n natural gas public utility. The SCANA Merger Actions arose out of the 2017\n collapse of the V.C. Summer nuclear project and the resulting merger of SCANA\n with Dominion Corporation, and damages caused by material misrepresentations\n and omissions made in connection with that project. The case was successfully\n settled in 2022, for a total settlement amount of $63 million, payable to SCANA\u2019s\n injured former shareholders that are members of the Class.\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 7\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.747 Page 9\n of 20\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re: CVR Refining, LP Unitholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0062\n (Del. Ch.). Our firm was appointed as Chair of the Executive Committee as Counsel\n for Lead Plaintiff. The case went to trial before Chancellor McCormick in the\n Delaware Chancery Court in July 2021, and successfully resolved by settlement\n and approved by the Court in December 2022.\n\n \u2022 True Value Company, C.A. No. 2018-0257, Delaware Court of Chancery. Co-lead\n counsel representing stockholder and independent retailer of True Value Company\n in a challenge to the fairness of a conflicted transaction by which each True Value\n stockholder would be forced to sell 70% of its shares at par value, ending up as\n indirect minority members of the Company. The action resulted in additional\n disclosures by defendants, which the Court found to be material.\n\n \u2022 In re Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8922,\n Delaware Court of Chancery. Our firm was co-lead counsel representing a class\n of Cornerstone Therapeutics stockholders challenging an acquisition of the\n company by its controlling stockholder in a \u201cgoing private\u201d transaction. The\n matter settled for $17,881,555 in cash benefits to the class.\n\n \u2022 Ross and Parker v. Rh\u00f4ne Capital, L.L.C. et al., Case No. CACE-16-013220 (Cir. Ct.\n 17th Jud. Dist., Broward Cnty., Fla.). Partners of our firm were counsel in action\n challenging the acquisition of Elizabeth Arden by Revlon.\n\n \u2022 In re Allion Healthcare, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 5022-CC (Del. Ch.).\n Partners of our firm were co-lead counsel in action challenging a going-private\n transaction whereby Allion merged with H.I.G. Capital Inc. and a group of Allion\n stockholders. The action was settled with a $4 million payment to Allion\u2019s\n unaffiliated shareholders and additional disclosures to shareholders.\n\n \u2022 In re RehabCare Group, Inc., Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6197-VCL (Del.\n Ch.). Partners of our firm were co-lead counsel in action challenging the\n acquisition of RehabCare by Kindred Healthcare, Inc. which resulted in a $2.5\n million payment to RehabCare shareholders, modification of the merger\n agreement, and additional disclosures to shareholders.\n\n \u2022 In re Atheros Communications Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6124-VCN (Del.\n Ch.). Partners of our firm were co-lead counsel in action challenging the\n acquisition of Atheros by Qualcomm Incorporated which resulted in the issuance\n of a preliminary injunction by the Delaware Court of Chancery delaying the\n shareholder vote and requiring additional disclosures to shareholders.\n\n \u2022 Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. PLATO Learning, Inc., C.A. No. 5402-VCS (Del.\n Ch.). Partners of our firm were lead counsel in action challenging the acquisition\n of PLATO by Thoma Bravo, LLC which resulted in the issuance of a preliminary\n injunction by the Delaware Court of Chancery requiring additional disclosures to\n shareholders.\n\n www.bespc.com\n 8\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.748 Page 10\n of 20\n\n\n\n BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY\u2010RELATED LITIGATION\n\n Our knowledge of bankruptcy law and procedure has helped us carve a niche in this\n often- overlapping sphere of litigation. Our practice includes representing clients who have\n invested in companies undergoing reorganization. We have also acted as bankruptcy\n counsel to other firms pursuing claims on behalf of their clients. We have often been retained\n by creditors committee or post-confirmation trustees to pursue claims for the benefit of the\n estates in question, including litigation arising out of financial misrepresentation and\n breaches of fiduciary duty by debtors\u2019 directors and officers.\n\n Representative Matters\n\n \u2022 Mundhra, et al. v. Willowood USA Holdings, LLC, 18CV23323, Cir. Ct. Oregon,\n County Multnomah (2018). We filed a complaint for Contract Reformation and\n Declaratory Relief. A stipulated general judgment of dismissal was reached in July\n 2021.\n\n \u2022 Creditor Trust of Energy & Exploration Partners, Inc. v. Apollo Investment\n Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 17-04035 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2017). We represented a\n post- confirmation Creditor Trust asserting claims against Apollo Investment\n Corporation and affiliated entities for fraudulent conveyance arising out of\n Debtors\u2019 payment of penalty in connection with prepayment of debt. The matter\n settled favorably for the Creditor Trust.\n\n \u2022 Creditor Trust of Vivaro Corporation v. Catalina Acquisitions L.LC., JAMS\n Arbitration. We represented a post-confirmation Creditor Trust asserting claims\n for breach of promissory note. The matter settled favorably for the Creditor Trust.\n\n \u2022 Hebrew Hospital Senior Housing, Inc., Plan Administrator, C.A. 17-01240\n (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). We represent a post-confirmation Plan Administrator\n bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former officers and\n directors of Hebrew Hospital Senior Housing, Inc. (\u201cHHSH\u201d), a bankrupt\n \u201ccontinuing care retirement community.\u201d The Plan Administer is also asserting\n claims assigned by current and former residents of HHSH asserting that they did\n not receive mandated disclosures. We successfully settled this case.\n\n \u2022 Advance Watch Company, Ltd. Creditor Trust, C.A. No. 17-7461 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).\n We represented a post-confirmation Liquidating Trust asserting claims for breach\n of fiduciary duty against former officers and directors of Advance Watch\n Company, Ltd.\n\n \u2022 UGHS Senior Living, Inc. Liquidating Trust, C.A. No. 2017-75532, District Court\n of State of Texas, Harris County. We represented a post-confirmation Liquidating\n Trustee asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former officers and\n directors. The matter settled favorably for the Creditor Trust.\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 9\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.749 Page 11\n of 20\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Solutions Liquidation LLC, Adv. P. No. 18-50304 (Bankr. Del. 2018). We\n represent the post-confirmation Liquidating Trust bringing claims for breach of\n fiduciary duty against the former officers and directors of SDI Solutions LLC.\n\n \u2022 In re Worldcom, No. 02-13533 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). We represented a patent owner\n in a multimillion dollar claim for patent infringement. The case resolved favorably\n for client.\n\n \u2022 In re Enron Corp., No. 01-16034 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). Stockholders filed suit against\n a corporation that withdrew from a merger agreement with the debtor\n corporation seeking to enforce the merger agreement. The case was settled for\n $6 million.\n\n \u2022 In re Universal Automotive Industries, Inc., No. 05-27778 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2005).\n We represented trustee and secured lenders in claims against former officers and\n directors. The case resolved favorably for plaintiffs.\n\n \u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., No. 04-85595 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004). We\n represented a trustee in litigation against former officers and directors. The case\n resolved favorably for trustee.\n\n \u2022 In re Allou Distributors, Inc., No. 03-82321 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.). We represented\n trustee and secured lenders in claims against former officers and directors. The\n case resolved favorably for plaintiffs.\n\n \u2022 Arbor Place, L.P. v. Encore Opportunity Fund, L.L.C., No. 20436 (Del. Ch. 2003).\n Investors in a hedge fund sued for misrepresenting the value of the investments.\n The case resolved favorably for plaintiffs.\n\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 10\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.750 Page 12\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS\n\n We have extensive experience litigating class actions on behalf of consumers. We\n have prosecuted claims for damages arising out of data breaches, defective coin-counting\n machines, consumer loyalty programs, and other consumer matters.\n\n \u2022 Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., Case No. CV 09 08394, United States\n District Court for the Central District of California. We represented a class of\n California adult smokers who purchased packs of Camel cigarettes and collected\n Camel Cash, or \u201cC-Notes,\u201d as part of the Camel Cash loyalty program. The class\n asserted claims that Reynolds breached its contract with program members when,\n on October 1, 2006, Reynolds removed all the non-tobacco related merchandise\n from the Camel Cash program, and program members could redeem C-Notes only\n for cigarettes or coupons for dollars off cigarettes. In 2012, we obtained a victory\n before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district\n court\u2019s dismissal of the complaint. The Ninth Circuit found that the Camel Cash\n program created a unilateral contract between consumers and Reynolds.\n Pursuant to a settlement reached in 2016, R.J. Reynolds offered Class Members the\n opportunity to use C-Notes that they collected and held as of October 1, 2006, to\n redeem for non-tobacco merchandise. Reported decisions: 697 F.3d 777 (9th Cir.\n October 15, 2012) (reversing order of dismissal); 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176858\n (December 19, 2014) (order granting class certification and denying defendant\u2019s\n motion for summary judgment).\n\n \u2022 Castillo v. Seagate Technology LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01958, United States\n District Court for the Northern District of California. We represented current and\n former employees of Seagate and its affiliates, and the employees\u2019 spouses,\n seeking damages arising from Seagate\u2019s March 2016 data breach in which Seagate\n wrongfully disclosed the employees\u2019 2015 Form W-2 tax information in a\n \u201cphishing\u201d scam. The matter settled in March 2018. Pursuant to the settlement,\n Seagate agreed to provide Class Members with the option to obtain two years of\n identity theft protection and to reimburse Class Members for certain economic\n costs. Reported decision: 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187428 (September 14, 2016)\n (order denying in party motion to dismiss).\n\n \u2022 Feinman v. TD Bank, N.A., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York\n County. We were co-class counsel in consumer class action alleging that TD\n Bank\u2019s \u201cPenny Arcade\u201d coin-counting machines under-counted coins deposited by\n consumers. Class counsel negotiated a $7.5 million settlement in favor of the class.\n\n \u2022 Filannino-Restifo v. TD Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 16-cv-02374, United States District\n Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that\n TD Bank\u2019s \u201cPenny Arcade\u201d change counting machines undercounted the amount\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 11\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.751 Page 13\n of 20\n\n\n\n of change deposited by customers and non-customers, causing harm to the\n individuals who used the Penny Arcade machines. We successfully negotiated a\n settlement in this case.\n\n \u2022 Chery v. Conduent Education Servs., LLC et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00075, United\n States District Court for the Northern District of New York. We represented\n student loan borrowers whose absolute right to prepay their student loans was\n thwarted because Conduent Education Services, LLC and its affiliates failed to\n return timely or complete Loan Verification Certificates. Without the timely\n production of the Loan Verification Certificates needed to process their\n prepayments, borrowers lost the right to pay off their loans and lost qualifying\n payments towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Class counsel negotiated a\n $3.25 million settlement in favor of the class.\n\n \u2022 In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability\n Litigation, Case No. 8:22-ml-03052 (C.D. Cal.). We represented consumers who\n owned or leased Hyundais or Kias that did not include standard anti-theft technology\u2014\n a defect that made these vehicles a safety and theft risk. A proposed settlement has\n been reached covering approximately 9 million 2011-2022 Hyundai and Kia vehicles\n in the United States and creating a fund of up to $145 million in out-of-pocket\n reimbursement costs. Final settlement approval is pending.\n\n \u2022 Sysco Metro NY, LLC v. The City of New York, et al., Supreme Court of the State of\n New York, New York County. This case arose out of New York City\u2019s violations of\n vehicle and traffic law by enforcing parking summonses where the body type\n description on the summonses were incorrectly listed as something other than a\n tractor. We served as settlement class counsel and negotiated a preliminarily-\n approved settlement with a settlement fund of $2,450,000.\n\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 12\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.752 Page 14\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION\n\n Our attorneys handle both plaintiff and defendant work encompassing all aspects of\n commercial litigation in traditional forums and through alternate dispute resolution.\n Although frequently involved in trial practice, much of our work is consultative in nature. As\n such, we act in an advisory capacity or pre-litigation mode where we attempt to solve\n business disagreements and partnership disputes without commencing a formal action. We\n also handle cases involving insurance disputes, including contesting insurance valuations\n and coverage refusals.\n\n Representative Matters\n\n \u2022 Ator Limited v. Comodo Holdings Limited, No. 12-03083 (D.N.J.). We\n represented third-party defendants in a dispute arising out of the sale of a start-\n up company. We successfully settled this case.\n\n \u2022 Financials Restructuring Partners v. Premier Bancshares, Inc., No.\n 651283/2013, New York Supreme Court, New York County. We defended former\n bank holding company against attempt to foreclose upon $6 million in debt\n securities.\n\n \u2022 325 Schermerhorn LLC v. Nevins Realty Corp. We obtained a victory on\n summary judgment compelling defendants to pay $3.6 million plus interest\n representing a returned down payment on four properties because of a transit\n easement assumedly known to all parties at the time the contracts were executed.\n Reported decision at 2009 WL 997501.\n\n \u2022 Bellis v. Tokio Marine Insurance Company. We procured a $7 million settlement\n after obtaining a jury verdict on liability based on causation of damage in\n insurance claim. We also defeated a summary judgment motion reported at 2002\n WL 193149 (February 5, 2022 S.D.N.Y.). The case involved attribution of liability\n for some priceless Tiffany glass that was damaged while on exhibit in Tokyo.\n Reported decision at 2004 WL 1637045 (July 14, 2004 S.D.N.Y.).Baer, et al. v.\n EisnerAmper, LLP, et al., Superior court for the State of California, County of Los\n Angeles. In this case, Plaintiffs were induced to invest in, and continuing holding\n their investments in, a purported investment fund based on EisnerAmper, LLP\u2019s\n audits of that fund. The fund turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs filed suit\n against EisnerAmper, LLP, bringing claims for aiding and abetting fraud and\n breach of fiduciary duty; common law fraud and deceit; aiding and abetting\n securities fraud under California law; and negligent misrepresentation. Trial is\n set for April 8, 2024.\n\n \u2022 Paquette v. Twentieth Century Fox. Compelled Fox television to grant \u201ccreated\n by/inspired by\u201d credits to authors of comic book from which television series was\n\n www.bespc.com\n 13\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.753 Page 15\n of 20\n\n\n\n adapted, establishing claim of reverse passing off, i.e., improperly taking credit for\n someone else\u2019s work, under the Lanham Act. Reported decision at 2000 WL\n 235133 (S.D.N.Y.).\n\n \u2022 Colton Hartnick Yamin & Sheresky v. Feinberg, New York Supreme Court, New\n York County. We successfully reversed the trial court\u2019s denial of summary\n judgment to law firm on impropriety of claim of malpractice. On appeal, the court\n dismissed the malpractice claim based on lack of facts to establish legal\n malpractice and punitive damages. Reported decision at 227 A.D.2d 233, 642\n N.Y.S.2d 283 (1996).\n\n \u2022 Raycom v. Kerns, New York Supreme Court, Kings County. We are representing\n a Singapore-based aircraft part manufacturer in a breach of contract suit against\n a multi-national corporation.\n\n \u2022 Mun v. Hong, New York Supreme Court, New York County. Reversed a trial\n court\u2019s dismissal of complaint seeking damages from breach of a partnership\n agreement to acquire real property. Reported at 44 A.D.3d 534, 843 N.Y.S.2d 505.\n We successfully settled this case.\n\n \u2022 Levine v. Murray Hill Manor Company, New York Supreme Court, New York\n County. Represented partnership and general partner and successfully dismissed\n claims brought by assignees of limited partnership by establishing that the\n assignees may not sue the partnership and partners. Reported at 143 A.D.2d 298,\n 532 N.Y.S.2d 130.\n\n \u2022 Marks v. Zucker, New York Supreme Court, New York County. Represented\n partnerships and corporations dismissing claims of stockholder for accounting by\n successfully interpreting corporate law remedies and necessary parties to action.\n Reported at 118 A.D.2d 452, 499 N.Y.S.2d 740.\n\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 14\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.754 Page 16\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n OUR ATTORNEYS\n\n Lawrence P. Eagel\n\n Larry Eagel is a partner of the firm and joined in 1994. Larry handles\n all types of litigation, but he is particularly skilled in the areas of\n securities and bankruptcy-related litigation, including class actions.\n Prior to 1994, he was associated with the firm of Proskauer Rose LLP.\n Larry was also a certified public accountant and worked in the late\n 1970\u2019s as an auditor with Grant Thornton & Co. (formerly Alexander\n Grant & Co.) in the firm\u2019s Washington, D.C. office.\n\n\n Larry is member of the bars of the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. He is also\n admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, as well as the United States\n Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third Circuit, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the\n United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York,\n the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States Tax Court.\n\n Larry is a 1983 cum laude graduate of the Brooklyn Law School, where he was a Comments\n Editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. He completed his undergraduate work at George\n Washington University in 1978, where he also earned an M.B.A. in 1980.\n\n J. Brandon Walker\n\n J. Brandon Walker is a partner of the firm. Before joining the firm in\n 2015, Brandon was a partner at Kirby McInerney LLP. Brandon has\n a broad background in securities fraud, corporate governance, and\n other complex class action and commercial litigation on behalf of\n shareholders. He has represented public retirement systems, union\n pension funds, European investment managers, and other\n institutional and individual investors before federal, state, and\n appellate courts throughout the country.\n\n Brandon is a member of the bars of the State of New York and the State of South Carolina.\n He is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and\n Sixth Circuits, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n York and the District of South Carolina.\n\n Brandon is a 2008 graduate of Wake Forest University School of Law with an M.B.A. from the\n Wake Forest University Graduate School of Management. He completed his undergraduate\n work at New York University.\n\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 15\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.755 Page 17\n of 20\n\n\n\n Melissa A. Fortunato\n\n Melissa is a partner of the firm. She has a broad background in\n securities fraud, corporate governance, and other complex class action\n and commercial litigation on behalf of investors. Many of her cases\n have involved breaches of fiduciary duties by public company boards\n of directors, and she has represented institutional and individual\n stockholders in the mediation and settlement of numerous derivative\n and class actions.\n\n Melissa is a 2013 magna cum laude graduate of the Pace University\n School of Law, where she was a Notes Editor of the Pace Environmental Law Review, and a\n 2004 cum laude graduate of Georgetown University.\n\n Melissa is a member of the bars of the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and\n California. She is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the\n Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts\n for the Eastern, Western, and Southern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, and\n the Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California.\n\n\n Marion Passmore\n\n Marion Passmore is a partner of the firm. Marion has a broad litigation\n practice, with an extensive background in securities litigation. She has\n prosecuted numerous securities fraud actions on behalf of\n institutional and individual investors. Prior to joining the firm, she co-\n founded a small private practice that specialized in estate planning and\n probate actions, civil litigation, real property, and served as city\n attorney for the City of Choteau, Montana.\n\n Marion is a 2003 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law. She received an M.B.A\n from the San Diego School of Business in 2004 and was also a member of the Beta Gamma\n Sigma Honors Society. Marion is a 2000 cum laude graduate of the University of Southern\n California.\n\n Marion is a member of the bars of the states of California, New York, and Montana. She is\n admitted to practice in the U n i te d S t at e s S up re me Court a nd t he United States\n Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, a nd N i n t h Circuits. She is also admitted to\n practice in t he United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, Eastern, and\n Central Districts of California, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of\n Montana.\n\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 16\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.756 Page 18\n of 20\n\n\n\n Ligaya T. Hernandez\n\n Ligaya T. Hernandez is a partner of the firm. She specializes in\n representing shareholders in derivative suits.\n\n Ligaya has successfully achieved several multi-million dollar\n recoveries in derivative cases throughout her career. She has also had\n a lead role in cases that resulted in significant corporate governance\n for companies, which greatly benefits its public shareholders.\n\n Ligaya received her J.D. and a Health Law Certificate from Loyola\n University Chicago in 2009. While in law school she served as Senior Editor for the Annals of\n Health Law Journal and received the CALI Award for highest grade in Appellate Advocacy.\n Ligaya received a Master in Health Services Administration in Health Policy from The George\n Washington University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of\n Pittsburgh.\n\n Ligaya is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is admitted to practice\n before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United\n States District Court for the District of New Jersey.\n\n\n Casey C. DeReus\n\n Casey C. DeReus is an associate at the firm. Casey\u2019s practice involves\n consumer class actions, corporate governance, and securities\n litigation. Her notable experience includes consumer privacy law,\n including filing the first class action against TikTok for BIPA\n violations, resulting in a $92 million settlement.\n\n Casey received her J.D. from Loyola University \u2013 New Orleans College\n of Law. She also earned her M.A. in French Studies at Tulane\n University in 2012 and her B.A. in Government and French at the College of William and Mary\n in 2010. Casey is a member of the State Bars of Louisiana and Texas. She is admitted to\n practice in United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth a n d N i n t h Circuits. She is also\n admitted to practice in t he United States District Courts for the Eastern, Middle, and\n Western Districts of Louisiana, and the Southern District of Texas.\n\n\n Derek Scherr\n\n Derek Scherr is an associate at the firm. Derek practices commercial\n litigation involving contract disputes, commercial and residential real\n estate, partnership disputes, business fraud, and bankruptcy\n litigation.\n\n\n\n www.bespc.com\n 17\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.757 Page 19\n of 20\n\n\n\n Derek is a 2013 graduate of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.\n He received a B.A. in history from New York University in 2010.\n Derek is a member of the bar of the State of New York.\n\n John \u201cJack\u201d Sanner\n\n Jack Sanner is an associate at the firm. He is based in the firm\u2019s New\n York office and represents investors and consumers in class action,\n derivative, and bankruptcy-related matters. Prior to joining the\n firm, he clerked for the Honorable Andrea M. Leahy of the Appellate\n Court of Maryland.\n\n\n\n Jack received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law. He earned a B.A. in Philosophy\n and Psychology, with a minor in History, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel\n Hill. Jack is a member of the bar of the State of New York and the Commonwealth of\n Massachusetts.\n\n\n Raymond A. Bragar\n\n Ray Bragar is Of Counsel at the firm. Ray started the firm in 1983 and\n practices general litigation with a sub-specialty in real estate and real\n estate litigation. He has over thirty years of experience practicing in\n New York State and Federal Courts. He has handled complex trials\n before juries and judges lasting several weeks and numerous appeals\n in both the State and Federal Courts. He also has extensive experience\n working in the nontraditional forum of alternate dispute resolution,\n including multiple-week trials.\n\n Following graduation, Ray was law clerk to the Hon. Lloyd F. McMahon who was then Chief\n Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He also\n previously worked for the firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (formerly Rosenman &\n Colin, LLP).\n\n Ray is member of the bar of the State of New York. He is also admitted to practice before the\n United States Supreme court, as well as in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second,\n Fourth, and District of Columbia Circuits, United States District Courts for the Southern,\n Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York, and the United States Bankruptcy Courts for\n the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. He is a member of the New York State Bar\n Association, where he has been a member of the Civil Practice Law & Rules Committee since\n 1985.\n\n Ray is a 1972 cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School and is a 1968 magna cum laude\n graduate of Rutgers University.\n\n www.bespc.com\n 18\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-9 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.758 Page 20\n of 20\n\n\n\n\n Jeffrey H. Squire\n\n Jeffrey H. Squire is a retired partner of the firm. Jeff was previously a\n partner at Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP and Of Counsel to Wolf\n Popper LLP. Jeff, as lead or co-lead counsel, has prosecuted scores\n of class and derivative actions on behalf of the stockholders of many\n corporations, including: Adelphia Communications Corporation;\n AT&T Corporation; Bennett Funding Group; Bisys Group, Inc.; eBay,\n Inc.; Ford Motor Company; The Limited Corporation; Morrison\n Knudsen; Washington Group, Inc.; Waste Management, Inc.; and\n Woolworth, Inc. In such cases, he has recovered over one billion dollars for stockholders.\n\n Jeff\u2019s ability to prosecute sophisticated class actions successfully has often been the subject\n of judicial recognition:\n\n \u201cYou have acted the way lawyers at their best ought to act. And I have had a lot of cases in 15\n years now as a judge and I cannot recall a significant case where I felt people were better\n represented than they are here I would say this has been the best representation that I have\n ever seen.\u201d In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation.\n\n \u201cNonetheless, in this Court\u2019s experience, relatively few cases have involved as high level of\n risk, as extensive discovery, and, most importantly, as positive a final result for the class\n members as that obtained in this case.\u201d In re Bisys Securities Litigation.\n\n Jeff is a 1976 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a 1973 cum laude\n graduate of Amherst College. He is member of the bars of the State of New York and State of\n Pennsylvania (retired). He is also admitted to practice before the United States Courts of\n Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, and the United States District\n Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York, the Northern District\n of Georgia, the Northern District of California, and the Southern District of Texas.\n\n\n\n\n LOCATIONS\n\n 580 California Street 810 Seventh Avenue 515 S. Flower Street\n Suite 1200 Suite 620 Suite 1800\n San Francisco, CA New York, NY 10019 Los Angeles, CA\n 94104 Tel: (415) 568- Tel: (212) 308-5858 90071 Tel: (213)\n 2124 612-7735\n 2113 Middle Street\n Suite 305\n Sullivan\u2019s Island, SC 29482\n Tel: (843) 883-7424\n\n www.bespc.com\n 19\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:46.187576-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":9,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317435","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 7 (Firm resume of BES)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804868/","id":479804868,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/10/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.052883-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:30:41.795459-07:00","sha1":"9dd9ad49b98b7eb69e5580a89653de0ffdd1a541","page_count":6,"file_size":259179,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.10.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.10.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.759 Pagel\nof 6\n\nEXHIBIT 8\n\fCase 3125-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.760 Page 2\nof 6\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n2\n3\nASFA KASSAM, Individually andon | No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n4 behalf of all others similarly situated,\n5 CLASS ACTION\n6 Plaintiff,\nHon. Jinsook Ohta\n7 Vv.\n: FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,\n9 RONALD F. DUTT, and CHARLES A.\nSCHEIWE,\n10\n11 Defendants.\n12\n13\n14 DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n1\nDECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\n\fCase 3:\n\nOo fo ND A FSF WO NO\n\nMO NO NH WH NH NH KH ND KN RH FB HR HR HH He SF S| SE\noN HN A BR WwW HY KY CO OBO Wn HH NH BW NY KH S&S\n\n25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.761 Page3\nof 6\n\nI, Robert A. Meyer, declare as follows:\n\n1. I am submitting this declaration in my capacity as the independent\nmediator of the above-captioned Action.' I have been asked to provide this\ndeclaration to give my views on the mediation process that culminated in the\nproposed Settlement that will be presented to the Court for final approval. As set\nforth herein, I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for final\napproval of the Settlement. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein\nas I was directly involved in mediating the Action, and I could and would testify\ncompetently to these matters.\n\n2. At my request, the Parties\u2019 settlement negotiations in this Action were\nconducted in confidence and under my supervision. All of the parties, entities, and\nindividuals who participated at the mediation sessions and in the negotiations\nexecuted a Confidentiality Agreement indicating that the mediation process was to\nbe considered settlement negotiations for the purpose of Rule 408 of the Federal\nRules of Evidence protecting disclosures made during such process from later\ndiscovery, dissemination, publication and/or use in evidence. The Parties further\nagreed that the Confidentiality Agreement extends to all statements made during\nthe course of the mediation or any materials generated for the purpose of the\nmediation. Nothing in this declaration divulges any privileged information. The\nsubmission of this declaration does not constitute the waiver of any such\n\nconfidentiality or mediation privilege.\n\n' All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings\nascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 27, 2025 (Dkt. No.\n60-1) (\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\n2\nDECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\n\fCase 3):\n\no wma SN DH FH HBP WW HNO =\n\nNO ww bb WY KH HN NH KN HN RR RR RB He Fe Ee S|\nony nN NH BW HO KF OS OO WaT HD A SP WD WH | O&O\n\n25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.762 Page4\nof 6\n\nPROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND\n\n3. I have been a full-time mediator for approximately twenty years. I am\n\na panelist at JAMS. Prior to my time as a full-time neutral, I was a commercial\nlitigator for over forty years.\n\n4. Since serving as a neutral, I have extensive experience guiding parties\nto the settlement of many different types of complex class actions, including\nsecurities fraud and derivative cases pending throughout the country.\n\n>. I provide my professional background as context for the statements in\nmy declaration and to establish that my perspective on the settlement of this Action\nis grounded in my significant experience in resolving complex litigation.\n\nNEGOTIATIONS RESULTING IN THE SETTLEMENT\n\n6. The mediation process in this case, like the litigation itself, was hard\n\nfought on both sides. I have no doubt that the Settlement is the result of hard-fought,\narm\u2019s-length negotiations among the Parties, and I believe final approval of the\nSettlement to be in the best interests of the Settlement Class, as discussed herein.\n\n7. The Parties and I participated in a full-day remote mediation session\non July 11, 2025. Prior to the mediation session, the Parties exchanged and provided\nme with extensive mediation submissions, including briefs and exhibits, discussing\nthe procedural and factual status of the litigation, the relevant case filings and other\nexhibits in support of their respective positions, as well as analysis of estimated\naggregate damages and the various legal issues in the action. Members of my\nmediation support team, which includes other experienced attorneys at my firm,\nalso assisted me in analyzing the legal and factual issues in this matter and\nfacilitating the Parties\u2019 negotiations.\n\n8. I found the discussions with the Parties during the mediation session\nto be extremely valuable in helping me\u2014and the Parties\u2014to understand the relative\n\nmerits of each Party\u2019s position in the Action, and to identify the issues that were\n\n3\nDECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\n\fCase 3;\n\nCoCo wa ND A BP WN\n\nNO Ww bw PO NH NH bP LP ROR Re Re Re ee ee\nony DH WN FP W NYO KH OD OO Oo THD MN FP WW NY KK S&S\n\n25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.763 Page5\nof 6\n\nlikely to serve as the primary drivers and obstacles to achieving a settlement.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Counsel and Defendants\u2019 Counsel each argued vigorously in support of\ntheir clients\u2019 positions. It was apparent to me that both sides possessed well-\nreasoned, non-frivolous arguments, that their views on the merits and value of the\ncase diverged drastically, and that neither side was assured of victory. While I am\nbound by confidentiality with regard to the content of the Parties\u2019 discussions and\nnegotiations during this mediation session, I can say that the arguments and\npositions asserted by all involved were the product of much hard work, that they\nwere complex, and that they were highly adversarial.\n\n9. After a full day of adversarial negotiations, I made a double-blind\nmediator\u2019s proposal to resolve the Action for a $1.75 million cash payment for the\nbenefit of the putative class, which the Parties accepted. Without discussing\nspecifics of the negotiations, the mediator\u2019s proposal reflected my assessment that\n$1.75 million was the most that Defendants would pay and the least that the\nPlaintiffs would accept to settle the Action at that time, and that it was fair,\nreasonable, and in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the putative class.\n\n10. The Parties negotiated and executed a term sheet that day. The Parties\nthen negotiated the terms of the long-form Stipulation and related documents.\n\n11. At all times, the discussions and negotiations at the mediation were\nconducted in a diligent and conscientious manner. Counsel for all Parties\ndemonstrated their deep understanding of the factual and legal issues in this Action,\nthe relative strengths and weaknesses of their positions, and the significant risks of\ncontinued litigation. The negotiations were. at arms\u2019-length, conducted in good\nfaith, and each Parties\u2019 interests were skillfully represented. The mediation of this\nAction was hard fought on both sides. While they were courteous and professional,\n\nat no time during the mediation process did any of the Parties\u2019 counsel relent in\n\n4\nDECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\n\fCase 3\n\noO wa nN HD OA FSF W N\n\nNm DO HN HY NWN WN WN WY KN RR HH RR HH HH KH RHR Be\nao ns ONO AN BP WD NK CO OHO CO HD DH NH HBR WY NY KK SC\n\nP5-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-10 Filed 03/05/26 PagelD.764 Page6\u00e9\nof 6\n\ntheir advocacy for their clients\u2019 benefit and in their efforts to achieve the best\npossible resolution of this Action.\n\n12. After presiding over the mediation process in this case, it is my\nprofessional opinion that the Settlement is the product of vigorous and independent\nadvocacy and arm\u2019s-length negotiation conducted in good faith by the Parties. The\nParties were represented by highly skilled and experienced counsel who were\nextremely knowledgeable and clearly had spent a considerable amount of time\ndeveloping the law and facts in this complex litigation. I believe the Settlement\nreflects Lead Counsel\u2019s well-informed assessment of the best interests of the\nPlaintiffs and the Settlement Class.\n\n13. Based on my experience as a mediator, and former litigator, my\nknowledge of the issues in dispute, my review of the materials presented before and\nat both mediation sessions, the rigor of the negotiations, and the benefits to be\nconferred in the Settlement, I believe that the terms of the Settlement are fair,\nadequate, reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Therefore, I\nrespectfully endorse final approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n\nAmerica that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n\nDated: February { , 2026\n\nRobert. A. Meyer\n\n5\n\nDECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MEYER; Case No. 3:25-cv-113-JO-DDL\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:55:51.736854-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317436","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 8 (Declaration of Robert A. Meyer)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804869/","id":479804869,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/11/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.063540-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:13:27.214838-07:00","sha1":"f74a19ee51343751ba42fab2aa18567e58b3f016","page_count":39,"file_size":712500,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.11.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.11.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.765 Page 1\n of 39\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 9\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.766 Page 2\n of 39\n\n\n\n\nRECENT TRENDS\nIN SECURITIES CLASS\nACTION LITIGATION:\n2025 FULL-YEAR REVIEW\nEdward Flores, Svetlana Starykh,\nand Ivelina Velikova 1\n\n\n\n\n Filings Down by 11% Due to Decline in\n Standard Filings\n\n AI- and Crypto-Related Filings Increase,\n SPAC- and COVID-Related Filings Decline,\n Tariff-Related Filings Appear\n\n Dismissals Increase for a Second Straight\n Year, Median Settlement Value at a\n 10-Year High\n\n\n\n\n21 January 2026\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.767 Page 3\n of 39\n\n\n\n FOREWORD\n I am excited to share NERA\u2019s \u201cRecent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation:\n 2025 Full-Year Review\u201d with you. This year\u2019s edition builds on work carried out\n over more than three decades by many of NERA\u2019s securities and finance experts.\n Although space does not permit us to present all the analyses the authors\n have undertaken while working on this year\u2019s edition or to provide details on\n the statistical analysis of settlement amounts, we hope you will contact us if\n you want to learn more about our research or our consulting and testifying\n experience in securities litigations. On behalf of NERA\u2019s securities and finance\n experts, I thank you for taking the time to review this year\u2019s report and hope you\n find it informative.\n\n\n DAVID TABAK, PhD\n Senior Managing Director\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.768 Page 4\n of 39\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n In 2025, there were 207 new federal securities class action suits filed, 25 less than in 2024.\n Cases with Rule 10b-5-only claims accounted for most of the decline in filings with 176 such\n suits filed, 22 less than in 2024. Filings against companies in the healthcare and technology\n sectors together accounted for 57% of new filings, and 71% of all cases were filed in the\n Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits. Approximately 43% of filings had an allegation related to\n missed earnings guidance, a five-year high, while only 13% had an allegation related to regulatory\n issues, a five-year low.\n\n While 28.8% of listings on major US exchanges were represented by foreign companies in 2025,\n only 13.1% of standard cases, which contain alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/\n or Section 12, were filed against foreign companies. Of the 25 standard filings against foreign\n companies in 2025, 12 were filed against companies based in Europe and six were filed against\n companies based in Canada.\n\n Focusing on specific categories of cases, there were 17 filings with AI-related claims, accounting\n for 8% of all new filings, while there were 14 cases with crypto-related claims, 75% more\n than in 2024. In what may be a new trend in filings, there were four suits with tariff-related\n claims and one filing related to visa issues. Meanwhile, the number of filings with SPAC- and\n COVID-19-related claims have declined substantially, with only five and three suits filed in each\n category, respectively.\n\n There were 234 cases resolved in 2025, 34 more relative to 2024 and marking the second\n consecutive year the number of resolved cases has increased. While the number of settlements\n declined by 16% to 79, the number of dismissals increased by 34% to 155, primarily driven by\n a record number of dismissals involving standard cases. With more existing cases resolved than\n new cases filed in 2025, the backlog of pending cases declined by 3.5% as of year-end. For cases\n filed in 2025, 9% have been dismissed and 91% remain pending.\n\n Aggregate settlements totaled $2.9 billion in 2025, with the largest settlement consisting of a\n $433.5 million recovery against Alibaba Group Holding Company. Aggregate plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019\n fees and expenses totaled $797 million, or 27% of the 2025 aggregate settlement value. While\n the average settlement value declined by 9% in 2025 to $40 million, the median settlement\n value increased by 21% to $17 million, a 10-year high. Approximately 31% of all settlements were\n between $20 million and $49.9 million, the largest share in the past five years.\n\n\n\n\n1 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.769 Page 5\n of 39\n\n\n\n TRENDS IN FILINGS\n There were 207 new federal securities class actions filed in the US in 2025, an 11% decline from\n the 232 cases filed in 2024 and ending a two-year increase in filings seen over 2022\u20132024.2 As\n of November 2025, there were 5,497 companies listed on the NYSE and the Nasdaq, a slight\n increase from the 5,421 companies listed as of December 2024, though well below the recent\n high of 6,174 companies listed in 2021. The uptick in listed companies was partially driven by an\n increase in the number of US initial public offerings (IPOs), which increased from 225 in 2024\n to 347 in 2025.3 Roughly 3.8% of companies listed on major US exchanges were subject to a\n securities class action in 2025. See Figure 1.\n\n\n Figure 1. Federal Filings and Number of Companies Listed in the United States\n January 1996\u2013December 2025\n\n 550 10,000\n IPO Laddering Filings Filings, Excluding IPO Laddering Listings\n 500 8,884 9,000\n 8,390\n 450 8,783 7,887 8,000\n\n\n\n\n Number of Listed Companies\n 8,126\n 400 7,133\n 7,000\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 350 6,159 6,174\n 6,587 6,029 5,941\n 5,704 6,000\n 6,097 6,005 5,162 6,093 5,497\n 300 5,179\n 310\n\n\n\n\n 4,886 4,865 5,060 4,853 4,877\n 5,472 5,421 5,000\n 250 5,006 5,064\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 4,808 4,865 4,936\n 4,000\n 200\n 423\n 418\n\n\n 410\n\n\n\n\n 3,000\n 150\n 325\n 292\n 274\n\n\n\n\n 273\n\n\n\n\n 2,000\n 247\n 244\n 241\n\n\n\n\n 237\n 234\n\n\n\n\n 100\n 232\n\n\n\n\n 232\n 228\n\n\n\n\n 227\n 226\n 217\n 214\n\n\n\n\n 212\n\n\n\n\n 207\n 206\n 204\n\n\n\n\n 204\n 201\n\n\n\n\n 198\n\n\n\n\n 195\n 188\n\n\n\n\n 50 1,000\n 133\n 131\n\n\n\n\n 0 0\n 19 6\n 19 7\n 19 8\n 20 9\n 20 0\n 20 1\n 20 2\n 20 3\n 20 4\n 20 5\n 20 6\n 20 7\n 20 8\n 20 9\n 20 0\n 20 1\n 20 2\n 20 3\n 20 4\n 20 5\n 20 6\n 20 7\n 20 8\n 20 9\n 20 0\n 20 1\n 20 2\n 20 3\n 20 4\n 25\n 9\n 9\n 9\n 9\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 0\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 1\n 2\n 2\n 2\n 2\n 2\n 19\n\n\n\n\n Filing Year\n Note: Listed companies include those listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. Listings data obtained from the World Federation of\n Exchanges (WFE). The 2025 listings data are as of November 2025.\n\n\n\n\n2 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.770 Page 6\n of 39\n\n\n Standard cases, which contain alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12,\n comprised 92% of all new filings with 191 cases, 23 less than in 2024.4 Among these, there were\n 176 filings with Rule 10b-5-only claims, representing an 11% decline from 2024. Standard cases\n with Section 11 and/or Section 12 claims (with or without an accompanying Rule 10b-5 claim)\n declined for the third straight year, with 15 such filings in 2025, the lowest level in the past\n decade. This trend is partially due to the low number of US IPOs over 2022\u20132024, which saw\n between 154 and 225 IPOs per year, compared to the 480 and 1,035 IPOs seen in 2020 and\n 2021, respectively.5 Merger objection filings were flat in 2025 with seven, while there was an\n uptick in suits involving crypto unregistered securities, with eight in 2025, up from five in 2024.6\n See Figure 2.\n\n\n Figure 2. Federal Filings by Type\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 450\n Crypto Unregistered Securities Filings\n 418 423\n 410 Merger Objection Filings\n 5 11\n 400 4\n Other Filings\n Rule 10b-5 Only Filings\n\n 350 Rule 10b-5 and Section 11 and/or 12 Filings\n 325 Section 11 and/or 12 Filings\n 160\n 193 13\n 203\n 300 292\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 104\n 250\n 93 8 232\n 227\n 5\n 212 13 7 207\n 8 4 204 8 4 6\n 200 6 7 8\n 15 7\n 12 3 19 1\n 8 1\n\n 150\n 197\n\n 182 185 178 180 198\n 159 134\n 100 169 176\n\n\n 50\n 16 21\n 8 5 15\n 9 13 25 21 13 9 4\n 0 8 9 18 18 16 9 7 11\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Filing Year\n\n\n\n\n3 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.771 Page 7\n of 39\n\n\n After excluding merger-objection and crypto unregistered securities cases, the healthcare\n technology and services sector accounted for 31% of new filings in 2025, the highest share seen\n among all sectors during the 2021\u20132025 period, while the electronic technology and technology\n services sector, the leading sector in 2024, comprised 26% of new filings, a four percentage point\n decline from the 30% observed the year before. The percentage of suits in the finance sector\n decreased for the second straight year to 9% in 2025 from 11% in 2024. Meanwhile, the share of\n filings in the energy and non-energy minerals sector more than tripled in 2025 and accounted for\n 5% of all filings, a five-year high. See Figure 3.\n\n\n Figure 3. Percentage of Federal Filings by Sector and Year\n Excludes Merger Objections and Crypto Unregistered Securities\n January 2021\u2013December 2025\n\n\n 25% 2% 2021\n Health Technology 27% Consumer and 4%\n 18% 4% 2022\n and Services 26% Distribution Services 4%\n 31% 4% 2023\n\n 30% 4% 2024\n Electronic Technology 27% 10%\n and Technology 22% Retail Trade 5% 2025\n Services 30% 5%\n 26% 4%\n\n 12% 1%\n 8% Transportation 4%\n Finance 18% 3%\n 11% and Utilities 4%\n 9% 3%\n\n 9% 4%\n Consumer Durables 8% Producer and Other 3%\n 9% Manufacturing 6%\n and Non-Durables 7% 3%\n 6% 3%\n\n 5% 4%\n Commercial and 6% 2%\n 7% Process Industries 3%\n Industrial Services 6% 2%\n 6% 3%\n\n 4% 1%\n Energy and Non- 2% 0%\n 1% Communications 3%\n Energy Minerals 1% 1%\n 5% 0%\n\n\n Note: This analysis is based on the FactSet Research Systems, Inc. economic sector classi\ufb01cation. Some of the FactSet economic sectors are\n combined for presentation.\n\n\n\n\n4 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.772 Page 8\n of 39\n\n\n The Second and Ninth Circuits continue to be the jurisdictions in which the majority of\n non-merger objection, non-crypto unregistered securities cases are filed, although their\n combined share of filings declined from 61% in 2024 to 57% in 2025. There were 62 new\n filings in the Second Circuit, nearly matching its 2024 total, while the Ninth Circuit experienced\n a 33% decline in new filings relative to 2024 with 48 new filings, the lowest number in the\n past five years. Filing trends in these circuits can be explained by the number of suits filed in\n district courts in the states of New York and California, respectively. While suits filed in New\n York district courts only slightly declined from 62 filings in 2024 to 59 filings in 2025, filings in\n California district courts fell by 24 filings, from 65 in 2024 to 41 in 2025. On the other hand,\n filings in the Third Circuit increased by 50% to 27 filings from 18 filings in 2024. The growth\n in Third Circuit filings was due to a substantial influx of new cases filed in the District of New\n Jersey, which saw 16 filings in 2025, up from six in 2024. Notably, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits\n each saw at least 10 suits filed for the second year in a row, and the Eleventh Circuit also\n recorded 10 filings in 2025. See Figure 4.\n\n\n Figure 4. Federal Filings by Circuit and Year\n Excludes Merger Objections and Crypto Unregistered Securities\n January 2021\u2013December 2025\n\n 100\n 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n\n 90\n\n 81\n 80\n\n 72\n 70 68\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 63 64\n 62\n 60\n 54\n 54 54\n 50 48\n\n\n 40\n 34\n 30\n 27\n\n 20 18\n 15\n 14 12 13\n 10 11 11 10 10\n 10 89 9\n 6 6\n 8\n 6\n 8 8\n 6 6 768 7 76 8\n 6 7\n 54 5\n 4\n 1\n 4 3 23 3 4\n 11 1\n 0\n DC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th\n Circuit\n\n\n\n\n5 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.773 Page 9\n of 39\n\n\n Among standard filings, 43% included an allegation related to missed earnings guidance and 41%\n included an allegation related to misled future performance, by far the most common allegations\n seen in 2025.7 The percentage of standard cases with accounting-related allegations declined for\n a second consecutive year to 8%, down from nearly a quarter of all standard cases filed in 2023,\n while the percentage of standard cases containing an allegation related to regulatory issues has\n also declined by half to 13% from 26% in 2023. See Figure 5.\n\n\n Figure 5. Allegations in Federal Filings\n Shareholder Class Actions with Alleged Violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12\n January 2021\u2013December 2025\n\n 50%\n 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n\n 45%\n\n\n 40%\n Percentage of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 35%\n\n\n 30%\n\n 25%\n 43%\n\n\n\n\n 41%\n 41%\n\n\n\n\n 20%\n 39%\n 34%\n\n\n 32%\n 31%\n\n\n\n\n 15%\n 29%\n\n\n\n\n 26%\n 26%\n 23%\n 23%\n\n\n\n\n 23%\n 22%\n\n\n\n\n 20%\n\n\n\n\n 10%\n 19%\n 18%\n\n\n\n\n 17%\n 17%\n 13%\n\n\n\n\n 13%\n\n\n\n\n 10%\n 5%\n 8%\n\n\n\n\n 8%\n 7%\n 0%\n Accounting Issues Missed Earning Misled Future Regulatory Issues Merger-Integration\n Guidance Performance Issues\n\n\n\n\n The percentage of standard cases containing\n an allegation related to regulatory issues\n has declined by half.\n\n\n\n\n6 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.774 Page\n 10 of 39\n\n\n\n FILINGS AGAINST FOREIGN COMPANIES\n From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of foreign companies with securities listed on the NYSE and\n the Nasdaq increased by 5.3 percentage points, from 17.4% in 2016 to 22.7% in 2021. Over the\n same period, foreign companies were targeted with standard securities class actions at a higher\n rate than their proportion of US listings.8 For instance, in 2016, 22.0% of standard cases were\n filed against foreign companies, while in 2021, this percentage grew to 24.7%.\n\n Although the percentage of foreign companies listed on major US stock exchanges has continued\n to increase since 2021, the share of federal standard filings against foreign companies has since\n dropped below their proportion of US listings. While 28.8% of US listings were represented by\n foreign companies in 2025, a 6.1 percentage point increase from 2021, only 13.1% of standard\n filings were against foreign companies, the lowest share over the past decade. See Figure 6.\n\n\n Figure 6. Foreign Companies: Share of Federal Filings and Share of Companies Listed on US Exchanges\n Shareholder Class Actions with Alleged Violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 35%\n % of US Filings Against Foreign Companies\n % of US Listings Represented by Foreign Companies\n 30.3%\n Percentage of Federal Filings/Percentage of Listings\n\n\n\n\n 30%\n\n 28.8%\n 25.5%\n 23.9% 24.7%\n 25%\n 26.0%\n 22.0% 24.4%\n 23.8%\n 19.9% 22.7%\n 20%\n 20.5%\n 19.8%\n 19.3% 18.8%\n 18.7%\n 18.0%\n 17.4%\n 15% 16.8%\n\n\n 13.1%\n 10%\n\n\n\n 5%\n\n\n\n 0%\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Filing Year\n Note: Country of foreign issuer is determined based on location of principal executive o\ufb03ces.\n\n\n\n\n7 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.775 Page\n 11 of 39\n\n\n In 2025, 25 standard cases were filed against foreign companies, a 31% reduction from the\n 36 suits filed in 2024. This decline was mostly due to a decrease in filings targeting companies\n based in Europe and Asia. Nearly half of these filings were against European companies, with\n five cases against companies based in the United Kingdom and two against companies based in\n Ireland, while another six cases were filed against Canadian companies. Suits against companies\n based in China or Hong Kong declined for a fourth consecutive year, with only two filings seen\n in 2025. Elsewhere, there were two suits filed against companies in each of Australia and Israel.\n See Figure 7.\n\n\n Figure 7. Federal Filings Against Foreign Companies\n Shareholder Class Actions with Alleged Violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12 by Region\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 70\n China/Hong Kong\n Other\n 61\n 60 Europe\n 57\n Canada\n 52 Asia (Ex-China/Hong Kong)\n 50\n 17 23 47\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 13\n 41 42\n 40 38\n 4 3 36\n 4 34\n 15 24 4\n 8 9 10\n 30 2\n 11\n 3 25\n 20 4 24 2\n 16 14 4 2 17 2\n 20\n 14\n 15 9 13 12\n\n 10 7 5\n 6 11 2\n 10 6\n 6 4 6\n 7 8 9 8\n 2 3 4 4 4 3\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Filing Year\n Note: Country of foreign issuer is determined based on location of principal executive o\ufb03ces.\n\n\n\n\n8 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.776 Page\n 12 of 39\n\n\n Among standard filings against foreign companies in 2025, 40% included allegations related to\n missed earnings guidance and 32% included allegations related to misled future performance,\n both lower than the analogous rates of 44% and 43% for standard filings against US companies.\n Foreign companies were more likely to face allegations related to accounting issues, with 16%\n targeting foreign companies compared with 7% targeting US companies. See Figure 8.\n\n\n Figure 8. Allegations in Federal Filings by US and Foreign Companies\n Shareholder Class Actions with Alleged Violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12\n January 2025\u2013December 2025\n\n 50%\n US\n 45% 44%\n 43% Foreign\n 40%\n 40%\n Percentage of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 35%\n 32%\n 30%\n\n 25%\n\n\n 20%\n 16%\n 15%\n 13% 12%\n 10% 8%\n 7%\n 5% 4%\n\n\n 0%\n Accounting Issues Missed Earning Misled Future Regulatory Issues Merger-Integration\n Guidance Performance Issues\n\n Note: Country of foreign issuer is determined based on location of principal executive o\ufb03ces.\n\n\n\n\n Foreign companies were more likely to face\n allegations related to accounting issues.\n\n\n\n\n9 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.777 Page\n 13 of 39\n\n\n\n EVENT-DRIVEN AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES\n Trends in filings in potential development areas we have identified for securities class actions over\n the past five years are shown in Figures 9 and 10.\n\n Tariff- and Visa-Related Cases\n In 2025, the Trump Administration enacted a series of tariffs via executive orders, some of which\n were delayed, reversed, expanded, or renegotiated over the course of the year.9 Over the same\n period, the effective US tariff rate rose from 2.3% in December 2024 to 15.8% as of August\n 2025.10 As the economic impact due to changes in US trade policy begins to play out, securities\n class actions with US tariff-related claims have started to appear. The first such case was filed\n on 29 August 2025 against Dow Inc. over alleged misrepresentations regarding its ability to\n mitigate macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds.11 Subsequent filings include suits against\n Tronox Holdings Plc, following a decline in sales of titanium oxide and zircon products associated\n in part to tariff-related uncertainties,12 and CarMax, Inc., in which the company is alleged to have\n overstated its long-term growth prospects following an earlier short-term surge in demand due to\n anticipated tariffs.13\n\n Separately, recent worldwide changes in immigration and visa policies have also led to one\n securities class action filed involving Flywire Corporation, in which the company is alleged to have\n understated the negative impact international student permit- and visa-related restrictions in\n Canada and Australia would have on the company\u2019s business.14\n\n Crypto Cases\n Since 2016, when the first crypto-related suit was filed against GAW Miners, LLC,15 there have\n been 126 crypto-related filings, which comprise (1) cases involving unregistered securities and (2)\n standard shareholder suits involving companies operating in or adjacent to the cryptocurrency\n industry. There were 14 crypto-related filings in 2025, representing 7% of all federal filings in\n 2025 and nearly double the number of such filings in 2024. Eight suits involved unregistered\n securities, and six were traditional shareholder suits.\n\n\n\n\n As the economic impact due to changes in\n US trade policy begins to play out, securities\n class actions with US tariff-related claims have\n started to appear.\n\n\n\n10 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.778 Page\n 14 of 39\n\n\n Figure 9. Number of Crypto Federal Filings\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 30\n 29\n Crypto Unregistered Securities Filings\n Crypto Shareholder Filings\n\n 25\n\n\n\n\n 20\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 19\n 18\n\n 16\n 15\n 15\n 14\n 13\n\n 13\n 4\n 10 11\n 8\n 13 8\n\n 6 6\n 5 5\n 10\n 9\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 5 5\n 1 3\n 2 2\n 0 1 1\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Filing Year\n\n\n\n\n Artificial Intelligence\n As companies increasingly discuss artificial intelligence (AI) in their SEC filings, earnings calls,\n and public disclosures, there has been a rise in AI-related securities class action cases, in which\n companies are alleged to have misrepresented the use or effectiveness of their AI capabilities\n or to have failed to disclose risks associated with adopting AI in their business.16 In 2025, there\n were 17 AI-related filings, representing 8% of all federal filings and slightly exceeding the 16\n such suits seen in 2024. While 13 AI-related cases were filed in the first half of 2025,17 the pace\n of AI-related filings slowed in the second half of the year, with only three suits filed in the third\n quarter18 and only one suit filed in the fourth quarter.\n\n SPAC\n Since their peak in 2021, filings related to special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have\n declined for the fourth consecutive year. There were only five SPAC-related filings in 2025, an\n 86% decline from the 36 suits filed in 2021. While recent SPAC IPO activity remains well below\n the level seen in 2021, it has been trending higher, with 144 SPAC IPOs in 2025 compared to 57\n in 2024 and 31 in 2023.19\n\n\n\n\n11 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.779 Page\n 15 of 39\n\n\n\n COVID-19\n There have been 107 securities class actions filed with COVID-19-related claims, with at least 20\n cases filed each year between 2020 and 2022. After a dip in filings in 2023, COVID-19-related\n filings surged in 2024 with 19 such suits but have since declined to just three filings in 2025, with\n only one suit filed in the second half of the year.\n\n Cybersecurity and Customer Privacy Breach\n During the last five years, there have been 19 securities class action suits with claims related to\n cybersecurity and/or customer privacy breaches. Twelve of these were filed in 2021\u20132022, while\n only two suits were filed in each of 2023 and 2024. There were three suits filed in 2025 against\n Fortinet, Inc., Coupang, Inc., and F5, Inc., all in the second half of the year.\n\n Bribery/Kickbacks\n There were three cases filed with allegations related to bribery or kickbacks in 2025, a slight\n uptick from the two seen in 2024. These include suits against TransMedics Group, Inc., RCI\n Hospitality Holdings, Inc., and SelectQuote, Inc.\n\n Environment\n While 2023 saw nine filings with environment-related claims, the highest number over the past\n five years, there were only two such suits in 2025, filed against Edison International and Sable\n Offshore Corporation, respectively.\n\n Money Laundering\n Only one suit related to money laundering was filed in 2025, a decline from two in 2024. This suit\n involved Block Inc. over allegations the company did not maintain robust anti-money laundering\n and other compliance protocols and procedures.20\n\n Cannabis\n In 2021, there were three securities class action suits filed against defendants in the cannabis\n industry. Since then, there has been only one suit filed each year from 2022 to 2025.\n\n\n\n\n After a dip in filings in 2023, COVID-19-related\n filings surged in 2024 with 19 such suits but have\n since declined to just three filings in 2025.\n\n\n\n\n12 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.780 Page\n 16 of 39\n\n\n Figure 10. Event-Driven and Other Special Cases by Filing Year\n January 2021\u2013December 2025\n\n\n 8 2021\n 6 2022\n 7 2023\n 16 2024\n Arti\ufb01cial Intelligence 17 2025\n\n\n 36 2021\n 26 2022\n 19 2023\n 9 2024\n SPACs 5 2025\n\n\n 20 2021\n 20 2022\n 13 2023\n 19 2024\n COVID-19 3 2025\n\n\n 7 2021\n 5 2022\n 2 2023\n Cybersercurity and 2 2024\n Customer Privacy Breach 3 2025\n\n\n 1 2021\n 6 2022\n 0 2023\n 2 2024\n Bribery/Kickbacks 3 2025\n\n\n 1 2021\n 2 2022\n 9 2023\n 5 2024\n Environment 2 2025\n\n 0 2021\n 1 2022\n 1 2023\n 2 2024\n Money Laundering 1 2025\n\n\n 3 2021\n 1 2022\n 1 2023\n 1 2024\n Cannabis 1 2025\n\n\n Number of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n13 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.781 Page\n 17 of 39\n\n\n\n TRENDS IN RESOLUTIONS\n In 2025, the number of resolved federal securities class action cases, which includes dismissals\n and settlements, increased by 11% to 234 from 210 in 2024, marking the second straight year\n resolutions have increased.21 However, dismissals and settlements have trended in different\n directions. While the number of dismissals increased by 34% from 116 in 2024 to 155 in 2025,\n the number of settlements declined by 16% from 94 in 2024 to 79 in 2025. The rise in dismissals\n was largely driven by an increase in dismissals involving standard cases, which saw a record 139\n dismissals in 2025, up 32% from 105 in 2024. There were 72 settlements involving standard\n cases in 2025, the lowest amount since 2020. Standard cases collectively accounted for 90% of\n resolutions, comprising 211 of 234 resolved cases, while merger objections accounted for another\n 6% of resolutions. See Figure 11.\n\n\n Figure 11. Number of Resolved Cases: Dismissed or Settled\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 400\n 386 Crypto Unregistered Securities Settled\n 370 Merger Objections Settled\n Other Cases Settled\n 350 69 31 342\n 332 Standard Cases Settled\n 5 16\n 4 3 1 Crypto Unregistered Securities Dismissed\n 3 Merger Objections Dismissed\n 300 Other Cases Dismissed\n 75 71\n 271 78 Standard Cases Dismissed\n 84\n Number of Federal Cases\n\n\n\n\n 19 2 1 246\n 250\n 6 4 2 4 1 234\n 218 1 3 3\n 3 210\n 1 3 2\n 200 91 80 1 5\n 182 72\n 142 140\n 2 1 3\n 124 149\n 150 9 104 86\n 4\n 25 1 11\n 52 85\n 1\n 9 4 3\n 100 5 3 4\n 8 6 12\n 2 2\n 9 7\n 4\n 139\n 124\n 50 100 110 107 105\n 95 90\n 82 78\n\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Resolution Year\n\n\n\n\n14 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.782 Page\n 18 of 39\n\n\n Among non-merger objection, non-crypto unregistered securities cases filed in the past 10\n years, 44% of cases have been dismissed, 28% have settled, and 28% remain pending. This is\n consistent with historical trends, in which dismissals typically occur earlier in the litigation cycle,\n and settlements occur later. For the cases filed between 2016 to 2020, the rate of dismissal has\n ranged from 52% to 57%.\n\n For cases filed in 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 7% were dismissed and 93% were pending.22\n Of these cases, 18% were dismissed by 30 June 2025,23 and as of 31 December 2025, 29% have\n been dismissed, 2% reached a settlement, and 69% remain pending. A higher proportion of cases\n filed in 2025 was dismissed in the year of filing than was true of cases filed in 2024, with 9% of\n cases filed in 2025 dismissed and 91% pending as of year-end 2025. See Figure 12.\n\n\n Figure 12. Status of Cases as Percentage of Federal Filings by Filing Year\n Excludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Verdicts\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n Dismissed Pending Settled\n 100%\n 2%\n 11%\n 21%\n 31%\n 34%\n 80% 39%\n 45% 44% 45%\n Percentage of Federal Filings\n\n\n\n\n 51% 69%\n 60% 9% 18% 36%\n 8%\n 0% 91%\n 3% 3%\n\n\n 40%\n\n\n 56% 54% 57%\n 52% 52% 51%\n 20% 44%\n 37%\n 29%\n\n 9%\n 0%\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Filing Year\n Note: Dismissals may include dismissals without prejudice and dismissals under appeal. Component values may not add to\n 100% due to rounding.\n\n\n\n\n15 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.783 Page\n 19 of 39\n\n\n Over the past 10 years, the median time from the filing of the first complaint to resolution for\n dismissed cases has ranged from 1.1 years to 1.9 years, while for settled cases, the median time\n from the filing of the first complaint to resolution has ranged from 2.7 years to 3.9 years. For\n cases dismissed in 2025, the median time to dismissal declined to 1.6 years from 1.9 years in\n 2024, largely driven by an increase in dismissals from more recently filed cases. For cases settled\n in 2025, the median time to settle was 3.3 years, roughly in line with 2024. See Figure 13.\n\n\n Figure 13. Median Time from First Complaint Filing to Resolution\n Excludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Verdicts\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 4.5\n Settlements\n\n 4.0 Dismissals\n 3.9\n\n 3.5\n 3.2\n Median Time to Resolutuion (Years)\n\n\n\n\n 3.0 3.3\n 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2\n 2.8 2.7\n 3.0\n\n 2.5\n\n\n 2.0\n\n 1.9\n 1.5 1.6 1.7\n 1.6\n 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4\n 1.0 1.3\n 1.1\n\n\n 0.5\n\n\n 0.0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Resolution Year\n\n\n\n\n16 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.784 Page\n 20 of 39\n\n\n\n TRENDS IN PENDING CASES\n The number of non-merger objection, non-crypto unregistered securities suits pending in federal\n courts has increased over the past 10 years, although year-to-year fluctuations in the filing rate\n of new cases and the resolution rate of existing cases have led to annual variations in the number\n of pending cases.24 From 2016 to 2020, there were more new cases filed than existing cases\n resolved, resulting in a 30% increase in the number of pending cases, from 443 to 577. This\n trend reversed during the 2020\u20132022 period, leading to a reduction of 34 pending cases, while\n between 2022 and 2024, the backlog of securities class action cases grew by 11% to 604 cases.\n In 2025, the number of pending cases declined by 3.5% to 583. See Figure 14.\n\n From 2020 to 2025, the percentage of pending cases that were filed within the past two\n years declined from 64% to 56%, while the percentage of cases that are older than three years\n increased from 18% to 26%. During the same period, the median age of pending cases increased\n from 1.5 years to 1.7 years. As of 31 December 2025, there were 53 cases that have been\n pending for more than five years, the most over the last decade.\n\n\n Figure 14. Number of Pending Federal Cases\n Excludes Merger Objections and Crypto Unregistered Securities\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 700\n Years Since Filing\n More Than 5 Years 4\u20135 Years 3\u20134 Years 2\u20133 Years 1\u20132 Years Less Than 1 Year\n 604\n 600 577 580 583\n 557 563 52\n 24 543 51 53\n 24 33 40 29\n Number of Pending Federal Cases\n\n\n\n\n 19 39 30 35\n 500 484 29\n 42 47 57\n 460 25 45 54\n 443 73 63\n 32 19\n 35 11 36 82 102 58\n 400 101\n 18 35 109\n 22 100 106\n 72 87\n 70\n 67\n 300 163\n 175 160\n 133 141\n 119 130 146 148 152\n 200\n\n\n\n 100 227\n 199 196 195 205\n 182 182 175 166 174\n\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Year\n Note: Represents cases \ufb01led from 2000 onwards. Years since \ufb01ling calculated are end-of-year calculations.\n\n\n\n\n17 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.785 Page\n 21 of 39\n\n\n\n ANALYSIS OF MOTIONS\n NERA\u2019s federal securities class action database tracks filing and resolution activity as well as\n decisions on motions to dismiss, motions for class certification, and the status of any motion as\n of the resolution date. For this analysis, we include securities class actions that were filed and\n resolved over the 2016\u20132025 period in which purchasers of common stock are part of the class\n and which contain alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12.\n\n Motion to Dismiss\n A motion to dismiss was filed in 96% of the securities class actions suits filed and resolved in the\n past 10 years. For cases in which a motion to dismiss was filed, a decision was reached in 73%\n of cases, 6% settled before a court decision was reached, and 21% were voluntarily dismissed by\n plaintiffs. Among the cases in which a decision was reached, 62% of motions were granted (with\n or without prejudice), while 38% were denied either in part or in full. See Figure 15.\n\n\n Figure 15. Filing and Resolutions of Motions to Dismiss\n Cases Filed and Resolved January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n Out of All Cases Filed and Resolved Out of All Cases with MTD Filed Out of Cases with MTD Decision\n\n Not Filed: 4%\n\n Plainti\ufb00s Voluntarily\n Dismissed Action: 21%\n\n No Court Decision Prior to\n Case Resolution: 6%\n Granted Without Prejudice: 7%\n\n\n\n Filed: 96%\n Granted: 55%\n Court Decision Prior to\n Case Resolution: 73%\n\n\n\n Partially Granted/\n Partially Denied: 21%\n\n\n Denied: 17%\n\n\n\n\n18 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.786 Page\n 22 of 39\n\n\n\n Motion for Class Certification\n As most cases are either dismissed or settled before the class certification stage is reached, only\n 16% of securities class action suits had a motion for class certification filed. Of these, a decision\n was reached in 63% of cases, while almost all the remaining 37% of cases were resolved with\n a settlement. Among the cases in which a court decision was reached, the motion for class\n certification was at least partially granted (with or without prejudice) in 87% of cases and denied\n (with or without prejudice) in 13% of cases. See Figure 16.\n\n For cases in which a decision was reached on the motion for class certification, 22% of\n decisions occurred within two years of the filing of the first complaint, 62% were reached\n between 2\u20134 years, and 16% were decided in more than four years (see Figure 17). The median\n time is about 2.8 years.\n\n\n Figure 16. Filing and Resolutions of Motions for Class Certi\ufb01cation\n Cases Filed and Resolved January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n Out of All Cases Filed and Resolved Out of Cases with MCC Filed Out of Cases with MCC Decision\n\n\n\n\n Not Filed: 84%\n\n\n\n\n No Court Decision Prior to Granted Without Prejudice: 2%\n Case Resolution: 37% Partially Granted/\n Partially Denied: 7%\n\n Denied: 11%\n Filed: 16% Court Decision Prior to Granted: 78% Denied Without\n Case Resolution: 63% Prejudice: 2%\n\n\n\n\n19 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.787 Page\n 23 of 39\n\n\n Figure 17. Time from First Complaint Filing to Class Certi\ufb01cation Decision\n Cases Filed and Resolved January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n More than 5 Years Less than 1 Year\n 5% 2%\n\n\n\n\n 4\u20135 Years\n 11% 1\u20132 Years\n 20%\n\n\n\n\n 3\u20134 Years\n 26%\n\n 2\u20133 Years\n 36%\n\n\n\n\n For cases in which a decision was reached on\n the motion for class certification...the median\n time is about 2.8 years.\n\n\n\n\n20 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.788 Page\n 24 of 39\n\n\n\n TRENDS IN SETTLEMENT VALUES\n 25\n\n\n\n\n For the third straight year, the aggregate recovery from settlements has declined. The 2025\n aggregate settlement value was $2.9 billion, marking a 25% decline from the inflation-adjusted\n 2024 total of $3.9 billion and a 33% decline from the inflation-adjusted 2021 total of $4.4 billion\n (see Figure 18). After excluding cases involving merger objections, crypto unregistered securities,\n and settlements of $0 to the class, 40% of settlements had a recovery of less than $10 million\n (in line with the prior three years), 13% settled between $10 million and $19.9 million (a five-year\n low), 31% settled between $20 million and $49.9 million (a five-year high), and 17% settled for\n $50 million or more (see Figure 19). The average settlement value was $40 million, a 9% decline\n compared to the 2024 inflation-adjusted average settlement value of $44 million but a 63%\n increase from the smallest inflation-adjusted average settlement value in the past 10 years: $24.4\n million in 2021 (see Figure 20).26\n\n\n Figure 18. Aggregate Settlement Value\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n\n 9 $8.9\n Nominal $ In\ufb02ation Adjustment + $ Adjusted for In\ufb02ation\n\n 8\n\n\n 7 $6.9\n Aggregate Settlement Value ($ Billion)\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\n 5\n $4.4\n $4.1\n 4 $3.9 $3.9\n\n\n $6.6\n 3 $2.9\n $2.8\n $2.5 $5.4\n $2.1\n 2 $4.0 $3.9 $3.8\n $3.1 $2.9\n 1 $2.2\n $1.9 $1.8\n\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n\n21 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.789 Page\n 25 of 39\n\n\n Figure 19. Distribution of Settlement Values\n Excludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\n January 2021\u2013December 2025\n\n 60%\n 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n\n\n 50%\n Percentage of Settled Cases\n\n\n\n\n 40%\n\n\n\n 30%\n 59%\n\n\n\n\n 20%\n 43%\n 43%\n 41%\n\n\n\n\n 40%\n\n\n\n\n 31%\n 26%\n 24%\n 25%\n\n\n\n\n 10%\n 20%\n\n\n\n\n 17%\n 16%\n 14%\n 13%\n\n\n\n\n 10%\n 10%\n\n\n\n\n 9%\n\n\n\n\n 9%\n 9%\n\n\n\n\n 9%\n\n\n\n\n 9%\n\n\n 8%\n 7%\n\n\n 7%\n\n\n\n 4%\n 0%\n Less than $10 $10\u2013$19.9 $20\u2013$49.9 $50\u2013$99.9 $100 or Greater\n Settlement Size ($Million)\n\n\n Figure 20. Average Settlement Value\n Excludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 100 $100\n Nominal $ In\ufb02ation Adjustment + $ Adjusted for In\ufb02ation\n 90\n $84\n 80\n Average Settlement Value ($Million)\n\n\n\n\n 70\n\n\n 60\n $54\n 50 $48\n $44\n $41 $40\n 40\n $74 $35\n $30 $66\n 30\n $24\n $43 $45 $43\n 20 $40\n $38\n $28\n 10 $23 $21\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n22 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.790 Page\n 26 of 39\n\n\n For the second year in a row, there were no settlements of $1 billion or higher, and as a result,\n the average settlement value excluding such cases was also $40 million (see Figure 21). The\n median settlement value was $17.3 million, a 21% increase relative to the $14.3 inflation-\n adjusted value in 2024 and the largest median settlement value over the 2016\u20132025 period\n (see Figure 22).\n\n\n Figure 21. Average Settlement Value\n Excludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\n and Settlements for $0 to the Class\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 70\n Nominal $ In\ufb02ation Adjustment + $ Adjusted for In\ufb02ation\n $61\n 60\n Average Settlement Value ($Million)\n\n\n\n\n 50\n\n $44\n $41\n $40\n 40\n $36 $36\n $35 $35\n\n 30 $30\n\n $24\n $46\n 20 $43\n $40\n $38\n $34\n $27 $28 $29\n 10 $23 $21\n\n\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n\n23 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.791 Page\n 27 of 39\n\n\n Figure 22. Median Settlement Value\n Excludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\n and Settlements for $0 to the Class\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 20\n Nominal $ In\ufb02ation Adjustment + $ Adjusted for In\ufb02ation\n\n 18\n $17\n\n $16 $16\n 16\n\n $14 $15\n $14\n Median Settlement Value ($Million)\n\n\n\n\n $14\n 14\n\n\n 12 $12\n\n\n 10\n $9\n\n $17\n 8 $8\n\n $14 $14\n $13 $13 $13\n 6\n $11\n\n 4 $9\n $8\n $6\n 2\n\n\n 0\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n\n The median settlement value was $17.3 million,\n a 21% increase relative to the $14.3 inflation-\n adjusted value in 2024 and the largest median\n settlement value over the 2016\u20132025 period.\n\n\n\n\n24 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.792 Page\n 28 of 39\n\n\n\n TOP SETTLEMENTS\n The 10 largest settlements of 2025 ranged from $80 million to $433.5 million and together\n accounted for $1.7 billion, or 59%, of the $2.9 billion aggregate settlement amount. There were\n three settlements over $150 million: Alibaba Group Holding Company ($433.5 million) over\n misrepresentations concerning its exclusivity practices,27 General Electric Company ($362.5\n million) over disclosure failures related to the use of factoring to conceal industrial cash flow\n issues,28 and EQT Corporation ($167.5 million) over allegations the company overstated the\n operational benefits of its acquisition of Rice Energy Inc.29 The Second Circuit alone accounted\n for five of the 10 largest settlements. Eight of the top 10 settlements took more than five years\n to resolve from the filing of the first complaint. See Table 1.\n\n\n Table 1. Top 10 2025 Securities Class Action Settlements\n\n \t\t\t\t\t Plaintiffs\u2019\n \t\t\t\t Total Attorneys\u2019 Fees\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t Filing Settlement Settlement and Expenses\t\t Economic\t\t\n Rank Defendant Date Date Value ($Million) Value ($Million) Circuit Sector\n\n\n 1 Alibaba Group Holding 13 Nov 27 Mar $433.5 $109.4 2nd Retail Trade\n Limited 2020 2025\n\n 2 General Electric 01 Nov 24 Apr $362.5 $79.5 2nd Electronic \t\t\n Company 2017 2025\t\t\t\t Technology\n\n 3 EQT Corporation 25 Jun 30 Oct $167.5 $55.1 3rd Energy \t\t\n \t\t 2019 2025\t\t\t\t Minerals\n\n 4 Zoom Video 07 Apr 09 Oct $150.0 $10.7 9th Technology \t\t\n Communications, Inc. 2020 2025\t\t\t\t Services\n\n 5 Turquoise Hill 14 Oct 15 Oct $138.8 $20.0 2nd Non-Energy \t\t\n Resources Ltd. 2020 2025\t\t\t\t Minerals\n\n 6 Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. 30 Jan 30 Apr $126.3 $47.7 5th Energy Inc. \t\t\n \t\t 2019 2025\t\t\t\t Minerals\n\n 7 VMware, Inc. 31 Mar 31 Mar $102.5 $26.4 9th Technology \t\t\n \t\t 2020 2025\t\t\t\t Services\n\n 8 Windstream Holdings, Inc. 19 Mar 06 Feb $85.0 $27.8 8th Communications\n /EarthLink Holdings Corp. 2018 2025\n\n 9 Dentsply Sirona Inc. 19 Dec 10 Sep $84.0 $25.8 2nd Health\n 2018 2025\t\t\t\t Technology\n\n 10 Grab Holdings Limited 16 Mar 15 May $80.0 $26.9 2nd Transportation\n \t\t 2022 2025\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\n\n Total\t\t\t $1,730.1 $429.3\n\n\n\n\n25 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.793 Page\n 29 of 39\n\n\n Table 2 lists the 10 largest federal securities class action settlements through 31 December 2025.\n Since the Valeant Pharmaceuticals partial settlement of $1.2 billion in 2020, this list has remained\n unchanged, with settlements ranging from $1.1 to $7.2 billion.\n\n\n Table 2. Top 10 Federal Securities Class Action Settlements (As of 31 December 2025)\n\n Plaintiffs\u2019\n Attorney\u2019s\n Fees\n Total Financial Accounting and\n Settlement Institutions Firms Expenses\n Filing Settlement Value Value Value Value Economic\n Rank Defendant Date Year(s) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) Circuit Sector\n\n\n 1 ENRON Corp. 22 Oct 2003\u2013 $7,242 $6,903 $73 $798 5th Industrial\n 2001 2010 Services\n\n 2 WorldCom, Inc. 30 Apr 2004\u2013 $6,196 $6,004 $103 $530 2nd Communications\n 2002 2005\n\n 3 Cendant Corp. 16 Apr 2000 $3,692 $342 $467 $324 3rd Finance\n 1998\n\n 4 Tyco 23 2007 $3,200 No $225 $493 1st Producer\n International, Aug codefendant Manufacturing\n Ltd. 2002\n\n 5 Petroleo 8 Dec 2018 $3,000 $0 $50 $205 2nd Energy\n Brasileiro 2014 Minerals\n S.A.-Petrobras\n\n 6 AOL Time 18 July 2006 $2,650 No $100 $151 2nd Consumer\n Warner Inc. 2002 codefendant Services\n\n 7 Bank of 21 Jan 2013 $2,425 No No $177 2nd Finance\n America Corp. 2009 codefendant codefendant\n\n 8 Household 19 2006\u2013 $1,577 Dismissed Dismissed $427 7th Finance\n International, Aug 2016\n Inc. 2002\n\n 9 Valeant 22 Oct 2020 $1,210 $0 $0 $160 3rd Health\n Pharmaceuticals 2015 Technology\n International,\n Inc.*\n\n 10 Nortel 2 Mar 2006 $1,143 No $0 $94 2nd Electronic\n Networks 2001 codefendant Technology\n\n Total $32,334 $13,249 $1,017 $3,358\n\n * Denotes a partial settlement, which is included here due to its sizeable amount. Note that this case is not included in any of our\n resolution or settlement statistics.\n\n\n\n\n26 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.794 Page\n 30 of 39\n\n\n\n NERA-DEFINED INVESTOR LOSSES\n To estimate the potential aggregate loss to investors as a result of investing in the defendant\u2019s\n stock during the alleged class period, NERA has developed a proprietary variable, NERA-\n Defined Investor Losses, using publicly available data. The NERA-Defined Investor Loss\n measure is constructed assuming investors had invested in stocks during the class period whose\n performance was comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index. Over the years, NERA has reviewed\n and examined more than 2,000 settlements and found, of the variables analyzed, this proprietary\n variable to be the most powerful predictor of settlement amount.30\n\n A statistical review reveals that, while settlement values and NERA-Defined Investor Losses are\n highly correlated, the relationship is not linear. The ratio of settlement value to NERA-Defined\n Investor Losses is higher for cases with lower Investor Losses than for cases with higher Investor\n Losses. For instance, in cases with less than $20 million in Investor Losses, the median settlement\n value comprises 22.6% of Investor Losses, while in cases with more than $20 million in Investor\n Losses, the median settlement value is at most 5.2% of Investor Losses. See Figure 23.\n\n\n Figure 23. Median Settlement Value as a Percentage of NERA-De\ufb01ned Investor Losses\n By Level of Investor Losses\n Cases Settled January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 25%\n Settlement Value as a Percentage of Investor Losses\n\n\n\n\n 22.6%\n\n\n 20%\n\n\n\n\n 15%\n\n\n\n\n 10%\n\n\n\n 5.2%\n 5% 4.4%\n 3.2% 2.7%\n 2.1% 1.7% 1.3%\n 0.7% 0.5%\n 0%\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 99\n\n\n\n\n 99\n\n\n\n\n er\n $2\n\n\n\n\n $4\n\n\n\n\n $9\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\n\n\n\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 99\n\n\n\n\n at\n ,9\n\n\n\n\n ,9\n 0\u2013\n\n\n\n\n 0\u2013\n\n\n\n\n \u2013$\n\n\n\n\n \u2013$\n\n\n\n\n \u2013$\n\n\n\n\n \u2013$\n\n\n\n\n re\n $4\n\n\n\n\n $9\n n\n ha\n\n\n\n\n G\n $2\n\n\n\n\n $5\n\n\n\n\n 00\n\n\n\n\n 00\n\n\n\n\n 00\n\n\n\n\n 00\n\n\n\n\n 0\u2013\n\n\n\n\n 0\u2013\n\n\n\n\n or\n st\n\n\n\n\n $1\n\n\n\n\n $2\n\n\n\n\n $4\n\n\n\n\n $6\n\n\n\n\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 0\n s\n\n\n\n\n 0\n ,0\n\n\n\n\n ,0\n Le\n\n\n\n\n 00\n $1\n\n\n\n\n $5\n\n\n\n\n 0,\n\n\n\n\n Investor Losses ($Million)\n $1\n\n\n\n\n27 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.795 Page\n 31 of 39\n\n\n Over the past decade, annual median Investor Losses have ranged from a low of $358 million to a\n high of $1.8 billion. For cases settled in 2025, the median Investor Losses were $785 million, the\n lowest amount since 2021. The median ratio of settlement amount to Investor Losses was 1.5%\n in 2025, an increase relative to the 1.2% median ratio seen in 2024, though below the median\n ratios seen over 2016\u20132023. See Figure 24.\n\n\n Figure 24. Median NERA-De\ufb01ned Investor Losses and Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n by Settlement Year\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 1,800 $1,757 3.0%\n Median Investor Losses Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n\n 1,600\n 2.5%\n 2.4% 2.5%\n\n\n\n\n Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n 1,400\n Median Investor Losses ($Million)\n\n\n\n\n 1,200 2.0%\n 1.8% 1.8%\n\n $984 1.6%\n 1,000\n 1.7% 1.5%\n 1.6% 1.5%\n 1.6% $923\n 800 $785\n $705 $739\n $668\n $598 1.2%\n 600 1.0%\n $507\n\n 400 $358\n 0.5%\n 200\n\n\n 0 0.0%\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n\n28 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.796 Page\n 32 of 39\n\n\n NERA has identified the following key factors as driving settlement amounts:\n\n \u2022 NERA-Defined Investor Losses;\n \u2022 The market capitalization of the issuer immediately after the end of the class period;\n \u2022 The types of securities (in addition to common stock) alleged to have been affected by\n the fraud;\n \u2022 Variables that serve as a proxy for the merit of plaintiffs\u2019 allegations (e.g., whether the\n company has already been sanctioned by a government or regulatory agency or paid a fine\n in connection with the allegations);\n \u2022 The stage of litigation at the time of settlement; and\n \u2022 Whether an institution or public pension fund is named lead plaintiff (see Figure 25).\n\n Among cases settled between January 2012 and December 2025, these factors in NERA\u2019s\n statistical model can explain more than 70% of the variation observed in actual settlements.\n Because this is an observational study, the statistical analysis does not mean that a particular\n factor caused a change in the settlement value (e.g., institutional investors may target cases with\n certain characteristics), but the analysis does allow one to statistically predict settlement sizes as\n well as to determine, ex post, whether a settlement was statistically unusually large or small after\n controlling for these variables.\n\n\n Figure 25. Predicted vs. Actual Settlements\n Investor Losses Using S&P 500 Index\n Cases Settled January 2012\u2013December 2025\n\n $10BB\n Actual Settlement (on a Logarithmic Scale)\n\n\n\n\n $1BB\n\n\n\n\n $100MM\n\n\n\n\n $10MM\n\n\n\n\n $1MM\n\n\n\n\n $100,000\n $100,000 $1MM $10MM $100MM $1BB $10BB\n Median Predicted Settlement (on a Logarithmic Scale)\n\n\n\n29 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.797 Page\n 33 of 39\n\n\n\n TRENDS IN PLAINTIFFS\u2019 ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES\n AND EXPENSES\n Since 2016, annual aggregate plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses have ranged from a low of\n $505 million to a high of $1.6 billion. In 2025, aggregate plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses\n totaled $797 million, a 25% decline from the $1.063 billion in 2024. Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees and\n expenses comprised roughly 27.1% of the $2.9 billion aggregate settlement amount in 2025. See\n Figure 26.\n\n\n Figure 26. Aggregate Plainti\ufb00s\u2019 Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses by Settlement Size\n January 2016\u2013December 2025\n\n 1,800\n Settlement Size ($Million)\n $1,000 or Greater\n $1,612\n 1,600 $500\u2013$999.9\n $100\u2013$499.9\n $10\u2013$99.9\n 1,400\n Less than $10\n Aggregate Fees and Expenses ($Million)\n\n\n\n\n $649\n 1,200\n $1,076 $1,063\n\n 1,000 $974\n $186\n\n $823 $181\n $797\n 800\n $547\n $205 $323\n $644 $622\n $631\n 600 $354 $349\n $513 $105 $505\n $285 $296\n $117\n 400 $226 $224\n $505\n $459\n $321 $382 $408\n 200 $267 $292\n $223 $283\n $256\n\n\n 0 $66 $64 $51 $56 $36 $66 $62 $57 $57 $40\n 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025\n Settlement Year\n\n\n\n\n30 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.798 Page\n 34 of 39\n\n\n A historical analysis of plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses for cases that have settled\n following the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995 shows that\n fees and expenses as a percentage of the settlement amount generally decline as the settlement\n size increases. For instance, for cases settled between 2016 and 2025, the median share that\n plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses represent relative to the total settlement ranged from\n 35.9% in settlements of $5 million or lower to 18.6% in settlements of $1 billion or higher.\n\n For cases that have settled in the last 10 years, the median percentage of attorneys\u2019 fees has\n increased for settlements under $5 million and settlements over $100 million, while they have\n slightly declined for settlements between $10 million and $100 million, relative to settlements\n in the 1996\u20132015 period. This increase is more pronounced for settlements of $500 million or\n higher, although this is partly attributed to the low number of such settlements (six) in the 2016\u2013\n 2025 period. See Figure 27.\n\n\n Figure 27. Median of Plainti\ufb00s\u2019 Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses by Size of Settlement\n Excludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\n\n Percentage of Settlement Value Settlement Value Percentage of Settlement Value\n 1996\u20132015 ($Million) 2016\u20132025\n\n\n 8.1% 0.5% 7.7% \u22651,000 18.0% 0.6% 18.6%\n\n\n\n 17.7% 0.7% 17.0% \u2265500 and <1,000 22.5% 0.4% 22.9%\n\n\n\n 23.6% 1.4% 22.2% \u2265100 and <500 25.0% 1.1% 26.1%\n\n\n\n 28.6% 2.0% 26.6% \u226525 and <100 25.0% 1.6% 26.6%\n\n\n\n 32.7% 2.7% 30.0% \u226510 and <25 28.0% 1.9% 29.9%\n\n\n\n 33.6% 3.6% 30.0% \u22655 and <10 30.0% 2.2% 32.2%\n\n\n\n 35.0% 5.0% 30.0% <5 33.0% 2.9% 35.9%\n\n\n Note: Component values may not add to total value due to rounding. Median Fees Median Expenses\n\n\n\n\n31 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.799 Page\n 35 of 39\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n The number of federal securities class action suits filed fell by 11%, from 232 in 2024 to 207 in\n 2025. Approximately 92% of the drop in filings can be explained by a reduction in the number\n of standard cases alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12, which also\n declined by 11% from 214 in 2024 to 191 in 2025. Similarly, nearly half of the drop in standard\n filings can be attributed to a decrease in the number of standard cases filed against foreign\n companies, a category that saw only 25 suits in 2025, the lowest number in the last 10 years.\n\n Among non-merger objection, non-crypto unregistered securities cases filed in 2025, the\n healthcare technology and services sector contributed the largest share of filings across all\n economic sectors with 31%, and courts in the Second Circuit saw the most filings of all federal\n circuits with 62. Suits with AI- and crypto-related claims accounted for roughly 15% of all new\n filings in 2025.\n\n For the first time since 2022, there were more securities class action resolutions than filings,\n which resulted in a reduction in the number of pending cases. There were 234 resolved cases\n in 2025, an 11% increase relative to 2024 and which consisted of 155 dismissals and 79\n settlements. For dismissed cases, the median time to dismissal declined from 1.9 years in 2024 to\n 1.6 years in 2025, while for settled cases, the median time to settlement slightly increased from\n 3.2 years in 2024 to 3.3 years in 2025.\n\n The 79 settlements in 2025 totaled $3.9 billion, with the top 10 settlements accounting for\n 59% of this amount. Compared to last year, the average settlement value declined by $4 million\n to $40 million, while the median settlement value increased by approximately $3 million to $17\n million. For cases settled over the 2016\u20132025 period, the median plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees as a\n percentage of settlement value ranged from 18.0% for settlements of at least $1 billion to 33.0%\n for settlements of $5 million or less.\n\n\n\n\n32 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.800 Page\n 36 of 39\n\n\n\n NOTES\n 1 This edition of NERA\u2019s report on \u201cRecent Trends 6 In this study, crypto cases consist of two mutually\n in Securities Class Action Litigation\u201d expands on exclusive subgroups: (1) crypto shareholder class\n previous work by our colleagues Lucy P. Allen, actions, which include a class of investors in\n Dr. Vinita Juneja, Dr. Denise Neumann Martin, common stock, American depositary receipts/\n Dr. Jordan Milev, Robert Patton, Dr. Stephanie American depositary shares (ADR/ADS), and/or\n Plancich, Janeen McIntosh, and others. The other registered securities, along with crypto- or\n authors thank Dr. David Tabak and Benjamin digital-currency-related allegations; and (2) crypto\n Seggerson for helpful comments on this edition. unregistered securities class actions, which do not\n We thank Daniel Klotz, Debra Lederman, Nicholas have class investors in any registered securities that\n Kwasnik, and other researchers from NERA\u2019s are traded on major exchanges (New York Stock\n securities and finance capability for their valuable Exchange, Nasdaq). We include crypto shareholder\n assistance. These individuals receive credit for class actions in all our analyses that include\n improving this report; any errors and omissions standard cases. Crypto unregistered securities class\n are those of the authors. NERA\u2019s proprietary actions are excluded from some analyses, which is\n securities class action database and all analyses noted in the titles of our figures.\n reflected in this report are limited to US federal 7 Most securities class action complaints include\n case filings and resolutions.\n multiple allegations. For this analysis, all\n 2 NERA tracks securities class actions that have been allegations from the complaint are included and\n filed in US federal courts. Most of these cases thus the total number of allegations exceeds the\n allege violations of federal securities laws; others total number of filings.\n allege violations of common law, including breach 8 Here, a company is considered a foreign\n of fiduciary duty, as with some merger-objection\n company based on the location of its principal\n cases; still others are filed in federal court under\n executive office.\n foreign or state law. If multiple actions are filed\n against the same defendant, are related to the same 9 Talya Minsberg, \u201cA Timeline of Trump\u2019s On-Again,\n allegations, and are in the same circuit, we treat Off-Again Tariffs,\u201d The New York Times, updated 14\n them as a single filing. The first two actions filed October 2025, available at https://www.nytimes.\n in different circuits are treated as separate filings. com/2025/03/13/business/economy/trump-tariff-\n If cases filed in different circuits are consolidated, timeline.html.\n we revise our count to reflect the consolidation. 10 \u201cUS Tariffs: What\u2019s the Impact on Global Trade\n Therefore, case counts for a particular year may\n and the Economy?\u201d J.P.Morgan, 5 December 2025,\n change over time. Different assumptions for\n available at https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/\n consolidating filings would probably lead to counts\n global-research/current-events/us-tariffs.\n that are similar but may, in certain circumstances,\n lead observers to draw a different conclusion about 11 Sydney Price, \u201cDow Faces Investor Suit Over Tariff-\n short-term trends in filings. Data for this report Related Disclosures,\u201d Law360.com, 2 September\n were collected from multiple sources, including 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/\n Institutional Shareholder Services Securities Class articles/2382774.\n Action Services (ISS SCAS), Dow Jones Factiva, 12 Gillian R. Brassil, \u201cTronox Investor Sues\n Bloomberg Finance, FactSet Research Systems,\n After Record Stock Drop on Sales Setback,\u201d\n Nasdaq, Intercontinental Exchange, US Securities\n BloombergLaw, 4 September 2025, available at\n and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, complaints,\n https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-action/\n case dockets, and public press reports. All rights\n tronox-investor-sues-after-record-stock-drop-on-\n in the information provided by ISS SCAS and its\n sales-setback.\n affiliates (ISS SCAS) reside with ISS SCAS and/or\n its licensors. ISS SCAS makes no express or implied 13 Gina Kim, \u201cCarMax\u2019s Hype Over Sales Ignored\n warranties of any kind and shall have no liability Tariff Fears, Investors Say,\u201d Law360.com, 3\n for any errors, omissions, or interruptions in or in November 2025, available at https://www.law360.\n connection with any data provided by ISS SCAS. com/articles/2407028.\n IPO laddering cases are presented only in Figure 1. 14 Kevin M. LaCroix, \u201cGeopolitical Developments, Visa\n 3 IPO figures taken from Stock Analysis, accessed Policies, and D&O Risk,\u201d D&O Diary, 27 July 2025,\n 9 January 2026, available at https://stockanalysis. available at https://www.dandodiary.com/2025/07/\n com/ipos/statistics/. articles/securities-litigation/geopolitical-\n developments-visa-policies-and-do-risk/.\n 4 Federal securities class actions that allege\n violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or 15 Rick Archer, \u201cCantor Fitzgerald Exec Named In\n Section 12 have historically dominated federal Virtual Currency Ponzi Suit,\u201d Law360.com, 16\n securities class action dockets and have often June 2016, available at https://www.law360.com/\n been referred to as \u201cstandard\u201d cases. In the articles/807687.\n analyses of this report, standard cases involve 16 See Edward Flores and Jordan Milev, \u201cAI and\n registered securities and do not include cases\n Securities Class Action Litigation,\u201d NERA,\n involving crypto unregistered securities, which are\n 17 December 2025, available at https://\n considered a separate category.\n www.nera.com/insights/publications/2025/\n 5 IPO figures taken from Stock Analysis, accessed economic-perspectives-on-ai/ai-and-securities-\n 9 January 2026, available at https://stockanalysis. class-action-litigation.html.\n com/ipos/statistics/.\n\n\n\n\n33 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.801 Page\n 37 of 39\n\n\n\n NOTES\n 17 See Edward Flores and Svetlana Starykh, \u201cRecent 25 For our settlement analyses, NERA includes\n Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: H1 settlements that have had the first settlement-\n 2025 Update,\u201d NERA, 29 July 2025, Figure 8, approval hearing. We do not include partial\n available at https://www.nera.com/insights/ settlements or tentative settlements that have\n publications/2025/recent-trends-in-securities- been announced by plaintiffs and/or defendants.\n class-action-litigation--h1-2025-upd.html. As a result, although we include the 2020 Valeant\n Pharmaceuticals partial settlement in Table 2 due\n 18 See Flores and Milev, 2025, Figure 3.\n to its size, this case is not included in any of our\n 19 SPAC IPO figures taken from SPAC Data, accessed resolution, settlement, or attorney fee statistics.\n 9 January 2026, available at https://www. 26 While annual average settlement values can be\n spacdata.com. a helpful statistic, these values may be affected\n 20 Lauren Berg, \u201cBlock Hit With Shareholder Suit Over by one or a few very high settlement amounts.\n Cash App AML Protocols,\u201d Law360.com, 21 January Unlike averages, the median settlement value\n 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/ is unaffected by these high outlier settlement\n articles/2286823. amounts. To understand what more typical\n cases look like, we analyze the average and\n 21 Here \u201cdismissed\u201d is used as shorthand for all\n median settlement values for cases with a\n class actions resolved without settlement; it settlement amount under $1 billion, thus\n includes cases in which a motion to dismiss excluding these outlier settlement amounts. For\n was granted (and not appealed or appealed the analysis of settlement values, we limit our\n unsuccessfully), voluntary dismissals, cases data to non-merger objection and non-crypto\n terminated by a successful motion for summary unregistered securities cases with settlements of\n judgment, and an ultimately unsuccessful motion more than $0 to the class.\n for class certification.\n 27 Hailey Konnath, \u201cAlibaba Investors\u2019 Attys Awarded\n 22 See Edward Flores and Svetlana Starykh, \u201cRecent\n $108M In IPO Settlement,\u201d Law360.com, 27 March\n Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2024 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/\n Full-Year Review,\u201d NERA, 22 January 2025, Figure articles/2316787.\n 13, available at https://www.nera.com/insights/\n publications/2025/recent-trends-in-securities- 28 Katryna Perera, \u201cGE Investors\u2019 $362.5M Deal\n class-action-litigation--2024-full-y.html. Gets Final OK, Attys Get $70M,\u201d Law360.com, 24\n April 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/\n 23 See Edward Flores and Svetlana Starykh, \u201cRecent\n articles/2330130.\n Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: H1\n 2025 Update,\u201d NERA, 29 July 2025, Figure 10, 29 Gillian R. Brassil, \u201cEQT\u2019s $168 Million Investor Class\n available at https://www.nera.com/insights/ Accord Gets Court Go-Ahead (1),\u201d BloombergLaw,\n publications/2025/recent-trends-in-securities- 6 November 2025, available at https://news.\n class-action-litigation--h1-2025-upd.html. bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/eqts-168-million-\n investor-class-settlement-gets-court-go-ahead.\n 24 In this analysis, only cases filed from 2000\n onward are considered. 30 NERA-Defined Investor Losses is only calculable\n for cases involving allegations of damages to\n common stock based on one or more corrective\n disclosures moving the stock price to its alleged\n true value. As a result, we have not calculated this\n metric for cases such as merger objections.\n\n\n\n\n34 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.802 Page\n 38 of 39\n RELATED EXPERTS\n Edward Flores, MA\n Director SUBSCRIBE\n New York City: +1 212 345 2955\n edward.flores@nera.com\n\n\n To receive publications, news, and\n Svetlana Starykh, MA insights from NERA, please visit\n Associate Director, www.nera.com/subscribe.\n\n Securities Class Actions Database\n New York City: +1 914 563 6761\n svetlana.starykh@nera.com\n\n\n Ivelina Velikova, MBA\n Director\n New York City: +1 212 345 1160\n ivelina.velikova@nera.com\n\n\n\n\nThe opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of NERA or any other NERA consultant.\n\n\n\n\nABOUT NERA\nSince 1961, NERA has provided unparalleled guidance on the most important market,\nlegal, and regulatory questions of the day. Our work has shaped industries and policy\naround the world. Our field-leading experts and deep experience allow us to provide\nrigorous analysis, reliable expert testimony, and data-powered policy recommendations\nfor the world\u2019s leading law firms and corporations as well as regulators and\ngovernments. Our experience, integrity, and economic ingenuity mean you can depend\non us in the face of your biggest economic and financial challenges.\n\fCase 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-11 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.803 Page\n 39 of 39\n\n\n\n\n www.nera.com\n\n\n\n\n \u00a9 Copyright 2026\n National Economic Research Associates, Inc.\n All rights reserved. Printed in the USA.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:56:02.242092-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317437","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 9 (NERA Report)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479804870/","id":479804870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69555752/70/12/kassam-v-flux-power-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T20:54:40.073668-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:13:39.746762-07:00","sha1":"d180266c1b21ee409f34f235bb406f041ccfd180","page_count":16,"file_size":118539,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.12.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.802528/gov.uscourts.casd.802528.70.12.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.804 Page 1\n of 16\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 10\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.805 Page 2\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nBernstein Litowitz Berger & In re Qualcomm Incorporated Sec. Litig., (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. 441-5) Senior Counsel: $800 - $875 $800 - $1,400\nGrossman LLP No. 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB\n Associate: $425 - $875\n\n Senior Staff Attorney: $425 - $450\n\n Staff Attorney: $340 - $425\n\n Financial Analyst: $335 - $500\n\n Case Manager & Paralegal: $255 - $425\n In re James River Grp. Holdings, Ltd. Sec. (E.D. Va.) (Apr. 2024) (ECF No. 126-7) Senior Counsel: $875 $1,000 - $1,350\n Litig., No. 3:21-cv-00444-DJN\n Associate: $475 - $700\n\n Staff Attorney: $425 - $450\n\n Financial Analyst: $425 - $675\n\n Case Manager & Paralegal: $325 - $425\nBoies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (S.D.N.Y.) (Sep. 2023) (ECF No. 106) Counsel: $940 $1,080 - $2,110\n et al., No. 1:22-cv-10018-JSR\n Associate: $670 - $860\n\n Staff Attorney: $430 - $500\n\n Paralegal: $350\n\n Managing Clerk: $380\n In re Grupo Televisa Sec. Litig., No. 1:18- (S.D.N.Y.) (Jul. 2023) (ECF No. 356) Counsel: $940 - $970 $1,140 - $2,110\n cv-01979\n Associate: $670 - $830\n\n Summer Associate: $450\n\n Staff Attorney: $380 - $460\n\n Paralegal: $350\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.806 Page 3\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nCohen Milstein Sellers & City of Birmingham Firemen's and (D. Utah) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. 287-6) Of Counsel: $875 - $1,015 $810 - $1,320\nToll, PLLC Policemen's Supplemental Pension System\n v. Pluralsight, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00128 Associate: $495 - $755\n\n Staff Attorney: $620\n\n Law Clerk: $385 - $395\n\n Paralegal: $325 - $420\n Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (S.D.N.Y.) (May 2024) (ECF No. 674-1) Of Counsel: $790 $630 - $1,320\n et al v Bank of America Corp et al., No.\n 1:17-cv-06221-KPF-SLC Associate: $495 - $600\n\n Staff Attorney: $485 - $700\n\n Discovery Attorney: $250 - $495\n\n Paralegal: $290 - $380\nHausfeld LLP In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust (E.D.Okla.) (Nov. 2024) (ECF No. 628-1) Associate: $260 - $650 $830 - $1,550\n Litig. (No. II), No. 6:20-md-02977\n Staff Attorney: $460 -$500\n\n Paralegal: $350\n\n Law Clerk: $260\nKeker, Van Nest & Peters OpenGov, Inc. v. GTY Technology (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 2019) (ECF No. 40-1) Of Counsel: $775 - $1,075 $700 - $1,500\nLLP Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-07198-JSC\n Paralegal: $250 - $290\nLabaton Sucharow LLP In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., No. 1:22-cv- (S.D.N.Y.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 103-4) Of Counsel: $750 - $975 $1,110 - $1,375\n 08172\n Associate: $350 - $675\n\n Staff Attorney: $400 - $475\n\n Paralegal: $375 - $415\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.807 Page 4\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nLabaton Sucharow LLP Chen v. Missfresh Ltd. et al., No. 1:22-cv- (S.D.N.Y.) (Sep. 2024) (ECF No. 149-9) Of Counsel: $600 - $1,000 $650 - $1,375\n 09836-JSR\n Associate: $450 - $625\n\n Staff Attorney: $340 - $475\n\n Law Clerk: $275 - $300\n\n Paralegal: $200 - $435\nLevi & Korsinsky LLP In re Grab Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. (S.D.N.Y.) (Apr. 2025) (ECF No. 151-5) Of Counsel: $850 $975 - $1,100\n 1:22-cv-02189-JLR\n Senior Associate: $750\n\n Associate: $500 - $575\n\n Staff Attorney: $475\n\n Document Review Attorney: $475\n\n Law Clerk: $375\n\n Paralegal: $350\nLieff Cabraser Heimann & Katz-Lacabe, et al. v. Oracle America, Inc., (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. 136-2) Associate: $530 - $720 $1,015 - $1,380\nBernstein, LLP No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS\n Staff Attorney: $525\n\n Litigation Support Specialist: $535\n\n Paralegal: $510\nMotley Rice LLC Leventhal v. Chegg, Inc., et al, No. 5:21-cv- (N.D. Cal.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 195-4) Associate: $660 - $1,150 $1,150 - $1,500\n 09953-PCP\n Law Clerk: $325 - $400 (\"Member\" Rates)\n\n Paralegal: $275 - $425\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.808 Page 5\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nMotley Rice LLC In re Qualcomm Incorporated Sec. Litig., (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. 441-6) Senior Counsel: $860 - $1,150 $950 - $1,300\n No. 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB\n Of Counsel: $1,150 (\"Member\" Rates)\n\n Associate: $550 - $725\n\n Contract Attorney: $325 - $470\n\n Paralegal: $275 - $425\nPomerantz LLP In re Grab Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. (S.D.N.Y.) (Apr. 2025) (ECF No. 151-4) Of Counsel: $800 $1,050 - $1,375\n 1:22-cv-02189-JLR\n Associate: $550 - $750\n\n Staff Attorney: $535 - $725\n\n Project Associate: $495 - $530\n\n Paralegal: $375\n In re Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. Sec. (D. Md.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 194-2) Of Counsel: $850 $950 - $1,375\n Litig., No. 8:21-cv-00955-DLB\n Associate: $600 - $750\n\n Staff Attorney: $565\n\n Project Associate: $465 - $530\n\n Paralegal: $110 - $375\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (S.D.N.Y.) (May 2024) (ECF No. 673-1) Of Counsel: $1,170 - $1,570 $1,645 - $2,410\nSullivan, LLP et al v Bank of America Corp et al., No.\n 1:17-cv-06221-KPF-SLC Attorney: $580 - $1,515\n\n Paralegal: $320 - $550\n\n Lit. Support: $190 - $270\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.809 Page 6\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nRobbins Geller Rudman & In re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Sec. Litig., (S.D. Tex.) (Mar. 2025) (ECF No. 1024-5) Of Counsel: $460 - $1,200 $835 - $1,400\nDowd LLP No. 4:19-cv-00957\n Associate: $250 - $700\n\n Staff Attorney: $475 - $485\n\n Economic Analyst: $315 - $485\n In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 4:19-cv- (N.D. Cal.) (Jul. 2024) (ECF No. 438-1) Of Counsel: $535 - $1,135 $755 - $1,400\n 02033-YGR\n Associate: $465 - $540\n\n Staff Attorney: $460 - $475\n\n Economic Analyst: $370 - $470\n\n Paralegal: $325 - $410\nThe Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) (Mar. 2025) (ECF No. 131-4) Counsel: $1,119 - $1,169 $1,273 - $1,512\n et al, No. 1:22-cv-03088-RA\n Associate: $717 - $826\n\n Staff Attorney: $492\nScott+Scott, Attorneys at In re Oatly Grp. AB Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-cv- (S.D.N.Y.) (Jun. 2024) (ECF No. 115-2) Associate: $665 - $850 $795 - $1,900\nLaw, LLP 06360-AKH\n Investigator: $550 - $675\n\n Research Analyst: $435\n\n Paralegal: $415 - $435\n Abadilla, et al. v. Precigen, Inc. et al., No. (N.D. Cal.) (Sep. 2023) (ECF No. 138) Of Counsel: $1,050 $1,095 - $1,595\n 5:20-cv-06936-BLF\n Associate: $625 - $795\n\n Staff Attorney: $675\n\n Paralegal: $395 - $415\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.810 Page 7\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & In re Covington Credit of Texas, Inc., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. Senior Counsel and Counsel: $1,250 - $1,775 - $2,195\nFeld LLP Reorganized Debtor, No. 24-90164 (MI) 16) $1,650\n\n Associate: $840 - $1,200\n\n Paraprofessional: $305 - $530\nAllen Overy Shearman In re Amyris, Inc., et al., Reorganized (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jun. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,425 - $1,555 $1,460 - $2,130\nSterling US LLP Debtors, No. 23-11131 (TMH) 1558)\n Associate: $775 - $1,415\n\n Legal Assistant: $375 - $525\n In re Venus Liquidation Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Jan. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,300 $1,975 - $2,130\n No. 23-10738 (JPM) 727)\n Associate: $1,215 - $1,415\n\n Law Clerk: $225 - $995\nCleary Gottlieb Steen & In re ViewRay, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Nov. 2023) (ECF No. 428- Associate: $965 - $1,105 $1,305 - $1,930\nHamilton LLP 10935 (KBO) 2)\n Paralegal: $430\n\n Non-Legal: $370\nCooley LLP In re Lutheran Home and Services for the (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) (Mar. 2025) (ECF No. Associate: $830 - $1,500 $1,710\n Aged, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 25-01705 205)\n Paralegal: $460\n In re CR Holding Liquidating, Inc., et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (May 2023) (ECF No. Senior Counsel: $1,650 $1,285 - $1,895\n Debtors, No. 19-10210-LSS 1820)\n Associate: $1,235 - $1,245\n\n Law Clerk: $670\n\n Paralegal: $380 - $605\nDavis Polk & Wardwell LLP In re Azul S.A., et al., Debtors, No. 25- (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Jun. 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,790 - $2,040 $2,140 - $2,645\n 11176 (SHL) 117)\n Associate: $730 - $1,780\n\n Paraprofessional: $505 - $715\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.811 Page 8\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nDavis Polk & Wardwell LLP In re Spirit Finance Cayman 1 Ltd, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Apr. 2025) (ECF No. 6) Counsel: $1,725 - $2,040 $2,375 - $2,645\n Reorganized Debtors, No. 24-12038 (SHL)\n Associate: $965 - $1,780\n\n Law Clerk: $695 - $1,065\n\n Legal Assistant: $505 - $715\nDechert LLP In re Eletson Holdings Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S,D.N.Y.) (Dec. 2024) (ECF No. Associate: $830 - $1,220 $1,425 - $1,975\n No. 23-10322 (JPM) 1321)\n Staff Attorney: $625\n\n Legal Assistant: $350 - $525\n In re Bintago Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Feb. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,105 - $1,300 $1,275 - $1,825\n 11394 (SHL) 433)\n Associate: $775 - $1,140\n\n Law Clerk: $680\n\n Legal Assistant: $435 - $525\n\n E-Discovery Specialist: $525\nDLA Piper LLP (US) In re Azzur Group Holdings LLC, et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Mar. 2025) (ECF No. 109- Of Counsel: $1,425 $1,585 - $2,085\n Debtors, No. 25-10342 (KBO) 2)\n Associate: $795 - $1,305\n\n Paraprofessional: $575\n In re Vestoo Ltd., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2024) (ECF No. 619) Associate: $730 - $1,215 $1,215 - $1,800\n 11160 (MFW)\n Law School Graduate: $730\n\n Research Analyst: $500\n\n Paralegal: $340 - $475\nFreshfields Bruckhaus In re Molekule Grp., Inc. et al., Debtors, No. (Bankr. S.D. Fla.) (Jan. 2024) (ECF No. Associate: $1,195 $1,825 - $2,125\nDeringer LLP 23-18094-EPK 392)\n In re Talen Energy Supply, LLC, et al., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Jun. 2023) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,425 $1,690 - $1,945\n Debtors, No. 22-90054 (MI) 2114-2)\n Associate: $980 - $1,200\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.812 Page 9\n Survey of Law Firm Billing Rates\n of 16- Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nFreshfields Bruckhaus In re Revlon, Inc. et al., Debtors, No. 22- (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Apr. 2023) (ECF No. Counsel: $843 $1,057 - $1,723\nDeringer LLP 10760 (DSJ) 1835)\n Associate: $321 - $1,323\n\n Paralegal/Non-Legal Staff: $320 - $525\nGibson, Dunn & Crutcher In re High Valley Investments, LLC, et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Apr. 2024) (ECF No. 343) Of Counsel: $1,260 $1,530 - $1,675\nLLP Debtors, No. 23-11616 (TMH)\n Associate: $1,005 - $1,060\n\n Paralegal: $705\n\n In re Stimwave Tech. Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. D. Del.) (May 2023) (ECF No. 901) Associate: $1,105 - $1,210 $1,860\n No. 22-10541 (TMH)\nGoodwin Procter LLP In re Old Mbria Inc., Debtor, No. 24-10952 (Bankr. D. Del.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. 289- Counsel: $1,260 - $1,300 $1,300 - $1,900\n (LSS) 1)\n Associate: $770 - $1,270\n\n Senior Paralegal: $510 - $620\n\n Research Analyst: $295 - $660\nGreenberg Traurig LLP In re Steward Health Care System LLC, et (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Sep. 2024) (ECF 2565) Of Counsel: $875 $995 - $1,670\n al., Debtors, No. 24-90213 (CML)\n Associate: $875\n\n Paralegal: $515\n\n J.D. Candidate: $395\n In re Vesttoo Ltd., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Nov. 2023) (ECF No. Senior Counsel: $1,645 $880 - $1,665\n 11160 (MFW) 399)\n Of Counsel: $855 - $900\n\n Associate: $650 - $895\n\n Paralegal: $390 - $475\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.813 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing10\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nHogan Lovells US LLP In re Dtech Liquidating, Inc. et al., Debtors, (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. 453) Senior Associate: $1,190 $1,485 - $1,970\n No. 24-11378 (JTD)\n Associate: $785\n\n Law Clerk: $695\n\n Senior Paralegal: $600\n In re Mallinckrodt PLC, et al., Debtors, No. (Bankr. D. Del.) (Dec. 2023) (ECF No. 744) Senior Counsel: $1,444 $885 - $1,585\n 23-11258 (JTD)\n Of Counsel: $1,135 - $1,175\n\n Senior Associate: $1,065 - $1,110\n\n Associate: $650 - $890\n\n Senior Research Analyst: $390\n\n Paralegal: $390\n In re LTL Management LLC, Debtor, No. (Bankr. D.N.J.) (May 2022) (ECF No. 2240- Counsel: $910 - $1,735 $950 - $2,465\n 21-30589 (JCW) 1)\n Associate: $605 - $1,055\n\n Paralegal: $275 - $550\nJones Day In re Meier's Wine Cellars Acquisition, (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 784) Of Counsel: $1,000 $1,150 - $1,850\n LLC, et al., No. 24-11575 (MFW)\n Associate: $550 - $1,175\n In re LTL Mgmt. LLC, Debtor, No. 23- (Bankr. D.N.J.) (Sep. 2023) (ECF No. Of Counsel: $925 - $1,275 $563 - $1,800\n 12825 (MBK) 1327)\n Associate: $325 - $925\n\n Staff Attorney: $600 - $625\n\n Paralegal: $213 - $500\nKatten Muchin Rosenman In re 2U, Inc., et al., Reorganized Debtors, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Oct. 2024) (ECF No. Associate: $700 - $1,035 $1,360 - $1,920\nLLP No. 24-11279 (MEW) 221)\n Paraprofessional: $500\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.814 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing11\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nKatten Muchin Rosenman In re Capstone Green Energy Corp., et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Dec. 2023) (ECF No. 148- Of Counsel: $735 - $1,440 $835 - $1,795\nLLP Debtors, No. 23-11634 (LSS) 2)\n Counsel and Special Staff: $460 - $1,230\n\n Associate: $300 - $935\n\n Paralegal: $90 - $650\n\n\n\nKing & Spalding LLP In re Red River TALC LLC, Debtor, No. 24- (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Oct. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $655 - $2,000 $1,005 - $2,180\n 90505 (CML) 289)\n Associate: $540 - $1,395\n\n Paralegal: $275 - $675\n\n In re Red Lobster Mgmt. LLC, et al., (Bankr. M.D. Fla.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,365 - $1,440 $1,175 - $1,920\n Debtors, No. 6:24-bk-02486-GER 926)\n Associate: $660 - $1,515\n\n Staff Attorney: $315 - $495\n\n Project Attorney: $165 - $1,000\n\n Paralegal: $275 - $675\n\n Litigation Support: $425\nKirkland & Ellis, LLP In re American Tire Distributors, Inc., et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Dec. 2024) (ECF No. 568) Associate: $815 - $1,395 $1,575 - $2,305\n Debtors, No. 24-12391 (CTG)\nLatham & Watkins LLP In re Docudata Solutions, L.C., et al., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Mar. 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,595 - $2,070 $1,680 - $2,650\n Debtors, No. 25-90023 (CML) 143-1)\n Associate: $835 - $1,635\n\n Professional Staff: $255 - $980\n\n Paraprofessionals: $355 - $755\n In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (May 2024) (ECF No. Associate: $890 - $1,345 $1,680 - $2,035\n No. 19-23649 (RDD) 6360)\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.815 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing12\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nLatham & Watkins LLP In re: Sorrento Therapeutics Inc., et al., Post (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (May 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,470 - $1,605 $1,495 - $2,240\n Effective Date Debtors, No. 23-90085 2181)\n (CML) Associate: $760 - $1,340\n\n Financial Analyst: $570\n\n Paralegal: $355 - $525\nMayer Brown LLP In re Ligado Networks LLC, et al., Debtors, (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 181) Counsel: $1,080 - $1,685 $1,280 - $2,870\n No. 25-10006 (TMH)\n Associate: $775 - $1,320\n\n Paralegal: $255 - $580\n\nMcDermott Will & Emery In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et al., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,345 - $1,600 $1,290 - $2,290\nLLP Debtors, No. 24-90533 (ARP) 1042)\n Associate: $805 - $1,245\n\n Paralegal: $460 - $745\n\n Legal Assistant: $540\nMilbank LLP In re Edgio, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 24- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 734) Of Counsel: $1,795 $1,695 - $2,245\n 11985 (KBO)\n Special Counsel: $1,575\n\n Associate: $595 - $1,475\n\n Case Manager: $480\n\n Legal Assistant: $430\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP In re Millenkamp Cattle, Inc., Debtors, No. (Bankr. D. Idaho) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,265 $1,385 - $1,585\n 24-40158-NGH 585)\n Associate: $860 - $1,070\n\n Paralegal: $510\n\n Summer Associate: $370\n In re Ebix, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) (May 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,265 $1,885\n 80004-swe11 595)\n Associate: $1,200\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.816 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing13\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, In re Enviva Pellets Epes Holdings, LLC, (Bankr. E.D. Va.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. 20) Counsel: $1,995 $2,350 - $2,595\nWharton & Garrison LLP Reorganized Debtor, No. 24-10454 (BFK)\n Associate: $975 - $1,695\n\n Staff Attorney: $645 - $675\n\n Paralegal: $375 - $560\nProskauer Rose LLP In re Zachry Holdings, Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. Special Counsel: $1,690 $1,705 - $2,435\n No. 24-90377 (MI) 1959)\n Associate: $1,045 - $1,560\n\n Paralegal: $485\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & In re Accuride Corp., et al., Debtors, No. 24- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. 535) Counsel: $1,570 $1,645 - $2,410\nSullivan, LLP 12289 (JKS)\n Associate: $1,060 - $1,420\n\n Litigation Support: $190\nRopes & Gray LLP In re Exactech, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 24- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 582) Counsel: $1,390 - $1,580 $1,700 - $1,880\n 12441 (LSS)\n Associate: $830 - $1,460\n\n Trainee Solicitor: $570\n\n Senior Paralegal: $575\n In re VH Legacy/Liquidation, LLC, et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (May 2023) (ECF No. 417) Associate: $900 - $1,310 $1,520 - $1,900\n Debtors, No. 22-11019 (LSS)\n Law Clerk: $770\n\n Paralegal: $320 - $565\nSheppard, Mullin, Richter & In re Silvergate Capital Corp., et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. 455) Special Counsel: $865 - $930 $990 - $1,460\nHampton LLP Debtors, No. 24-12158 (KBO)\n Associate: $765 - $930\n In re Mariner Health Central, Inc., et al., (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) (Apr. 2023) (ECF No. Associate: $700 - $945 $1,355 - $1,555\n Debtors, No. 22-41079 522)\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.817 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing14\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nSidley Austin LLP In re Independence Contract Drilling, Inc., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,790 $1,675 - $2,040\n et al., Reorganized Debtors, No. 24-90612 144)\n (ARP) Senior Associate: $1,485 - $1,505\n\n Managing Associate: $1,230 - $1,265\n\n Associate: $835 - $1,140\n\n Paralegal: $600 - $650\n\n Research Analyst: $305 - $335\nSimpson Thacher & Bartlett In re WW International, Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. D. Del.) (May 2025) (ECF No. 81) Senior Counsel: $2,050 $2,220 - $2,730\nLLP No. 25-cv-10829 (CTG)\n Counsel: $1,995\n\n Associate: $895 - $1,690\n\n Paraprofessional: $470 - $725\n In re Zymergen Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 23- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Mar. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,800 $2,165 - $2,405\n 11661 (KBO) 443)\n Associate: $795 - $1,415\n\n Paralegal: $600\nSkadden, Arps, Slate, In re True Value Co., L.L.C., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 923) Of Counsel: $1,105 $1,060 - $2,120\nMeagher & Flom LLP No. 24-12337 (KBO)\n Counsel: $1,580 - $1,800\n\n Associate/Law Clerk: $675 - $1,510\n\n Paraprofessional: $325 - $580\n In re Armstrong Flooring, Inc., No. 22-bk- (Bankr. D. Del.) (May 2022) (ECF No. 187) Of Counsel: $1,300 - $1,495 $1,465 - $1,980\n 10426\n Associate: $550 - $1,275\n In re VIVUS, Inc. et al., Reorganized (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2021) (ECF No. 443) Of Counsel: $1,260 $1,425 - $1,565\n Debtors, No. 20-bk-11779 (LSS)\n Associate: $695 - $1,120\n ($495 for Associate Pending Admission)\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.818 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing15\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nSullivan & Cromwell LLP In re KFI Wind-Down Corp., Debtor, No. (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. Special Counsel: $1,675 $1,695 - $2,375\n 23-10638 (LSS) 1850)\n Associate: $850 - $1,575\n\n Paralegal: $450 - $565\n In re FTX Trading Ltd., et al., Debtors, No. (Bankr. D. Del.) (Aug. 2023) (ECF No. Of Counsel: $2,165 $1,595 - $2,165\n 22-11068 (JTD) 2271)\n Special Counsel: $1,575 - $1,825\n\n Associate: $775 - $1,475\n\n Law Clerk: $550\n\n Paralegal: $425 - $595\n\n Legal Analyst: $595\nVinson & Elkins LLP In re Kidkraft, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 24- (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) (Aug. 2024) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,485 - $1,620 $1,620 - $2,050\n 80045mvl11 340)\n Associate: $850 - $1,250\n In re Core Scientific, Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Sep. 2023) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,590 $1,425 - $1,920\n No. 22-90341 (DRJ) 1251)\n Associate: $730 - $1,220\n\n Paralegal: $420\nWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP In re AIO US, Inc., et al., Debtors, No. 24- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Feb. 2025) (ECF No. 786) Counsel: $1,595 - $1,760 $1,750 - $2,350\n 11836 (CTG)\n Associate: $850 - $1,485\n\n Paralegal: $350 - $595\n\n Litigation Support: $510\nWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP In re Vertex Energy, Inc., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 2025) (ECF No. Associate: $1,325 - $1,625 $2,025 - $2,500\n No. 24-90507 (CML) 627-2)\n Law Clerk: $625\n\n Senior Paralegal: $590\n\n Paralegal: $380\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL Document 70-12 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.819 Page\n Survey of Law Firm Billing16\n Rates - Plaintiffs' and Defense Firms\n of 16\n\n\nDefense Firm Name Case Name Citation Non-Partner Attorneys\u2019 Fee Range Partners\u2019 Fee Range\n\nWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale In re 23andMeHolding Co., et al., Debtors, (Bankr. E.D. Mo.) (May 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,400 - $1,600 $1,600 - $2,600\nand Dorr LLP No. 25-40976 406)\n Associate: $825 - $1,370\n\n Paraprofessional: $550 - $820\n In re Invivo Therapeutics Corp., et al., (Bankr. D. Del.) (Jul. 2024) (ECF No. 282) Counsel: $1,360 $1,795\n Debtors, No. 24-10137 (MFW)\n Senior Paralegal: $710\nWilson Sonsini Goodrich & In re Plenty Unlimited Texas LLC, et al., (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Apr. 2025) (ECF No. Counsel: $1,085 - $2,100 $1,350 - $2,545\nRosati, P.C. Debtors, No. 25-90105 (CML) 198)\n Associate: $615 - $1,380\n\n Staff: $260 - $1,250\n In re Potrero Medical, Inc., Debtor, No. 23- (Bankr. D. Del.) (Mar. 2024) (ECF No. Associate: $705 - $1,090 $1,085 - $1,400\n 11900 (LSS) 200)\n Senior Paralegal: $445\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T20:56:08.958652-07:00","document_number":"70","attachment_number":12,"pacer_doc_id":"037022317438","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 10 (survey of law firm rates)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-05T13:35:02.889327-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T10:44:45.491824-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-05","time_filed":"12:44:25","entry_number":70,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":236,"description":"MOTION for Settlement Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation by Thomas Frank Clark, Brandon Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation, # 2 Declaration of Joshua Baker, # 3 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Margery Craig), # 4 Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen), # 5 Exhibit 3 (Declaration of Marion C. Passmore, # 6 Exhibit 4 (Declaration of Brandon Paulson), # 7 Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Thomas Frank Clark), # 8 Exhibit 6 (Firm resume of Rosen Law), # 9 Exhibit 7 (Firm resume of BES), # 10 Exhibit 8 (Declaration of Robert A. Meyer), # 11 Exhibit 9 (NERA Report), # 12 Exhibit 10 (survey of law firm rates))(Baker, Joshua) (rxc). (Entered: 03/05/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69555752&page_size=40"}