{"cached_at":"2026-10-18T09:54:47.586431+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71268619","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","id":71268619,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cod/","court_id":"cod","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10743586/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/391/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-09-04T09:27:24.440834-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T20:21:30.757615-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Philip A. Brimmer","referred_to_str":"Cyrus Y. Chung","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":"2025-09-04","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-06-15","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Lee v. Quantum Corporation","case_name_full":"","slug":"lee-v-quantum-corporation","docket_number":"1:25-cv-02770","docket_number_core":"2502770","docket_number_raw":"1:25-cv-02770","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"PAB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"CYC","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"247064","cause":"15:78 Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities, Commodities, Exchange","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-09-04T09:27:24.433289-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16770788/","id":16770788,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919096/","attorney_id":10919096,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:03.837082-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:03.837110-08:00","name":"Chandruakanthan Sathasivam","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16770787/","id":16770787,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919095/","attorney_id":10919095,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:02.208000-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:02.208026-08:00","name":"Rick Scharff","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16770786/","id":16770786,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129501/","attorney_id":16129501,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919097/","attorney_id":10919097,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10678102/","attorney_id":10678102,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:23:57.380537-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:23:57.380561-08:00","name":"Hunsu Son","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16266394/","id":16266394,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919098/","attorney_id":10919098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129502/","attorney_id":16129502,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.408561-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.408571-07:00","name":"Laura Nash","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16266392/","id":16266392,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919098/","attorney_id":10919098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129502/","attorney_id":16129502,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.393704-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.393712-07:00","name":"Kenneth P. Gianella","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16266391/","id":16266391,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919098/","attorney_id":10919098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129502/","attorney_id":16129502,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.381357-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.381377-07:00","name":"James J. Lerner","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16266390/","id":16266390,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919098/","attorney_id":10919098,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129502/","attorney_id":16129502,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.366097-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.366117-07:00","name":"Quantum Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16266389/","id":16266389,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16129501/","attorney_id":16129501,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10919097/","attorney_id":10919097,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10678102/","attorney_id":10678102,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","docket_id":71268619,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.302631-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-04T21:04:18.302645-07:00","name":"Seung Lee","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726251/","id":479726251,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406590/","id":495406590,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/35/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.249462-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.249485-07:00","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":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012750363","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.211281-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.222756-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":126,"description":"REPLY to Response to 33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum Corporation. (Shoemaker, Andrew) (Entered: 06/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726250/","id":479726250,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406589/","id":495406589,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/34/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.173317-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.173339-07:00","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":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012690414","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.139961-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.150548-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":122,"description":"BRIEF in Opposition to 33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiff Hunsu Son. (Goldberg, Jacob) (Entered: 05/19/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726249/","id":479726249,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406588/","id":495406588,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/32/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.069189-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T20:21:30.708881-07:00","sha1":"ddb0786126b2f228efd6584791ff0ea5cd7905f4","page_count":54,"file_size":382901,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.32.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 54\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO\n\nCivil Action No. 25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC\n\nSEUNG LEE, Individually and on Behalf of\nAll Others Similarly Situated,\n\nPlaintiffs,\n\nv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nQUANTUM CORPORATION,\nJAMES J. LERNER,\nKENNETH P. GIANELLA, and\nLAURA NASH,\n\nDefendants.\n\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n\n AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS\n OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 2 of 54\n\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff Hunsu Son (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), individually and on behalf of all other persons\n\nsimilarly situated, by Plaintiff\u2019s undersigned attorneys, for Plaintiff\u2019s complaint against\n\nDefendants Quantum Corporation (\u201cQuantum\u201d or \u201cCompany\u201d), James J. Lerner, Kenneth P.\n\nGianella, and Laura Nash (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), alleges the following based upon\n\npersonal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff\u2019s own acts, and information and belief as to all\n\nother matters, based upon, among other things, the investigation conducted by and through\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of the Defendants\u2019 public\n\ndocuments, public filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding Quantum, U.S.\n\nSecurities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) filings, wire and press releases published by and\n\nregarding Quantum; analysts\u2019 reports and advisories and other press coverage about Quantum;\n\nQuantum\u2019s stock chart; Quantum\u2019s corporate website; data from news services; interviews with\n\nformer employees; and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that\n\nsubstantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable\n\nopportunity for discovery.\n\nI. NATURE OF THE ACTION\n\n 1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons or entities who\n\npurchased publicly traded Quantum Corporation securities between August 14, 2024, and\n\nAugust 18, 2025, inclusive (\u201cClass Period\u201d). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages\n\ncaused by Defendants\u2019 violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal securities laws under\n\nthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u201d), and Rule 10b(5) promulgated\n\nthereunder.\n\n 2. Quantum is a storage company, designing storage solutions for primary software\n\nstorage and systems, secondary storage software and systems, and devices and media. Between\n\n2019 and 2025 Quantum had to restate its financial reports three times, each time admitting\n\n 1\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 3 of 54\n\n\n\n\nfailures to properly account for recognized revenue and material weaknesses in internal controls\n\nover financial reporting. The second restatement, in 2024, related to problems with Quantum\u2019s\n\nrevenue recognition and GAAP provision ASC 606, specifically dealing with how Quantum\n\ncalculated its standalone selling prices. In the wake of this 2024 restatement, Defendants\n\nreviewed hundreds of thousands of earlier transactions, and consulted with experts and with\n\nQuantum\u2019s auditor, professing to spend large amounts of time and money to get things right..\n\n 3. All for naught. Immediately following the 2024 Restatement Defendants again\n\nviolated ASC 606 and issued more false financial statements, failing to update standalone selling\n\nprices as they had just admitted they were required to do, not only by ASC 606 but by Quantum\u2019s\n\nown accounting policies. As of the 2024 Restatement, Defendants claimed they knew exactly\n\nhow to apply and update standalone selling prices. Nonetheless, they kept making the same errors\n\nin the immediately following periods, resulting in materially false financial statements.\n\n 4. Quantum published false financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal\n\nyear 2025. In the third quarter of 2025, Quantum overstated its revenue by almost $4 million,\n\nand understated net loss by that same amount.\n\n 5. Defendants were forced to restate their financial statements yet again in 2025.\n\nAfter having \u201ccleaned house\u201d by replacing all of its senior management after the first\n\nrestatement, Quantum did so again in 2025, firing its CEO, CFO, and Chief Revenue Officer. As\n\nthey gradually revealed the details and impact of this third restatement through a series of\n\ndisclosures, Quantum\u2019s stock price fell, harming investors.\n\nII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 6. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)\n\nof the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder\n\nby the SEC (17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5).\n\n 2\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 4 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 1331, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a778aa).\n\n 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b) and\n\nSection 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78aa(c)) as the alleged misstatements entered and\n\nthe subsequent damages took place in this judicial district.\n\n 9. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this complaint,\n\nDefendants (defined below), directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of\n\ninterstate commerce, including but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone\n\ncommunications and the facilities of the national securities exchange.\n\nIII. PARTIES\n\n 10. Lead Plaintiff Hunsu Son, as evidenced by his previously-filed Certification\n\n(Dkt. 14-2), purchased Quantum Corporation securities during the Class Period and was\n\neconomically damaged thereby.\n\n 11. Quantum Corporation is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive\n\noffices at 10770 E. Briarwood Avenue, Centennial, CO 80112. The Company\u2019s common stock\n\ntrades on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol \u201cQMCO.\u201d Quantum is a technology\n\ncompany focused on data management solutions. It creates products including primary storage\n\nsoftware and systems, secondary storage software and systems, and devices and media.\n\n 12. Defendant James J. Lerner (\u201cLerner\u201d) served as the Company\u2019s Chief Executive\n\nOfficer (\u201cCEO\u201d), Chairman of the Board, and President from July 2018 until June 2, 2025.\n\nLerner signed SOX Certifications for the August 14, 2024, Form 10-Q for the first quarter of\n\nfiscal year 2025 (\u201c1Q25 10-Q\u201d), the November 13, 2024 Form 10-Q for the second quarter of\n\nfiscal year 2025 (\u201c2Q25 10-Q\u201d), and the February 12, 2025 Form 10-Q for the third quarter of\n\nfiscal year 2025 (3Q25 10-Q\u201d).\n\n 3\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 5 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 13. Defendant Kenneth P. Gianella (\u201cGianella\u201d) served as the Company\u2019s Chief\n\nFinancial Officer (\u201cCFO\u201d) from January 2023 until April 3, 2025. Gianella signed SOX\n\nCertifications for the 1Q25 10-Q, the 2Q25 10-Q, and the 3Q25 10-Q.\n\n 14. Defendant Laura K. Nash (\u201cNash\u201d) has served as the Company\u2019s CFO and Chief\n\nAccounting Officer since August 18, 2025. She served as the Company\u2019s Chief Accounting\n\nOfficer since June 2023, and the Company\u2019s Controller from June 2019 until June 2023.\n\n 15. Defendants Lerner, Gianella, and Nash are sometimes referred to herein as the\n\n\u201cIndividual Defendants.\u201d\n\n 16. For the quarterly and annual statements signed by Defendants Lerner and\n\nGianella, as described supra., each Defendant signed Certifications for the statements certifying\n\nthat:\n\n (a) I have reviewed this annual report on Form [10-K or 10-Q] of Quantum\n Corporation;\n\n (b) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement\n of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,\n in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading\n with respect to the period covered by this report;\n\n\n (c) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial\n information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial\n condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods\n presented in this report;\n\n\n (d) The registrant\u2019s certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing\n and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules\n 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and internal control over financial reporting\n (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:\n\n\n 1) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such\n disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to\n ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its\n consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,\n particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;\n\n 4\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 6 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 2) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused\n such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our\n supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial\n reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in\n accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;\n\n 3) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant\u2019s disclosure controls\n and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the\n effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period\n covered by this report based on such evaluation; and\n\n 4) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant\u2019s internal\n control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant\u2019s most recent\n fiscal quarter (the registrant\u2019s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)\n that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the\n registrant\u2019s internal control over financial reporting.\n\n 17. Further, in each quarterly and annual statement during the Class Period,\n\nDefendants signed SOX certifications stating that:\n\n I, ____________, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant\n to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of\n Quantum Corporation, on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended __________,\n fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities\n Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such\n Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial\n condition and results of operations of Quantum Corporation.\n 18. The Company is liable for the acts of the Individual Defendants and its\n\nemployees under the doctrine of respondeat superior and common law principles of agency\n\nbecause all of the wrongful acts complained of herein were carried out within the scope of their\n\nemployment.\n\n 19. The scienter of the Individual Defendants and other employees and agents of the\n\nCompany is similarly imputed to Quantum under respondeat superior and agency principles.\n\n 20. Defendant Quantum and the Individual Defendants are collectively referred to\n\nherein as \u201cDefendants.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 7 of 54\n\n\n\n\nIV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS\n\n A. Background\n\n 21. According to its 2025 annual report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on August\n\n26, 2025, Quantum\u2019s products include primary software storage and systems, secondary storage\n\nsoftware and systems, and devices and media. Quantum offers global servicing of its products. 1\n\nIt delivers end-to-end data management solutions designed for unstructured data in the artificial\n\nintelligence era. Quantum specializes in solutions for video, images, audio, and other large files\n\nbecause this unstructured data represents more than 80% of all data being created according to\n\nleading industry analyst firms. Unstructured data is exponentially larger than traditional\n\ncorporate data, contains tremendous value, and must be captured, protected, and stored for many\n\nyears, decades, and longer.\n\n 22. Former employee (\u201cFE\u201d) 1worked at Quantum from 2020-2025, and worked as\n\na \u201cPrincipal Solutions Architect\u201d in the last year of his tenure. FE1 reported to Ed Ramon,\n\nDirector of Pre-Sales Engineering.\n\n 23. According to FE1, senior sales personnel had authority to offer discounts on\n\nparticular products or services to customers. Approvals from a pricing team, however, were\n\nrequired to ensure the profitability of each deal. Larger deals required approval from the CEO\n\nor CFO.\n\n 24. FE2 worked as a Regional Sales Manager at Quantum from January 2021\n\nthrough December 2025. FE2 reported to District Sales Manager Scott Homes.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Quantum\u2019s fiscal year runs from April 1-March 31. Thus, Quantum\u2019s fiscal 2025 concluded on\nMarch 31, 2025.\n\n 6\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 8 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 25. FE2 concurred with FE1 that the CEO and CFO were involved in sales to larger\n\ncustomers. On one occasion, FE2 states that Defendants Lerner and Gianella joined his sales\n\ncall with a particular company\u2019s Chief Information Officer in order to close a deal on terms\n\nfavorable to Quantum.\n\n B. The 2015-2018 Restatement\n\n 26. On January 11, 2018, Quantum received a letter from the Securities and\n\nExchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) regarding accounting practices and internal control related to\n\nrevenue recognition for transactions starting from April 1, 2016.\n\n 27. In February 2018, both Quantum\u2019s audit committee and a \u201cSpecial Committee\u201d\n\ncomprised of two members of the Board of Directors conducted an internal investigation, with\n\nthe help of independent accounting and legal advisors, looking into matters related to\n\nQuantum\u2019s accounting practices and internal control over financial reporting related to revenue\n\nrecognition for transactions occurring between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2018.\n\n 28. In September 2018, the Special Committee substantially completed and finalized\n\nits principal findings with respect to its investigation, determining that Quantum engaged in\n\nbusiness and sales practices that undermined Quantum\u2019s historical accounting treatment for\n\ntransactions with several key distributors and at least one end customer. The identified\n\ntransactions potentially affected by such practices commenced at least in the fourth quarter of\n\nfiscal 2015 and continued at least through the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018. The Special\n\nCommittee also found that these business and sales practices may have resulted in the Company\n\nrecognizing revenue for certain transactions prior to satisfying the criteria for revenue\n\nrecognition required under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (\u201cGAAP\u201d).\n\n 29. On September 14, 2018, Quantum announced in a Form 8-K that its previously\n\nissued financial statements for fiscal years 2015-2018, as well as quarterly financial statements\n\n 7\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 9 of 54\n\n\n\n\nduring those years, should no longer be relied upon and required restatement.\n\n 30. At the same time, management assessed Quantum\u2019s internal control over\n\nfinancial reporting, concluding that Quantum\u2019s disclosure controls and procedures were not\n\neffective as of March 31, 2019. Quantum\u2019s auditor, Armanino, similarly concluded that\n\nQuantum\u2019s internal control over financial reporting was ineffective as of March 31, 2019. The\n\nCompany announced that it had identified and implemented actions to improve the effectiveness\n\nof internal controls over financial reporting.\n\n 31. On August 6, 2019, Quantum filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, attaching a press\n\nrelease announcing the completion of the 2019 restatement, which stated:\n\n Financial Restatement Summary\n\n In September 2018 the Company announced the substantial completion of an\n internal investigation conducted by a Special Committee of the Board of\n Directors. This investigation concluded that the previous management, who have\n all been terminated or are no longer part of the Company, had engaged in\n certain business and sales practices that may have undermined its historical\n accounting treatment for certain sales transactions with several distributors and\n at least one end customer. These practices led to the Company prematurely\n recognizing revenue. The Company\u2019s finance department, overseen by the\n Board\u2019s Audit Committee, completed its review of revenue for fiscal years 2015\n through 2018 and identified approximately $180 million of revenue that was\n prematurely recorded. The revenue restatement re-casted the timing of revenue,\n not the quality or accuracy of the revenue itself. Excluding the first and last\n quarters of the restatement period, the average quarterly net revenue adjustment\n ranged from a decrease of approximately $7 million to an increase of\n approximately $5 million. These restatement adjustments did not affect historical\n or current cash balances and there were no significant accounts receivable write-\n offs over the restatement periods. All of the inventory that is remaining in\n distributors\u2019 inventory and yet to be sold through to an end customer has been\n paid for by the distributor. Quantum expects to recognize the revenue from this\n remaining distributor inventory in the future when the products are sold to an end-\n customer. The total cost expected to be incurred for professional fees related to\n the internal investigation, financial restatement and related activities is\n approximately $33 million.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 10 of 54\n\n\n\n\n In addition, the Company is cooperating with an on-going investigation by the\n SEC related to the restatement. Quantum has produced a substantial volume of\n documents to the SEC and continues to respond to information requests from the\n SEC staff. 2\n\n32. The same day, the Company published its 2019 annual report on Form 10-K, explaining\n\nthe 2019 Restatement:\n\n Explanatory Note\n\n This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019\n includes Quantum Corporation\u2019s (\u201cQuantum\u201d, the \u201cCompany\u201d, \u201cus\u201d or \u201cwe\u201d)\n audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 31,\n 2019, 2018 and 2017. The consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year\n ended March 31, 2017 and selected financial data for the fiscal years ended March\n 31, 2017, 2016 (unaudited) and 2015 (unaudited) are restated.\n\n Background of Special Committee Investigation and Subsequent Management\n Review\n\n On January 11, 2018, we received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange\n Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) regarding our accounting practices and internal controls\n related to revenue recognition for transactions commencing April 1, 2016. As a\n result, we postponed the release of our financial results for the third quarter of\n fiscal 2018. In February 2018, the Audit Committee (\u201cAudit Committee\u201d) of our\n Board of Directors (\u201cBoard\u201d), and subsequently a special committee of the Board\n (the \u201cSpecial Committee\u201d) consisting of two members of the Audit Committee,\n conducted an internal investigation, with the assistance of independent\n accounting and legal advisors, into matters related to our accounting practices and\n internal control over financial reporting related to revenue recognition for\n transactions occurring between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2018.\n\n In September 2018, the Special Committee substantially completed and finalized\n its principal findings with respect to its investigation. The principal findings\n included a determination that we engaged in certain business and sales practices\n that may have undermined our historical accounting treatment for transactions\n with several key distributors and at least one end customer. The Special\n Committee found that the identified transactions potentially affected by such\n practices commenced at least in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 and continued at\n least through the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018. The Special Committee also\n found that these business and sales practices may have resulted in the\n Company recognizing revenue for certain transactions prior to satisfying\n\n\n2\n All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.\n\n 9\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 11 of 54\n\n\n\n\n the criteria for revenue recognition required under U.S. Generally Accepted\n Accounting Principles (\u201cU.S. GAAP\u201d).\n\n Upon the recommendation of the Audit Committee and as a result of the\n investigation by the Special Committee and after consultation with our\n management, on September 14, 2018, our Board of Directors concluded that\n our previously issued consolidated financial statements and other financial\n data for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in\n our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and our condensed consolidated financial\n statements for each of the quarterly and year-to-date periods ended June 30,\n 2015, September 30, 2015, December 31, 2015, June 30, 2016, September 30,\n 2016, December 31, 2016, June 30, 2017 and September 30, 2017\n (collectively, the \u201cNon-Reliance Periods\u201d) should not be relied upon and\n required restatement. Our Board also determined that our disclosures related\n to these financial statements and related communications issued by or on\n behalf of the Company with respect to the Non-Reliance Periods, including\n management\u2019s assessment of internal control over financial reporting and\n disclosure controls and procedures, should not be relied upon.\n\n In response to the findings of the Special Committee, we conducted a\n thorough review of our financial records for fiscal years ended March 31,\n 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 to determine whether further restatement\n adjustments were necessary. We concluded that there were material\n misstatements in the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years\n ending March 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, as well as in the unaudited condensed\n consolidated financial statements for the quarterly periods June 30, 2016,\n September 30, 2016, December 31, 2016, June 30, 2017, and September 30,\n 2017, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (\u201cASC\u201d) 250,\n Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.\n\n We have not amended, and do not intend to amend, our Annual Reports\n on Form 10-K or Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for periods prior to\n September 30, 2017. The consolidated financial statements and related\n financial information contained in any of our Annual Reports on Form 10-K\n and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed during the period commencing\n with the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 and prior to this Annual Report on\n Form10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 should no longer be relied\n upon. We have restated our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal\n year ended March 31, 2017 and included restated financial data and\n discussion related to the three months ended June 30, 2017 and the three- and\n six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 that would typically be\n disclosed in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Additionally, because we have\n failed to file Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter and year\n to date periods ended December 31, 2017, June 30, 2018, September 30,\n 2018 and December 31, 2018, we have included the financial data and\n discussion typically disclosed in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for these\n\n\n 10\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 12 of 54\n\n\n\n\n periods. The restatement also affects the fiscal years ended March 31, 2015\n and 2016 and the impact of the restatement on those fiscal years is included\n in Item 6 Selected Financial Data included in this Annual Report on Form 10-\n K.\n\n Note 2: Restatement and Note 13: Quarterly Financial Data (unaudited) to\n our consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report on Form10-K\n disclose the nature of the restatement matters and adjustments and shows the\n impact of the restatement matters on revenues, expenses, income, assets,\n liabilities, equity, and cash flows from operating activities, investing\n activities, and financing activities, and the cumulative effects of these\n adjustments.\n\n Internal Control over Financial Reporting\n\n As part of our review of our financial records for the Non-Reliance Periods,\n management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial\n Officer, assessed our internal control over financial reporting as of March 31,\n 2019. Based upon this assessment, we identified material weaknesses in our\n internal control over financial reporting and concluded that our internal\n control over financial reporting was not effective as of March 31, 2019. In\n addition, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have\n evaluated the findings and conclusions of the Special Committee\u2019s\n investigation, as well as the review of our financial records, and based on this\n evaluation, taken together with the identified material weaknesses, have\n concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at\n March 31, 2019. We have identified and implemented actions to improve the\n effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure\n controls and procedures. We intend to continue these remediation activities,\n including ongoing efforts to enhance our resources and train our employees\n on financial reporting and disclosure responsibilities, and the periodic review\n of such actions with the Audit Committee. For more information about\n management\u2019s determinations related to our internal control over financial\n reporting, including the identified material weaknesses, and our disclosure\n controls and procedures, as well as our remediation activities, please see\n Item 9A Controls and Procedures of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.\n\n Our independent auditors, Armanino LLP, have audited management\u2019s\n assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2019 and\n in their opinion concluded that we did not maintain, in all material respects,\n effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2019, based on\n criteria established in Internal Control\u2014Integrated Framework (2013) issued by\n the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission\n (\u201cCOSO\u201d) because of the identified material weaknesses in our internal control\n over financial reporting existed as of March 31, 2019.\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 13 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 33. The 2019 Form 10-K disclosed several categories of restatement adjustments,\n\nwith the first two related to revenue recognition issues. The first related to premature revenue\n\nrecognition, which was the subject of the SEC subpoena and eventual enforcement action. The\n\nsecond related to improper amortization of service revenue also resulting in accelerated revenue\n\nrecognition.\n\n 34. Prior to the 2019 Restatement, on November 9, 2017, Quantum announced that it\n\nhad fired its CEO, Jon Gacek, who had been in that position since 2011. Gacek also left the\n\nBoard of Directors.\n\n 35. Prior to the restatement, in June 2018, Quantum fired Fuad Ahmad, its CFO.\n\nAhmad had served as CFO since April 2016.\n\n 36. In May 2018, Quantum appointed Mike Dodson as its new CFO.\n\n 37. In July 2018, Quantum appointed Defendant Jamie Lerner as its new CEO.\n\n 38. In January 2023, Defendant Gianella became Quantum\u2019s CFO.\n\n 39. In January 2019, Quantum was delisted by the NYSE for failure to file required\n\nfinancial statements. The Company relisted on the NASDAQ Global Market on February 3,\n\n2020, under the ticker symbol QMCO.\n\n 40. On August 10, 2019, Quantum held an earnings conference call, Defendant\n\nLerner\u2019s first as CEO, as part of what he stated was \u201can entirely new leadership team.\u201d Lerner\n\nstated that quantum had \u201cconducted a significant operational restructuring\u201d with \u201cimproved\n\ncorporate governance,\u201d including shrinking senior management by 45% while adding a new\n\nCEO, CFO, Chief Revenue Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Information Officer, and\n\nDirector of Internal Audit, among others.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 14 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 41. During the earnings call, regarding the Restatement, Lerner described the\n\nproblem as \u201crelated to the timing of revenue recognition\u201d which had been recognized\n\n\u201cprematurely.\u201d\n\n 42. In a press release dated December 23, 2019, Quantum announced that it had\n\nentered into a cease-and-desist Order with the SEC, requiring Quantum to pay a civil penalty of\n\n$1 million.\n\n 43. The cease-and-desist Order stated that between 2015 and 2018, Quantum had\n\nviolated GAAP for revenue recognition, resulting from internal accounting control failures. The\n\nOrder stated that \u201c[d]uring the restatement period, Quantum\u2019s tone-at-the-top contributed to its\n\ninsufficient internal accounting controls environment.\u201d\n\n 44. In the 2019 Restatement, Defendants similarly disclosed material weaknesses\n\nrelated to \u201ctone-at-the-top,\u201d as contributing to the restatement.\n\n C. After the First Restatement, Quantum States that its Internal Controls Over\n Financial Reporting are Effective\n\n 45. In the May 26, 2021, annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021\n\n(\u201c2021 10-K\u201d), Quantum\u2019s auditor, Armanino LLP, issued a clean audit opinion. The auditor\n\nstated that \u201cin our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal\n\ncontrol over financial reporting as of March 31, 2021, based on the criteria established in Internal\n\nControl - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.\u201d\n\n 46. In the May 26, 2021, 2021 10-K, signed by Defendants Lerner and Gianella,\n\nDefendants stated that \u201cWe have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting and\n\ndisclosure controls and procedures were effective as of March 31, 2021.\u201d\n\n 47. In the June 8, 2022, annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022 (\u201c2022\n\n10-K\u201d), Quantum\u2019s auditor, Armanino LLP, issued a clean audit opinion. With respect to internal\n\n\n 13\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 15 of 54\n\n\n\n\ncontrol over financial reporting, Armanino LLP stated that \u201cin our opinion, the Company\n\nmaintained, in all material respects, effective internal controls over financial reporting as of\n\nMarch 31, 2022, based on the criteria established in Internal Controls - Integrated Framework\n\n(2013) issued by COSO.\u201d\n\n 48. Similarly, in the 2022 10-K, signed by Defendants Lerner and Gianella, in\n\n\u201cManagement\u2019s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting,\u201d Defendants stated\n\nthat \u201cOur management, with the participation of our principal executive and principal financial\n\nofficers, evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting using the\n\nframework set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway\n\nCommission in Internal Control\u2014Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment,\n\nmanagement concluded that Quantum Corporation maintained effective internal control over\n\nfinancial reporting as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report.\u201d\n\n 49. In the June 6, 2023, annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023 (\u201c2023\n\n10-K\u201d), Quantum\u2019s auditor, Armanino LLP, issued a clean audit opinion. With respect to internal\n\ncontrol over financial reporting, Armanino LLP stated that \u201cin our opinion, the Company\n\nmaintained, in all material respects, effective internal controls over financial reporting as of\n\nMarch 31, 2023, based on the criteria established in Internal Controls - Integrated Framework\n\n(2013) issued by COSO.\u201d\n\n 50. Similarly, in the 2023 10-K, signed by Defendants Lerner and Gianella, in\n\n\u201cManagement\u2019s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting,\u201d Defendants stated\n\nthat \u201cour chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of March 31, 2023,\n\nour disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 16 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 51. On July 27, 2023, in a press release attached to a Form 8-K, Quantum announced\n\nthat its auditor, Armanino LLP, was resigning.\n\n 52. In a Form 8-K dated August 21, 2023, Quantum announced that its audit\n\ncommittee appointed Grant Thornton LLP as Quantum\u2019s new auditor.\n\n D. The 2024 Restatement\n\n 53. Quantum\u2019s second Restatement involved another revenue recognition GAAP\n\nviolation, the misapplication of standalone selling prices as required by ASC 606.\n\n 54. A standalone selling price (\u201cSSP\u201d) is the price at which a company would sell a\n\nspecific good or service to a customer if it were sold separately, not as part of a bundle or with\n\nany discounts. It is crucial for revenue recognition, as it helps businesses allocate the total price\n\nof a bundled contract to each distinct component (performance obligation) based on its individual\n\nfair value, following accounting standards like ASC 606. A company must also determine\n\nstandalone selling prices for items that are never sold separately, but only as part of a package.\n\n 55. In the 2023 10-K, for example, Defendants stated that they regularly used invoice\n\nprice as the SSP:\n\n There are significant judgements used when applying Accounting Standards\n Codification (\u201cASC\u201d) Topic 606 to contracts with customers. Most of our contracts\n contain multiple goods and services designed to meet each customers\u2019 unique\n storage needs. For contracts with multiple performance obligations, we allocate the\n transaction price to each performance obligation based on the relative standalone\n selling price of the good or service underlying each performance obligation. Where\n standalone selling price may not be directly observable (e.g., the performance\n obligation is not sold separately), we maximize the use of observable inputs by\n using information including reviewing discounting practices, performance\n obligations with similar customers and product groupings. We determined that\n invoice price is the best representation of what we expect to receive from the\n delivery of each performance obligation. This judgment is based on the fact that\n each storage solution is customizable to meet an individual customer\u2019s needs and\n every product\u2019s transaction price can vary depending on the mix of other products\n included in the same purchase order and there are no identifiable trends that provide\n a good representation of expected margin for each product.\n\n\n 15\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 17 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 56. However, as Defendants later admitted in the 2024 Restatement, the practice of\n\nusing invoice price as the SSP violated GAAP provision ASC 606, \u201cRevenue from Contracts\n\nwith Customers,\u201d and Quantum\u2019s application of ASC 606 was \u201cinconsistent with the generally\n\naccepted application of the guidance.\u201d\n\n 57. On November 13, 2023 and February 14, 2024, Quantum filed Forms NT 10-Q\n\nfor the second and third quarter of fiscal 2024, respectively, in which it disclosed that \u201cThe\n\nCompany is conducting a re-evaluation of its application of standalone selling price under\n\nAccounting Standards Codification Topic 606 and the financial re-evaluation process is taking\n\nlonger than expected. The Company has not completed this evaluation and has no findings to\n\nreport at this time.\u201d\n\n 58. The 2024 Form 10-K, filed on June 28, 2024, contained a restatement of fiscal\n\n2022, fiscal 2023, and 1Q24 financial statements. 3 The restatements involved (a) application of\n\nTopic 606 related to standalone selling price and (b) application of Topic 815 related to\n\nclassification of outstanding warrants:\n\n As described in Note 1: Description of Business and Significant Accounting\n Policies, and as further described below, in November 2023, the Company\n determined that it was necessary to re-evaluate its application of standalone\n selling price under Topic 606. The Company concluded that its application of\n Topic 606 related to standalone selling price was inconsistent with the generally\n accepted application of the guidance. The Company\u2019s management\n reperformed the determination of standalone selling price with the support of\n external advisors, and the resulting calculations have been applied to the\n revenue allocations in the fiscal years ended March 31, 2024, March 31, 2023\n and March 31, 2022. The Company additionally identified contractual terms\n contained within outstanding warrant agreements issued to its prior and current\n lenders in 2018, 2020 and 2023, which required further evaluation under Topic\n\n\n3\n Although the restatement disclosure does not state that the 1Q24 financial statements were\nrestated, the quarterly information presented in the 2024 10-K marked the 1Q24 information \u201cas\nrestated\u201d and the impacted line items include \u201cTotal Revenue.\u201d\n\n 16\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 18 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 815. After consulting with external advisors and completing an extensive review\n process, management concluded that the classification of warrants as equity was\n not consistent with Topic 815 and has restated them as a liability. This also\n resulted in the requirement to account for the change in the fair value of the\n warrants through the Statement of Operations. As a result of these errors, the\n Company is restating the financial statements for the years ended March 31, 2023\n and 2022.\n\n The nature of the restatement adjustments and their impact on previously reported\n consolidated financial statements is as follows:\n\n a. Application of Topic 606 related to standalone selling price - The\n Company historically used invoice price as the standalone selling price\n for all goods and services. This was partly because of the high level of\n customization for each product sold and because the pricing for\n individual performance obligations is highly variable. Standalone\n selling price has now been established for all goods and services sold in a\n bundled contract using the adjusted market assessment approach or the\n cost plus a reasonable margin approach and maximizing the use of\n observable inputs. The impact on the consolidated statement of operations\n and comprehensive loss for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2022 and\n March 31, 2023 is an increase to product revenue of $7.1 million and $8.3\n million respectively, an increase to service revenue of $ 3.6 million and $1.0\n million respectively, and a decrease to pre-tax loss of $10.6 million and $9.3\n million respectively. The impact to the consolidated balance sheet at March\n 31, 2022 and March 31, 2023 is an increase to short term deferred revenue\n of $0.6 million as at March 31, 2022, a decrease to short term deferred\n revenue of $ 2.7 million as at March 31, 2023, and a decrease to long term\n deferred revenue of $1.8 million and $7.8 million, respectively.\n\n 59. The 2024 10-K\u2019s disclosure of Quantum\u2019s accounting policy laid out the method\n\nof determining SSP that Quantum acknowledged it should have been using, rather than using\n\ninvoice price as the standalone selling price:\n\n Revenue Recognition\n\n Our revenue is derived from three main sources: (a) products, (b) service and\n subscription, and (c) royalties. Our performance obligations are satisfied at a\n point in time or over time as stand ready obligations. Product revenue is\n recognized at the point in time when the customer takes control of the product,\n which typically occurs at the point of shipment. Service and subscription revenue\n consists of customer support agreements, software subscriptions, installation, and\n consulting & training. Our software subscriptions include term licenses which are\n recognized as revenue when the license has been delivered to the customer and\n\n\n 17\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 19 of 54\n\n\n\n\n related customer support which is recognized ratably over the service period.\n Revenue from customer support agreements is recognized ratably over the\n contractual term of the agreement. Installation services are typically completed\n within a short period of time and revenue from these services are recognized at\n the point when installation is complete. A majority of our consulting and training\n revenue does not take significant time to complete therefore these obligations are\n satisfied upon completion of such services at a point in time. We license certain\n products under royalty arrangements, pursuant to which our licensees\n periodically provide us with reports containing units sold to end users subject to\n the royalties. The reports substantiate that our performance obligation has been\n satisfied and we recognize royalty revenue based on the reports or when amounts\n can be reasonably estimated.\n\n There are significant judgments used when applying Accounting Standards\n Codification (\u201cASC\u201d) Topic 606 to contracts with customers. Most of our contracts\n contain multiple goods and services designed to meet each customer's unique\n storage needs. For contracts with multiple performance obligations, we allocate\n the transaction price to each performance obligation based on the relative\n standalone selling price of the good or service underlying each performance\n obligation. Where standalone selling price may not be directly observable (e.g., the\n performance obligation is not sold separately), we maximize the use of observable\n inputs by using information including internal discounting practices, competitor\n pricing, competitor margins, performance obligations with similar customers and\n product groupings. Determining the observable inputs and applying them to our\n performance obligations requires significant judgment. We reassess standalone\n selling price determination periodically.\n\n ***\n Stand-alone selling price\n\n For contracts with multiple performance obligations, the Company allocates the\n transaction price to each performance obligation based on the relative standalone selling\n price (\u201cSSP\u201d) of the good or service underlying each performance obligation. The SSP\n represents the amount for which the Company would sell the good or service to a\n customer on a standalone basis (i.e., not sold as a bundle with any other products or\n services). Where SSP may not be directly observable (e.g., the performance obligation\n is not sold separately), the Company maximized the use of observable inputs by using\n information including historical and current selling prices, internal discounting\n practices competitor information for similar customers and similar products/services,\n and other observable inputs.\n\n 60. The Company disclosed in the 2024 10-K that its internal control over financial\n\nreporting was ineffective, and specifically discussed its inadequate controls relating to the\n\ncalculation of standalone selling price:\n\n\n 18\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 20 of 54\n\n\n\n\n The Company identified a material weakness in its internal control over\n financial reporting related to the Company\u2019s accounting practices and\n procedures for the application of standalone selling price under Accounting\n Standards Codification Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers\n (\u201cTopic 606\u201d). Specifically, the Company did not have adequate controls in\n place to conclude on the application of standalone selling price consistent with\n the generally accepted application of the guidance in Topic 606. The absence\n of adequate controls with respect to the application of standalone selling price\n impacted the accuracy of the Company\u2019s revenue allocations in (i) for the fiscal\n years ended March 31, 2024, March 31, 2023 and March 31, 2022, and (ii) for\n each of the first three quarters in such fiscal years.\n\n Additionally, the Company identified a material weakness in its internal control\n over financial reporting related to the Company\u2019s accounting practices and\n procedures for warrant agreements under Accounting Standards Codification\n Topic 815 Contracts in Entity's Own Equity (\u201cTopic 815\u201d). Specifically, the\n Company did not have adequate controls in place to accurately evaluate and\n classify warrants consistent with Topic 815. The absence of adequate controls\n with respect to the classification of warrants resulted in warrants being classified\n as equity and not as liability, impacted the accuracy of the Company\u2019s\n presentation in (i) for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2024, March 31, 2023 and\n March 31, 2022, and (ii) for each of the first three quarters in such fiscal years.\n\n Further, the Company identified a material weakness in its internal control over\n financial reporting as effective controls were not maintained over the accuracy of\n the inputs in the sales order entry process. Specifically, the Company did not\n sufficiently execute controls over the review of data inputs in the sales order\n entry process to ensure accuracy of the price, quantity, and related customer\n data. The control deficiency did not result in a misstatement; however, this\n control deficiency could result in a misstatement of revenue that would result in\n a material misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements\n for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 that would not be prevented or detected.\n\n 61. Quantum also disclosed in the 2024 10-K its plans for remediating its ineffective\n\ninternal controls:\n\n Remediation Plan\n The Company is implementing enhancements to its internal controls to remediate\n the identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting\n related to the Company\u2019s accounting practices and procedures. Specifically, the\n Company plans to:\n\n Review and update significant relevant accounting policies, procedures\n and controls.\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 21 of 54\n\n\n\n\n Provide additional training to individuals involved in the assessments for\n these topics.\n Engage with external third parties to assist with assessments for these\n topics, where necessary.\n\n\n The Company is committed to maintaining a strong internal control environment\n and believes these remediation efforts will represent significant improvements in\n its controls over the control environment. These steps will take time to be fully\n implemented and confirmed to be effective and sustainable. Additional controls\n may also be required over time. While the Company believes that these efforts will\n improve its internal control over financial reporting, the Company will not be able\n to conclude whether the steps the Company is taking will remediate the material\n weakness in internal control over financial reporting until a sufficient period of time\n has passed to allow management to test the design and operational effectiveness of\n the new and enhanced controls. Until the remediation steps set forth above are fully\n implemented and tested, the material weaknesses described above will continue to\n exist.\n\n 62. During the June 17, 2024, 4Q24 earnings conference call, just prior to the start of\n\nthe Class Period, Defendants reassured investors that they had gone above and beyond in\n\nevaluating and fixing the Company\u2019s problems with SSPs. In prepared remarks, Defendant\n\nLerner described the scope of Quantum\u2019s efforts:\n\n We truly appreciate investors patience and support, acknowledging the extended\n period during which the company was not able to comment on our ongoing business\n performance and conditions. The reevaluation was done in conjunction with the\n top consultants in the industry and we took a fresh look at everything, including\n analyzing hundreds of thousands of transactions over the last five years.\n\n Before Ken walks through the specific change in methodology and details of the\n associated adjustments, I would like to acknowledge that while this process was a\n time consuming and expensive project to undertake, this should reinforce to our\n stakeholders that Quantum holds itself to the highest standards to ensure our\n financial reporting methodologies are correct, compliant, and reflect the\n company's current and future business outlook.\n\n While working with Grant Thornton on our first filing with them in fiscal 02 2024,\n we identified the need to re-evaluate our historical approach for establishing\n standalone selling price, or SSP, under ASC Topic 606. This effort was purely an\n accounting interpretation and an adjustment focused on the application of SSP.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 22 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 63. Thus, in the period immediately preceding the Class Period, Defendants told\n\ninvestors that they took great time and expense, and consulted with consultants and Quantum\u2019s\n\nauditor in correcting their prior SSP calculations to ensure their reporting methodologies\n\nreflected were correct and met the \u201chighest standard,\u201d that they now knew how to properly\n\ncalculate SSP, further adding that \u201cQuantum is committed to maintaining the highest standards\n\nof financial integrity and transparency.\n\n 64. Defendant Gianella added during the June 17, 2024, 4Q24 earnings conference\n\ncall that \u201cthe company has spent significant time and capital on several self-help projects,\n\nincluding our \u2026 restatement due to SSP and warrants\u2026.\u201d\n\n 65. In the 2024 10-K, filed with the SEC on June 28, 2024, the Company\u2019s auditor,\n\nGrant Thronton, included its audit opinion making clear that the auditor had discussed standalone\n\nselling prices with Quantum:\n\n REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING\n FIRM\n\n Board of Directors and Shareholders\n Quantum Corporation\n\n Opinion on the financial statements\n We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Quantum\n Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries (the \u201cCompany\u201d) as of\n March 31, 2024, the related consolidated statement of operations and\n comprehensive loss, consolidated statement of stockholders\u2019 deficit, and cash flows\n for the year ended March 31, 2024, and the related notes (collectively referred to as\n the \u201cfinancial statements\u201d). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly,\n in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of March 31, 2024,\n and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year ended March 31,\n 2024, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United\n States of America.\n\n Going concern\n The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the\n Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the\n consolidated financial statements, as of March 31, 2024, the Company was in\n\n\n 21\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 23 of 54\n\n\n\n\n default of certain debt covenants of its term debt and credit facility and obtained a\n waiver from its lenders. All defaults existing at March 31, 2024 were waived by the\n lenders through July 2024. The Company believes it is probable that it will be in\n violation certain debt covenants at the next testing date of July 2024. The\n Company\u2019s plan, which is also described in Note 1, contemplates the Company\n obtaining additional covenant waivers or refinancing the existing term debt and\n credit facility. Additionally, the Company is evaluating strategies to obtain the\n additional funding, including potential asset sales. In the event the Company is\n unable to obtain an extension of the waiver additional funding will be required to\n pay the amount due on the revolver and term loan. However, the Company may be\n unable to obtain an extension of the waiver or obtain additional funding. As such,\n there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain additional\n liquidity when needed or under acceptable terms, if at all. The Company\u2019s ability\n to achieve this plan is uncertain and raises substantial doubt about its ability to\n continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any\n adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.\n\n Basis for opinion\n These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company\u2019s management.\n Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company\u2019s financial statements\n based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public\n Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (\u201cPCAOB\u201d) and are\n required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the\n U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the\n Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.\n We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those\n standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance\n about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether\n due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged\n to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our\n audit we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial\n reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of\n the Company\u2019s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express\n no such opinion.\n\n Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material\n misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and\n performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included\n examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the\n financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles\n used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the\n overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provide\n a reasonable basis for our opinion.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 24 of 54\n\n\n\n\n Critical audit matter\n The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current\n period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be\n communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures\n that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially\n challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit\n matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as\n a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below,\n providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or\n disclosures to which it relates.\n\n Determination of Standalone Selling Price\n\n As described further in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company\u2019s contracts\n with customers often include multiple performance obligations. The transaction\n price of each contract is allocated to individual performance obligations based upon\n relative stand-alone selling price (\u201cSSP\u201d). The SSP of performance obligations is\n determined based on observable prices at which the Company separately sells the\n products and services or alternative methods. We identified the determination of\n the SSP of performance obligations as a critical audit matter.\n\n The principal consideration for our assessment that the determination of the SSP of\n performance obligations represents a critical audit matter is that the estimates made\n in determining SSP involve significant judgments. Evaluating the appropriateness\n of these estimates requires a high degree of auditor judgment and an increased\n extent of effort.\n\n Our audit procedures related to the determination of the SSP of performance\n obligations included the following procedures, among others:\n\n \u2022Tested management\u2019s process for developing the estimates of SSP by evaluating\n the appropriateness of the overall methodology used by management to develop\n the estimates by considering (i) whether the methodology maximized the use of\n observable inputs available and (ii) making inquiries of staff members outside of\n the accounting department.\n\n \u2022Tested the accuracy of management\u2019s calculations of estimated selling prices.\n\n \u2022In the cases where directly observable standalone sales were not available, for\n selected items we evaluated whether the significant assumptions used by\n management were reasonable by (i) considering the consistency with external\n market and competitor margin data and (ii) making inquiries of staff members\n outside of the accounting department.\n\n /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP\n\n\n\n 23\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 25 of 54\n\n\n\n\n E. The 2025 Restatement\n\n 66. After reviewing \u201chundreds of thousands\u201d of transactions at the time of the second\n\nrestatement, in consultation with experts and Quantum\u2019s auditor, to learn how to correctly\n\ncompute and apply standalone selling prices in accordance with GAAP provision ASC 606,\n\ndealing with revenue recognition, and after disclosing its new accounting policy requiring\n\nQuantum to periodically reassess SSP determination, Defendants immediately turned around and\n\nviolated ASC 606 again in the first three quarters of fiscal 2025, requiring the 2025 Restatement,\n\nthe Company\u2019s third in six years.\n\n 67. Starting immediately after the 2024 Restatement, with the 1Q25 financial\n\nstatements, and continuing with the 2Q25 and then the 3Q25 financial statements, Defendants\n\nfailed in their obligations under GAAP to update their standalone selling prices.\n\n 68. Defendants admitted in their 2025 10-K that \u201cthe standalone selling price that is\n\nused to allocate revenue under Topic 606 needed to be updated.\u201d This update should have\n\noccurred in 1Q25, and continued in the next two financial quarters.\n\n 69. Defendant\u2019s failure to comply with their GAAP obligations they had seemingly\n\njust corrected caused them to overstate revenue and understate net loss by approximately $4\n\nmillion in 3Q25, requiring another restatement. The disclosure of this third restatement caused\n\nQuantum\u2019s stock price to decline, harming investors.\n\n 70. Further, in each of the 1Q25 10-Q, the 2Q25 10-Q, and the 3Q25 10-Q,\n\nDefendants stated that their internal controls over financial reporting were \u201cnot effective.\u201d\n\nDefendants Lerner and Gianella assured investors that the financial statements were nonetheless\n\naccurate, writing in each 10-Q that:\n\n Notwithstanding the identified material weaknesses, management, including our\n chief executive officer and chief financial officer have determined, that the\n\n\n 24\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 26 of 54\n\n\n\n\n condensed consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q fairly\n represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and\n cash flows of the Company as of, and for, for the periods presented in accordance\n with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.\n\n 71. Thus, following the 2024 Restatement, investors reasonably believed that the\n\nCompany had solved its problems with standalone selling price, that Defendants would follow\n\nGAAP for revenue recognition from that point forward, and that notwithstanding weaknesses in\n\nfinancial reporting, Quantum\u2019s financial statements were correct.\n\n 72. Instead, upon the announcement of the 2025 Restatement, investors discovered\n\nthat beginning with the start of fiscal year 2025, in April 2024, Defendants had shirked their duty\n\nto update standalone selling price, leading to the material overstatement of revenue in the third\n\nfiscal quarter of 2025 and a material fall in Quantum\u2019s stock price upon its correction.\n\n F. Defendants Violated GAAP for Accounting for Revenue\n\n GAAP- Generally\n 73. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (\u201cGAAP\u201d) constitute those standards\n\nrecognized by the accounting profession as the conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to\n\ndefine accepted accounting practices at a particular time, and are the common set of accounting\n\nprinciples, standards, and procedures that companies in the United States use to prepare their\n\nfinancial statements.\n\n 74. The Securities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d or the \u201cCommission\u201d) has the\n\nstatutory authority for the promulgation of GAAP for public companies and has delegated that\n\nauthority to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (\"FASB\"). The SEC Rules and\n\ninterpretive releases and the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (\u201cASC\u201d) represent\n\nsources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. ASC 105-10-05-1. Regulation S-X (17\n\nC.F.R. \u00a7 210.4-01(a)(1)) states that financial statements filed with the SEC which are not\n\n\n 25\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 27 of 54\n\n\n\n\nprepared in compliance with GAAP are presumed to be misleading and inaccurate despite\n\nfootnote or other disclosures, unless the Commission has otherwise provided. SEC rules and\n\nregulations require that publicly traded companies such as Quantum include financial statements\n\nthat comply with GAAP in their annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC (See Sections\n\n12 and 13 of the Exchange Act; Rule 10-01(d) of SEC Regulation S-X). Regulation S-X requires\n\ninterim financial statements to also comply with GAAP, with the exception that interim financial\n\nstatements need not include disclosure which would be duplicative of disclosures accompanying\n\nannual financial statements. (17 C.F.R. \u00a7 210.10-01(a)).\n\n 75. FASB\u2019s Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts provide the framework for\n\nfinancial accounting. As stated in FASB\u2019s Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 8\n\n(\u201cCON 8\u201d), Chapter 1, \u201c[t]he objective of general purpose financial reporting is to provide\n\nfinancial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors,\n\nlenders, and other creditors in making decisions about providing resources to the entity.\u201d\n\n[Footnote omitted.] CON 8, Ch. 1 \u00b6 OB2.\n\n 76. CON 8 provides that financial reports play an important role when individuals\n\nand firms make financial decisions:\n\n General purpose financial reports provide information about the financial position\n of a reporting entity, which is information about the entity\u2019s economic resources\n and the claims against the reporting entity. Financial reports also provide\n information about the effects of transactions and other events that change a\n reporting entity\u2019s economic resources and claims. Both types of information\n provide useful input for decisions about providing resources to an entity. CON 8,\n Ch. 1 \u00b6 OB12.\n\n 77. In order for the financial information to be useful, \u201cit must be relevant and\n\nfaithfully represent what it purports to represent.\u201d CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6 C4. \u201cRelevant financial\n\ninformation is capable of making a difference in the decisions made by users \u2026 if it has\n\n\n\n 26\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 28 of 54\n\n\n\n\npredictive value, confirmatory value, or both.\u201d CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6\u00b6 QC6 \u2013 QC7. Faithful\n\nrepresentation refers to a depiction of an economic phenomena that is \u201ccomplete, neutral, and\n\nfree from error.\u201d [Emphasis in the original.] CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6 QC12.\n\n 78. \u201cA complete depiction includes all information necessary for a user to\n\nunderstand the phenomenon being depicted, including all necessary descriptions and\n\nexplanations.\u201d CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6 QC13. Neutral, means depicted without a bias. CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6\n\nQC14. \u201cFree from error means there are no errors or omissions in the description of the\n\nphenomenon, and the process used to produce the reported information has been selected and\n\napplied with no errors in the process. In this context, free from error does not mean perfectly\n\naccurate in all respects.\u201d CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6 QC 15.\n\n Accounting for Revenue\n\n 79. ASC topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, is the authoritative\n\nstandard which governs accounting for revenue recognition. The core principle of the guidance\n\nincluded in ASC 606 is that revenue recognized by an entity should depict the transfer of\n\npromised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration (i.e., the\n\nselling price) to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.\n\nASC 606-10-10-2. An entity is required to recognize revenue in accordance with the following\n\nfive steps:\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 29 of 54\n\n\n\n\n Step 1: Identify the contract with a customer. 4\n Step 2: Identify performance obligations in the contract. 5\n Step 3: Determine the transaction price. 6\n Step 4: Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract.\n Step 5: Recognize revenue when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied.\n ASC 606-10-05-4\n\n 80. With respect to Step 4: \u201cAn entity typically allocates the transaction price to each\n\nperformance obligation on the basis of the relative standalone selling prices of each distinct\n\ngood or service promised in the contract. If a standalone selling price is not observable, an entity\n\nestimates it.\u201d ASC 606-10-05-4. \u201cThe objective when allocating the transaction price is for an\n\nentity to allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation (or distinct good or\n\nservice) in an amount that depicts the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be\n\nentitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to the customer.\u201d ASC 606-\n\n10-32-28.\n\n 81. More specifically, \u201c[t]o allocate the transaction price to each performance\n\nobligation on a relative standalone selling price basis, an entity shall determine the standalone\n\nselling price at contract inception of the distinct good or service underlying each performance\n\nobligation in the contract and allocate the transaction price in proportion to those standalone\n\n\n\n4\n \u201cA contract is an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and\nobligations. Enforceability of the rights and obligations in a contract is a matter of law. Contracts\ncan be written, oral, or implied by an entity's customary business practices.\u201d ASC 606-10-25-2.\n5\n \u201cAt contract inception, an entity shall assess the goods or services promised in a contract with\na customer and shall identify as a performance obligation each promise to transfer to the\ncustomer either: (a) a good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct\u201d or \u201c(b)\na series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern\nof transfer to the customer.\u201d ASC 606-10-25-14.\n6\n \u201cThe transaction price is the amount of consideration in a contract to which an entity expects\nto be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer. The\ntransaction price can be a fixed amount of customer consideration, but it may sometimes include\nvariable consideration or consideration in a form other than cash.\u201d ASC 606-10-05-4.\n\n 28\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 30 of 54\n\n\n\n\nselling prices.\u201d ASC 606-10-32-31. \u201cThe standalone selling price is the price at which an entity\n\nwould sell a promised good or service separately to a customer. The best evidence of a\n\nstandalone selling price is the observable price of a good or service when the entity sells that\n\ngood or service separately in similar circumstances and to similar customers. A contractually\n\nstated price or a list price for a good or service may be (but shall not be presumed to be) the\n\nstandalone selling price of that good or service.\u201d ASC 606-10-32-32. \u201cIf a standalone selling\n\nprice is not directly observable, an entity shall estimate the standalone selling price \u2026 . When\n\nestimating a standalone selling price, an entity shall consider all information (including market\n\nconditions, entity-specific factors, and information about the customer or class of customer) that\n\nis reasonably available to the entity. In doing so, an entity shall maximize the use of observable\n\ninputs and apply estimation methods consistently in similar circumstances.\u201d ASC 606-10-32-\n\n33.\n\n 82. With respect to Step 5: \u201cAn entity shall recognize revenue when (or as) the entity\n\nsatisfies a performance obligation by transferring a promised good or service (that is, an asset)\n\nto a customer. An asset is transferred when (or as) the customer obtains control of that asset.\u201d\n\nASC 606-10-25-23. An entity is required to \u201cdetermine at contract inception whether it satisfies\n\nthe performance obligation over time or \u2026 at a point in time. \u2026 If an entity does not satisfy a\n\nperformance obligation over time, the performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time.\u201d\n\nASC 606-10-25-24.\n\n 83. Revenue is recognized over time if any of the following three criteria are met:\n\n\n (a) \u201cThe customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits provided by\n the entity\u2019s performance as the entity performs\u2026\n\n (b) The entity\u2019s performance creates or enhances an asset (for example, work in\n process) that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced\u2026\n\n\n 29\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 31 of 54\n\n\n\n\n (c) The entity\u2019s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the\n entity\u2026and the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance\n completed to date \u2026\u201d ASC 606-10-25-27.\n\n\n 84. With respect to performance obligations satisfied over time, ASC 606 requires\n\ncompanies to \u201crecognize revenue over time by measuring the progress toward complete\n\nsatisfaction of that performance obligation. The objective when measuring progress is to depict\n\nan entity's performance in transferring control of goods or services promised to a customer (that\n\nis, the satisfaction of an entity's performance obligation).\u201d ASC 606-10-25-31. \u201cAn entity shall\n\napply a single method of measuring progress for each performance obligation satisfied over\n\ntime, and the entity shall apply that method consistently to similar performance obligations and\n\nin similar circumstances. At the end of each reporting period, an entity shall remeasure its\n\nprogress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation satisfied over time.\u201d ASC\n\n606-10-25-32.\n\n 85. \u201cAn entity should use judgment when selecting an appropriate method of\n\nmeasuring progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation. That does not\n\nmean that an entity has a \u2018free choice.\u2019 The guidance states that an entity should select a method\n\nof measuring progress that is consistent with the clearly stated objective of depicting the entity\u2019s\n\nperformance\u2014that is, the satisfaction of an entity\u2019s performance obligation in transferring\n\ncontrol of goods or services to the customer.\u201d ASU 2014-09 BC159.79.4.\n\n 86. \u201cAppropriate methods of measuring progress include output methods and input\n\nmethods.\u201d ASC 606-10-25-33. \u201cOutput methods recognize revenue on the basis of direct\n\nmeasurements of the value to the customer of the goods or services transferred to date relative\n\n\n\n7\n Accounting Standards Update (\u201cASU\u201d) 2014-09, which was issued by the FASB, established\nASC 606.\n\n 30\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 32 of 54\n\n\n\n\nto the remaining goods or services promised under the contract. Output methods include\n\nmethods such as surveys of performance completed to date, appraisals of results achieved,\n\nmilestones reached, time elapsed, and units produced or units delivered.\u201d ASC 606-10-55-17.\n\n\u201cInput methods recognize revenue on the basis of the entity's efforts or inputs to the satisfaction\n\nof a performance obligation (for example, resources consumed, labor hours expended, costs\n\nincurred, time elapsed, or machine hours used) relative to the total expected inputs to the\n\nsatisfaction of that performance obligation.\u201d ASC 606-10-55-20.\n\n 87. ASC 606 requires entities include disclosures of \u201cthe significant judgments, and\n\nchanges in the judgments, made in applying the revenue recognition guidance\u201d \u201cto enable users\n\nof financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and\n\ncash flows arising from contracts with customers:\u201d ASC 606-10-50-1. Furthermore, entities are\n\nrequired to \u201cdisaggregate revenue recognized from contracts with customers into categories that\n\ndepict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected\n\nby economic factors.\u201d ASC 606-10-50-5.\n\n 88. With respect to step 4, and standalone selling price, Defendants admit that they\n\nviolated ASC 606 in the Restatement at issue here. Defendants further admit this GAAP\n\nviolation despite having just reviewed hundreds of thousands of transactions in setting\n\nstandalone selling prices as part of the earlier, 2024 Restatement. Defendants admit that because\n\nof their failure to update standalone selling prices for fiscal year 2025, the Company overstated\n\nrevenue by approximately $3.9 million in 3Q25, and understated net loss by the same amount.\n\n Accounting for Restatements\n\n 89. GAAP requires any error in the financial statements of a prior period discovered\n\nafter the financial statements are issued to be reported as an error correction by restating the\n\n\n\n 31\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 33 of 54\n\n\n\n\nprior-period financial statements and providing a description of the nature of the error and its\n\neffect on the financial statements. ASC 250-10-45-23 and ASC 250-10-50-7.\n\n 90. ASC 250 distinguishes errors from accounting changes and defines an error as\n\n\u201can error in recognition, measurement, presentation, or disclosure in financial statements\n\nresulting from mathematical mistakes, mistakes in the application of generally accepted\n\naccounting principles (GAAP), or oversight or misuse of facts that existed at the time the\n\nfinancial statements were prepared. A change from an accounting principle that is not generally\n\naccepted to one that is generally accepted is a correction of an error.\u201d ASC 250-10-20.\n\n 91. ASC 250 states that if a company must correct a prior period error, it should do\n\nso by restating the prior-period financial statements, which requires the following:\n\n a. The cumulative effect of the error on periods prior to those presented shall be\n reflected in the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities as of the beginning of the\n first period presented.\n\n b. An offsetting adjustment, if any, shall be made to the opening balance of retained\n earnings (or other appropriate components of equity or net assets in the statement of\n financial position) for that period.\n\n c. Financial statements for each individual prior period presented shall be adjusted to\n reflect correction of the period-specific effects of the error. ASC 250-10-45-23.\n\n 92. ASC 250 further requires disclosure that \u201cpreviously issued financial statements\n\nhave been restated, along with a description of the nature of the error,\u201d including \u201cthe effect of\n\nthe correction on each financial statement line item\u2026 for each prior period presented\u201d and \u201cthe\n\ncumulative effect of the change on retained earnings \u2026 as of the beginning of the earliest period\n\npresented.\u201d ASC 250-10-50-7.\n\n 93. The SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins No. 99, Materiality, and No. 108,\n\nQuantifying Financial Statement Misstatements, (\u201cSAB 99\u201d and \u201cSAB 108\u201d) are the primary\n\nsource of guidance in assessing materiality of financial statement misstatements. Because GAAP\n\n\n 32\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 34 of 54\n\n\n\n\ndoes not apply to immaterial items (ASC 105-10-05-6), a restatement is required only for items\n\ndeemed to be material.\n\n 94. In addition, Item 4.02 of Form 8-K requires specific disclosures when \u201cthe\n\nregistrant\u2019s board of directors \u2026 concludes that any previously issued financial statements \u2026\n\nshould no longer be relied upon because of an error in such financial statements.\u201d\n\n Materiality\n\n 95. FASB\u2019s Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts (\u201cCON\u201d) provide the\n\nframework for financial accounting, including the concept of materiality. According to CON 8,\n\n\u201c[t]he omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in light of\n\nsurrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment\n\nof a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the\n\ninclusion or correction of the item.\u201d CON 8, Ch. 3 \u00b6 QC11.\n\n 96. Further guidance on materiality is provided by SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin\n\n(\u201cSAB\u201d) Topics 1.M and 1.N (generally referred to as SAB Nos. 99 and 108, respectively). SAB\n\n99 offers the most comprehensive guidance on the determination of materiality of misstatements\n\nof financial statements. It brings together guidance from financial accounting standards, auditing\n\nstandards, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. SAB 99 addresses misstatements\n\nor omission of amounts, classifications, manner of presentation, and disclosures in financial\n\nstatements. It provides that the materiality assessment must be based on consideration of all\n\nrelevant circumstances--the \u201ctotal mix\u201d of information, including the size of the misstatement\n\nand the context in which the user of the financial statements would view the item. It also sets\n\nforth the SEC Staff\u2019s view that there are circumstances in which misstatements below a\n\npercentage threshold (e.g., 5 percent) could be material.\n\n\n\n 33\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 35 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 97. According to SAB 99, a misstatement may be material if, among other things, it:\n\n\n (a) arises from an item capable of precise measurement or from an estimate and, if\n so, degree of imprecision inherent in the estimate,\n\n (b) masks a change in earnings or other trends,\n\n (c) hides a failure to meet analysts' consensus expectations for the enterprise,\n\n (d) concerns a segment or other portion of the registrant's business that has been\n identified as playing a significant role in the registrant's operations or\n profitability, or\n\n (e) has the effect of increasing management\u2019s compensation, among others.\n\n\n 98. According to SAB 99, the materiality of a misstatement may turn on where it\n\nappears in the financial statements. \u201cA matter is \u2018material\u2019 if there is a substantial likelihood\n\nthat a reasonable person would consider it important. \u2026 The omission or misstatement of an\n\nitem in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude\n\nof the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the\n\nreport would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item. \u2026 The\n\nshorthand in the accounting and auditing literature for this analysis is that financial management\n\nand the auditor must consider both \u2018quantitative\u2019 and \u2018qualitative\u2019 factors in assessing an item's\n\nmateriality.\u201d SAB 99.\n\nV. FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS\n\n 99. During the June 17, 2024, 4Q24 earnings conference call, which took place\n\nduring 1Q25, Defendant Lerner stated the following regarding Quantum\u2019s work on correctly\n\ncalculating and applying standalone selling prices, including working with experts and with\n\nQuantum\u2019s auditor:\n\n We truly appreciate investors patience and support, acknowledging the extended\n period during which the company was not able to comment on our ongoing\n business performance and conditions. The reevaluation was done in conjunction\n\n 34\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 36 of 54\n\n\n\n\n with the top consultants in the industry and we took a fresh look at everything,\n including analyzing hundreds of thousands of transactions over the last five years.\n\n Before Ken walks through the specific change in methodology and details of the\n associated adjustments, I would like to acknowledge that while this process was\n a time consuming and expensive project to undertake, this should reinforce to our\n stakeholders that Quantum holds itself to the highest standards to ensure our\n financial reporting methodologies are correct, compliant, and reflect the\n company's current and future business outlook.\n\n While working with Grant Thornton on our first filing with them in fiscal 02\n 2024, we identified the need to re-evaluate our historical approach for\n establishing standalone selling price, or SSP, under ASC Topic 606. This effort\n was purely an accounting interpretation and an adjustment focused on the\n application of SSP.\n\n 100. The foregoing statement, in the context of stating that Quantum had corrected its\n\nyears-long SSP methodology failures after having consulted with experts and with Quantum\u2019s\n\nauditor, was materially false and misleading because, having stated that its methodologies were\n\ncorrect due to its \u201ctime consuming and expensive project,\u201d Defendants were duty-bound to\n\ndisclose that as Defendant Lerner spoke, during the first quarter of 2025, Defendants had already\n\nfailed to update standalone selling prices in 1Q25, thus their financial reporting methodology\n\nwas not correct or compliant with GAAP, indeed violated both GAAP and Quantum\u2019s own\n\naccounting policies.\n\n 101. On August 4, 2024, Quantum filed with the SEC the 1Q25 10-Q including the\n\nfinancial statements for 1Q25. The financial statements listed total revenue of $71,343,000, and\n\na net loss of $20,820,000.\n\n 102. The foregoing statements were materially false and misleading as Defendants\n\nlater admitted, due to (1) failure to update standalone selling prices and (2) failure to recognize\n\nservice and subscription revenue ratably over the contractual term of the contract, resulting in\n\nthe financial statements being materially misstated. As corrected, Quantum\u2019s total revenue was\n\n\n\n 35\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 37 of 54\n\n\n\n\n$72,265,000, and its net loss was $19,898,000.\n\n 103. As discussed supra, Defendants Lerner and Gianella signed SOX certifications\n\nattesting to the accuracy of the 1Q25 financial statements.\n\n 104. The foregoing SOX certifications were materially false and misleading because:\n\n (a) The financial statements calculations for total revenue and net loss were\n\nmaterially false;\n\n (b) Specifically, with actual knowledge of ineffective internal controls, and having\n\nprofessed to learn the correct way to (1) calculate standalone selling price and to (2) determine\n\nthe period over which to recognize service and subscription revenue, both of which were the\n\nsubject of previous restatement, Defendants reported qualitatively and/or quantitatively false\n\nfinancial numbers for 1Q25.\n\n 105. On November 14, 2024, Quantum filed with the SEC the 2Q25 10-Q including\n\nthe financial statements for 2Q25. The filing listed total revenue of $70,469,000, and a net loss\n\nof $13, 527,000.\n\n 106. The foregoing filing was materially false and misleading because, as Defendants\n\nlater admitted, due to (1) failure to update standalone selling prices and (2) failure to recognize\n\nservice and subscription revenue ratably over the contractual term of the contract, resulting in\n\nthe financial statements being materially misstated. As corrected, Quantum\u2019s total revenue was\n\n$71,846,000, and its net loss was $12,150,000.\n\n 107. As discussed supra, Defendants Lerner and Gianella signed SOX certifications\n\nattesting to the accuracy of the 2Q25 financial statements.\n\n 108. The foregoing SOX certifications were materially false and misleading because:\n\n (a) The financial statements calculations for total revenue and net loss were\n\n\n\n 36\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 38 of 54\n\n\n\n\nmaterially false;\n\n (b) Specifically, with actual knowledge of ineffective internal controls, and having\n\nprofessed to learn the correct way to (1) calculate standalone selling price and to (2) determine\n\nthe period over which to recognize service and subscription revenue, both of which were the\n\nsubject of the 2024 Restatement, Defendants reported qualitatively and/or quantitatively false\n\nfinancial numbers for 2Q25.\n\n 109. On February 12, 2025, Quantum filed with the SEC the 3Q25 10-Q including the\n\nfinancial statements for 3Q25. The filing listed total revenue of $72,551,000, and a net loss of\n\n$71,433,000.\n\n 110. The foregoing filing was materially false and misleading as Defendants later\n\nadmitted, due to (1) misapplication of standalone selling prices and (2) failure to recognize\n\nservice and subscription revenue ratably over the contractual term of the contract, resulting in\n\nthe financial statements being materially misstated and requiring restatement. Quantum\n\noverstated total revenue by $3,867,000, and understated net loss by $3,867,000, As restated,\n\nQuantum\u2019s total revenue was $68,684,000, and its net loss was $75,300,000.\n\n 111. As discussed supra, Defendants Lerner and Gianella signed SOX certifications\n\nattesting to the accuracy of the 3Q25 financial statements.\n\n 112. The foregoing SOX certifications were materially false and misleading because:\n\n (a) The financial statements calculations for total revenue and net loss were\n\nmaterially false;\n\n (b) Specifically, with actual knowledge of ineffective internal controls, and having\n\nprofessed to learn the correct way to (1) calculate standalone selling price and to (2) determine\n\nthe period over which to recognize service and subscription revenue, both subjects of previous\n\n\n\n 37\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 39 of 54\n\n\n\n\nrestatement, Defendants disclosed materially false financial numbers for 3Q25.\n\n 113. In each of the 1Q25 10-Q, the 2Q25 10-Q, and the 3Q25 10-Q, Defendants stated\n\nthat their internal controls over financial reporting were \u201cnot effective.\u201d Defendants Lerner and\n\nGianella assured investors that the financial statements were nonetheless accurate, writing in\n\neach 10-Q that:\n\n Notwithstanding the identified material weaknesses, management, including our\n chief executive officer and chief financial officer have determined, that the\n condensed consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q fairly\n represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and\n cash flows of the Company as of, and for, for the periods presented in accordance\n with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.\n\n 114. The foregoing statement was false in each of the 1Q25 10-Q, the 2Q25 10-Q, and\n\nthe 3Q25 10-Q, because in the context of failing to update SSP starting with 1Q25, Defendants\n\nwere duty-bound to disclose that the financial statements in each filing did not represent in all\n\nrespects the Company\u2019s financial condition, and that Defendants had failed to update SSP, in\n\nviolation of GAAP and Quantum\u2019s own accounting policies.\n\nVI. THE TRUTH EMERGES\n\n 115. On April 3, 2025, Quantum filed a Form 8-K announcing that Defendant\n\nGianella was no longer Quantum\u2019s CFO.\n\n 116. On May 6, 2025, Quantum provided preliminary financial results for its fiscal\n\nfourth quarter ended March 31, 2025. Quantum also announced that it would release its full\n\nresults for the fiscal fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2025 in mid-June 2025.\n\n 117. On June 3, 2025, Quantum filed a Form 8-K stating that as of June 2, 2025,\n\nDefendant Lerner was no longer Quantum\u2019s CEO. According to FE1, Lerner was forced out of\n\nhis position by the Board of Directors.\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 40 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 118. The Company appointed Hugues Meyrath, a board member, to replace Lerner as\n\nQuantum\u2019s CEO.\n\n 119. On June 30, 2025, after the market closed, Quantum Corporation filed with the\n\nSEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25, announcing that it would not timely file its\n\nfiscal year 2025 Annual Report because:\n\n Quantum Corporation (the \u201cCompany\u201d) has determined that it is unable to file its\n Annual Report on Form 10-K (the \u201cForm 10-K\u201d) for the fiscal year ended March\n 31, 2025 (\u201cFiscal 2025\u201d) by June 30, 2025, the original due date for such filing,\n without unreasonable effort or expense due to the circumstances described below.\n\n The Company is reviewing its accounting related to certain revenue contracts as\n well as the application of standalone selling price under applicable accounting\n standards. The results of the review will need to be reflected in the Company\u2019s\n financial statements for Fiscal 2025 in the Form 10-K. The Company does not\n expect the current review will affect the Company\u2019s financial statements for any\n fiscal periods prior to Fiscal 2025.\n\n As a result, the Company has been unable to complete its consolidated audited\n financial statement close process for Fiscal 2025, and therefore unable to compile\n in a timely manner, without unreasonable effort or expense, the consolidated\n financial information required to prepare the Form 10-K for Fiscal 2025, within the\n prescribed time period.\n\n 120. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell $1.00 per share on\n\nJuly 1, 2025, or 10%, to close at $8.97.\n\n 121. On July 8, 2025, quantum announced that it had informed Henk Jan Spanjaard,\n\nQuantum\u2019s Chief Revenue Officer, of its intent to terminate his employment.\n\n 122. On August 8, 2025, after the market closed, the Company filed with the SEC a\n\ncurrent report on Form 8-K (\u201cAugust 8 8-K\u201d) which announced, among other things, that the\n\nCompany\u2019s 3Q24 financials could not be relied upon and would be restated to show a new\n\ndecrease of approximately $3.9 million in total revenue, because, in part, \u201cthe standalone selling\n\nprice that is used to allocate revenue under Topic 606 needed to be updated.\u201d Further, there were\n\n\n\n 39\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 41 of 54\n\n\n\n\ndeficiencies in the Company\u2019s internal control over financial reporting and the Company\u2019s\n\ndisclosure controls and procedures that constituted material weaknesses as of December 31,\n\n2024 and March 31, 2025. The August 8 8-K stated:\n\n On August 8, 2025, the Board of Directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d) of Quantum Corporation\n (the \u201cCompany\u201d) concluded that the Company\u2019s previously-issued unaudited\n interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the fiscal third quarter\n ended December 31, 2024 contained in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the\n \u201cNon-Reliance Period\u201d), as well as its disclosures related to such financial\n statements, including any reports, earnings releases, and investor presentations, and\n related communications issued by or on behalf of the Company with respect to the\n Non-Reliance Period, including management\u2019s assessment of internal control over\n financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, should no longer be\n relied upon. The determination by the Board was made upon the recommendation\n of the Audit Committee (the \u201cAudit Committee\u201d) of the Board and after\n consultation with the Company\u2019s management team.\n\n In June 2025, the Company identified certain service and subscription revenue\n inconsistencies during the Non-Reliance Period, which is deferred under\n Accounting Standards Codification Topic 606 (\u201cTopic 606\u201d) and recognized\n ratably over the term of the contract. The Company\u2019s management reviewed and\n updated the periods over which revenue was being recognized to ensure consistent\n application for all service contracts invoiced in the fiscal year ended March 31,\n 2025 and the results have been applied to revenue. The Company\u2019s management\n determined that no contracts entered into prior to fiscal year ended March 31, 2025\n were impacted. The Company also determined that the standalone selling price\n that is used to allocate revenue under Topic 606 needed to be updated for the\n fiscal year ended March 31, 2025 resulting in an adjustment to revenue. As a\n result of these errors, the Company will restate the financial statements for the\n Non-Reliance Period (the \u201cRestatement\u201d). Subject to completion of its financial\n close procedures, the Company currently expects the Restatement will result in a\n decrease of approximately $3.9 million in revenue and a similar decrease in net\n loss from operations in the Non-Reliance Period.\n\n In connection with the Restatement, the Audit Committee concluded, with\n concurrence of management, that there were deficiencies in the Company\u2019s\n internal control over financial reporting and the Company\u2019s disclosure controls\n and procedures that constituted material weaknesses as of December 31, 2024\n and March 31, 2025. The Company expects to report material weaknesses related\n to the Company\u2019s revenue recognition. As a result of these expected material\n weaknesses, the Company believes that it did not maintain effective entity-level\n controls within the control environment to prevent or detect material misstatements.\n Additional deficiencies or material weaknesses in the Company\u2019s internal controls\n may be identified during its review. The Company\u2019s full assessment of the\n\n\n 40\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 42 of 54\n\n\n\n\n effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting will be described in\n more detail in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2025\n (the \u201c2025 10-K\u201d).\n\n There were also adjustments to the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2024 and\n September 30, 2024. However, these adjustments were not material and are not\n required to be restated. They will be revised in the comparative period information\n when the Company issues its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarters\n ending June 30, 2025 and September 30, 2025.\n\n The Audit Committee has discussed the matters disclosed in Item 4.02 of this\n Current Report on Form 8-K with Grant Thornton LLP (\u201cGrant Thornton\u201d), the\n Company\u2019s independent registered accounting firm.\n\n 123. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell by $0.14 per share to\n\nclose at $7.43 on August 11, 2025.\n\n 124. On August 18, 2025, after the market closed, the Company filed with the SEC a\n\ncurrent report on Form 8-K (\u201cAugust 18 8-K\u201d). The August 18 8-K disclosed, among other\n\nthings, that the Company\u2019s CFO, Lewis W. Moorehead, would be resigning from his role \u2013 after\n\nholding it for less than five months. It further disclosed that the Company anticipated that \u201cthe\n\nRestatement will result in a decrease of approximately $3.9 million in revenue and a similar\n\ndecrease in net loss from operations in the Non-Reliance period\u2026.\u201d\n\n 125. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell by $0.61 per share, or\n\n8.2%, to close at $6.83 on August 19, 2025.\n\n 126. On August 26, 2025, Quantum finally filed its 2025 10-K for the fiscal year\n\nended March 31, 2025. About its Restatement, Quantum stated:\n\n a. Service contract term - The Company identified that there were inconsistencies in the\n period used to recognize service and subscription revenue, which is deferred under Topic\n 606 and recognized ratably over the contractual term of the contract. The Company\u2019s\n management reviewed and updated the periods over which revenue was being recognized\n to ensure consistent application for all service contracts invoiced in the fiscal year ended\n March 31, 2025 and the results have been applied to revenue.\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 43 of 54\n\n\n\n\n b. Application of Topic 606 related to standalone selling price - The Company also\n determined that the standalone selling price that was being used for the fiscal year\n ended March 31, 2025 needed to be updated resulting in an adjustment to revenue.\n Standalone selling price has now been refreshed for all goods and services sold in a\n bundled contract under Topic 606, maximizing the use of observable inputs\n\n 127. The Restatement included, but, in violation of ASC 250 did not separately\n\nidentify or disclose, adjustments made to the 1Q25 and 2Q25 financial statements. 8\n\n 128. The 2025 10-K also disclosed that the Company\u2019s disclosure controls and\n\nprocedures were not effective as of March 31, 2025 due to the following material weaknesses\n\nin the internal control over financial reporting, including calculation of standalone selling price:\n\n Management's Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting\n\n Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate\n internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-\n 15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our management, with the participation of our\n chief executive officer and chief financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of\n our internal control over financial reporting using the framework set forth by the\n Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal\n Control\u2014Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment, management\n concluded that the Company\u2019s internal control over financial reporting was not\n effective as of March 31, 2025, due to the material weaknesses described below.\n\n A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal\n control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a\n material misstatement of the company's annual or interim financial statements\n will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.\n\n Management did not adequately design and implement effective control activities\n resulting in the identification of the following material weaknesses:\n\n Revenue Recognition\n\n The Company did not maintain effective internal controls related to revenue\n recognition for the following:\n\n\n\n8\n The Company had improperly determined that the errors in its 1Q25 and 2Q25 financial\nstatements were immaterial, and consequently failed to restate these financial statements. The\nCompany revised these financial statements when it filed its Forms 8-K for 1Q26 and 2Q26.\n\n 42\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 44 of 54\n\n\n\n\n Controls related to the Company\u2019s accounting practices\n and procedures for application of standalone selling price\n under Accounting Standards Codification Topic 606 Revenue\n from Contracts with Customers (\u201cTopic 606\u201d). Specifically,\n the Company did not have adequate controls in place to\n conclude on the application of standalone selling price\n consistent with the generally accepted application of the\n guidance in Topic 606.\n Controls over the accuracy of the inputs in the sales\n order entry process. Specifically, the Company did not\n sufficiently execute controls over the review of data\n inputs in the sales order entry process to ensure accuracy\n of the price, quantity, and related customer data.\n Controls for reviewing and updating deferral schedules,\n which drives the timing of service revenue recognition.\n Specifically, the start and end dates in the deferral\n schedules were not consistently aligned with the\n contractual service periods.\n\n Manufacturing Inventory\n\n The Company did not maintain effective internal controls related to\n manufacturing inventory. Specifically, controls to assess the accuracy of\n inventory held at third-party locations were not adequately executed as of March\n 31, 2025.\n\n Control Environment\n\n Based on the material weaknesses identified in revenue recognition and\n manufacturing inventory, management concluded that the Company did not\n maintain effective entity-level controls within the control environment to prevent\n or detect material misstatements to the Consolidated Financial Statements.\n Specifically, the Company (i) lacked sufficiently qualified staff or resources to\n perform control activities and (ii) conducted inadequate risk assessment and\n monitoring activities resulting in untimely or ineffective identification of internal\n control risks to support the design implementation and evaluation of the internal\n controls necessary to provide effective oversight over financial reporting.\n\n The material weaknesses related to the stand-alone selling price and deferred\n schedules resulted in material adjustments to the revenue and deferred\n revenue accounts and related disclosures in the unaudited Consolidated\n Financial Statements for the three months ended December 31, 2024. While the\n material weaknesses related to sales order and invoice review, and manufacturing\n inventory did not result in material misstatements, each creates a reasonable\n possibility that a material misstatement could occur and not be prevented or\n detected on a timely basis.\n\n\n\n\n 43\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 45 of 54\n\n\n\n\n 129. In a Form 8-K dated October 6, 2025, Quantum announced that on September\n\n30, 2025, it had dismissed Grant Thornton LLP as Quantum\u2019s auditor. The audit committee\n\nappointed CohnReznick as Quantum\u2019s new auditor.\n\nVII. LOSS CAUSATION AND ECONOMIC LOSS\n\n 130. During the Class Period, as detailed herein, Defendants made materially false and\n\nmisleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct\n\nthat artificially inflated the price of Quantum\u2019s common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit\n\non Class Period purchasers of Quantum\u2019s common stock by materially misleading the investing\n\npublic. Later, Defendants\u2019 prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became apparent to\n\nthe market and the price of Quantum\u2019s common stock materially declined, as the prior artificial\n\ninflation came out of the price over time. As a result of their purchases of Quantum\u2019s common\n\nstock during the Class Period, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss,\n\ni.e., damages under federal securities laws.\n\n 131. In particular, as described above, Quantum\u2019s filings on June 30, 2025, August 8,\n\n2025, and August 18, 2025 caused Quantum\u2019s common stock price to fall materially. These\n\ndisclosures corrected Defendants\u2019 prior misstatements.\n\nVIII. NEITHER THE PSLRA SAFE HARBOR NOR THE BESPEAKS CAUTION\n DOCTRINE APPLIES\n\n 132. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain\n\ncircumstances does not apply to any of the material misrepresentations and omissions alleged in\n\nthis Complaint. As alleged above, Defendants\u2019 liability stems from present statements\n\nconcerning later-restated financial statements.\n\n 133. To the extent certain of the statements alleged to be misleading or inaccurate may\n\nbe characterized as forward looking, they were not identified as \u201cforward-looking statements\u201d\n\n\n 44\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 46 of 54\n\n\n\n\nwhen made and there were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors\n\nthat could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking\n\nstatements.\n\n 134. Defendants are also liable for any false or misleading \u201cforward-looking\n\nstatements\u201d pleaded because, at the time each \u201cforward-looking statement\u201d was made, the\n\nspeaker knew the \u201cforward-looking statement\u201d was false or misleading and the \u201cforward-looking\n\nstatement\u201d was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer of Quantum who knew that\n\nthe \u201cforward-looking statement\u201d was false. Alternatively, none of the historic or present-tense\n\nstatements made by Defendants were assumptions underlying or relating to any plan, projection,\n\nor statement of future economic performance, as they were not stated to be such assumptions\n\nunderlying or relating to any projection or statement of future economic performance when\n\nmade, nor were any of the projections or forecasts made by the defendants expressly related to\n\nor stated to be dependent on those historic or present-tense statements when made.\n\nIX. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS\n\n 135. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n\nProcedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants\n\nwho acquired the Company\u2019s common stock publicly traded on NASDAQ during the Class\n\nPeriod, and who were damaged thereby (\u201cClass\u201d). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the\n\nofficers and directors of the Company, members of the Individual Defendants\u2019 immediate\n\nfamilies and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which\n\nDefendants have or had a controlling interest.\n\n 136. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is\n\nimpracticable. Throughout the Class Period, the Company\u2019s securities were actively traded on\n\nNASDAQ. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and\n\n 45\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 47 of 54\n\n\n\n\ncan be ascertained only through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds,\n\nif not thousands of members in the proposed Class.\n\n 137. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all\n\nmembers of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants\u2019 wrongful conduct in violation of\n\nfederal law that is complained of herein.\n\n 138. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the\n\nClass and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.\n\nPlaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class.\n\n 139. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and\n\npredominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the\n\nquestions of law and fact common to the Class are:\n\n whether the Exchange Act was violated by Defendants\u2019 acts as alleged herein;\n\n whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during the Class\n\n Period misrepresented material facts about the business and financial condition\n\n of the Company;\n\n whether Defendants\u2019 public statements to the investing public during the Class\n\n Period omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of\n\n the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;\n\n whether the Defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading filings\n\n during the Class Period;\n\n whether Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false filings;\n\n\n\n\n 46\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 48 of 54\n\n\n\n\n whether the prices of the Company securities during the Class Period were\n\n artificially inflated because of the Defendants\u2019 conduct complained of herein;\n\n and\n\n whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the\n\n proper measure of damages.\n\n 140. To establish reliance on a class wide-basis, Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the\n\npresumption of reliance established by the fraud-on-the-market doctrine in that:\n\n the Company\u2019s shares met the requirements for listing, and were listed and\n\n actively traded on NASDAQ, an efficient market;\n\n as a public issuer, the Company filed periodic public reports;\n\n the Company regularly communicated with public investors via established\n\n market communication mechanisms, including through the regular\n\n dissemination of press releases via major newswire services and through other\n\n wide-ranging public disclosures, such as communications with the financial\n\n press and other similar reporting services;\n\n the Company\u2019s securities were liquid and traded with moderate to heavy volume\n\n during the Class Period; and\n\n the Company was followed by a number of securities analysts employed by\n\n major brokerage firms who wrote reports that were widely distributed and\n\n publicly available.\n\n 141. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient\n\nadjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as\n\nthe damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and\n\n\n\n 47\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 49 of 54\n\n\n\n\nburden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually\n\nredress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action\n\nas a class action.\n\n 142. Based on the foregoing, the market for the Company\u2019s securities promptly\n\ndigested current information regarding the Company from all publicly available sources and\n\nreflected such information in the prices of the shares, and Plaintiff and the members of the Class\n\nare entitled to a presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market.\n\n 143. Alternatively, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to the\n\npresumption of reliance established by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State\n\nof Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), as Defendants omitted material information in\n\ntheir Class Period statements in violation of a duty to disclose such information as detailed\n\nabove.\n\nX. COUNTS\n\n COUNT I\n For Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and\n SEC Rule 10b-5 Against Defendants Quantum, Lerner, and Gianella\n\n 144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if\nfully set forth herein.\n 145. This Count is asserted against Defendants is based upon Section 10(b) of the\nExchange Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.\n 146. During the Class Period, in violation of Rule 10b-5(b), Defendants, individually\n\nand in concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false statements specified\n\nabove, which they knew or deliberately disregarded or recklessly disregarded were misleading\n\nin that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order\n\n\n\n\n 48\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 50 of 54\n\n\n\n\nto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not\n\nmisleading.\n\n 147. Defendants violated \u00a710(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they:\n\n employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;\n\n made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts\n\n necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the\n\n circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or\n\n engaged in acts, practices and a course of business that operated as a fraud\n\n or deceit upon plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with\n\n their purchases of the Company\u2019s securities during the Class Period.\n\n 148. Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew or recklessly disregarded that\n\nthe public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were\n\nmaterially false and misleading; knew or recklessly disregarded that such statements or\n\ndocuments would be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly or recklessly\n\nand substantially participated, or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements\n\nor documents as primary violations of the securities laws. These defendants by virtue of their\n\nreceipt of information reflecting the true facts of the Company, their control over, and/or receipt\n\nand/or modification of the Company\u2019s allegedly materially misleading statements, and/or their\n\nassociations with the Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information\n\nconcerning the Company, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein.\n\n 149. Defendants Lerner and Gianella, who are the senior officers of the Company,\n\nhad actual knowledge of the material omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements set\n\nforth above, and intended to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, or, in the\n\n\n\n 49\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 51 of 54\n\n\n\n\nalternative, acted with reckless disregard for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose\n\nthe true facts in the statements made by them or any other of the Company\u2019s personnel to\n\nmembers of the investing public, including Plaintiff and the Class.\n\n 150. As a result of the foregoing, the market price of the Company\u2019s securities was\n\nartificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the falsity of Defendants\u2019\n\nstatements, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied on the statements described above\n\nand/or the integrity of the market price of the Company\u2019s securities during the Class Period in\n\npurchasing the Company\u2019s securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result of\n\nDefendants\u2019 false and misleading statements.\n\n 151. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that the market\n\nprice of the Company\u2019s securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants\u2019\n\nmisleading statements and by the material adverse information which Defendants did not\n\ndisclose, they would not have purchased the Company\u2019s securities at the artificially inflated\n\nprices that they did, or at all.\n\n 152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants\u2019 wrongful conduct alleged\n\nherein, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages in an amount to be established\n\nat trial.\n\n 153. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of the\n\nExchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and are liable to the plaintiff and\n\nthe other members of the Class for substantial damages which they suffered in connection with\n\ntheir purchase of the Company\u2019s securities during the Class Period.\n\n\n\n\n 50\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 52 of 54\n\n\n\n\n COUNT II\n\n Form Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act\n Against the Individual Defendants\n\n 154. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\nforegoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 155. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants participated in the operation\n\nand management of the Company, and conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in\n\nthe conduct of the Company\u2019s business affairs. Because of their senior positions, they knew the\n\nadverse non-public information about the Company\u2019s false financial statements.\n\n 156. As officers of a publicly owned company, the Individual Defendants had a duty\n\nto disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to the Company\u2019s\u2019 financial\n\ncondition and results of operations, and to correct promptly any public statements issued by the\n\nCompany which had become materially false or misleading.\n\n 157. Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, the\n\nIndividual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the various reports, press\n\nreleases and public filings which the Company disseminated in the marketplace during the Class\n\nPeriod concerning the Company\u2019s results of operations. Throughout the Class Period, the\n\nIndividual Defendants exercised their power and authority to cause the Company to engage in\n\nthe wrongful acts complained of herein. The Individual Defendants, therefore, were \u201ccontrolling\n\npersons\u201d of the Company within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this\n\ncapacity, they participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which artificially inflated the market\n\nprice of the Company\u2019s securities.\n\n 158. By reason of the above conduct, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to\n\nSection 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by the Company.\n\n\n 51\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 53 of 54\n\n\n\n\nXI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Class, prays for judgment and relief\nas follows:\n (a) declaring this action to be a proper class action, designating Lead Plaintiff as\n\nclass representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and designating\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s counsel as Lead Counsel;\n\n (b) awarding damages in favor of plaintiff and the other Class members against all\n\ndefendants, jointly and severally, together with interest thereon;\n\n (c) awarding plaintiff and the Class reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this\n\naction, including counsel fees and expert fees; and\n\n (d) awarding plaintiff and other members of the Class such other and further relief\n\nas the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nXII. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.\n\nDated: January 27, 2026\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n By: Gonen Haklay\n Gonen Haklay\n Jacob A. Goldberg\n 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440\n Philadelphia, PA 19046\n Telephone: (215) 600-2817\n Fax: (212) 202-3827\n Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com\n Email: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com\n\n Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class\n\n\n\n\n 52\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 32 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado\n pg 54 of 54\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on January 27, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing Amended\n\nClass Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws with the Clerk of Court\n\nusing the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such to all CM/ECF participants.\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n By: /s/ Gonen Haklay\n Gonen Haklay\n 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440\n Jenkintown, PA 19046\n Telephone: (215) 600-2817\n Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n Email: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com\n\n\n\n\n 53\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-15T20:21:30.619403-07:00","document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012442577","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.025510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.037224-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":118,"description":"AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum Corporation, filed by Hunsu Son.(Haklay, Gonen) (Entered: 01/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726248/","id":479726248,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406587/","id":495406587,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/31/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.988087-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.988108-07:00","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":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012369095","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.938806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.949531-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":112,"description":"NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Bruce A. Ericson on behalf of Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum CorporationAttorney Bruce A. Ericson added to party Kenneth P. Gianella(pty:dft), Attorney Bruce A. Ericson added to party James J. Lerner(pty:dft), Attorney Bruce A. Ericson added to party Laura Nash(pty:dft), Attorney Bruce A. Ericson added to party Quantum Corporation(pty:dft) (Ericson, Bruce) (Entered: 12/16/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726247/","id":479726247,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406586/","id":495406586,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/30/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.890451-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.890488-07:00","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":"30","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":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.851675-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.864584-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER: The Joint Motion Setting a Schedule to Designate Operative Complaint or to File an Amended Class Action Complaint and to Answer or Brief Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that, on or before January 27, 2026, the Lead Plaintiff shall either designate an operative complaint or file an amended complaint. It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall respond to the operative complaint on or before March 31, 2026. If the defendants file a motion to dismiss the operative complaint by that deadline, the response shall be filed on or before May 19, 2026 and the reply shall be filed on or before June 16, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung on 12/03/2025. Text Only Entry.(agryan) (Entered: 12/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726246/","id":479726246,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406585/","id":495406585,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/29/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.809713-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.809733-07:00","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":"29","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":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.776593-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.785576-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MEMORANDUM regarding 28 MOTION for Extension of Time to Set Schedule filed by Hunsu Son. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/03/2025. Text Only Entry (pabsec, ) (Entered: 12/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479726245/","id":479726245,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495406584/","id":495406584,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/27/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.710177-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.710199-07:00","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":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012342616","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.667610-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.678398-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":101,"description":"NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Gonen Haklay on behalf of Seung Lee Attorney Gonen Haklay added to party Seung Lee (pty:pla) (Haklay, Gonen) (Entered: 12/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459177191/","id":459177191,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474196842/","id":474196842,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/33/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-03-31T11:33:08.346090-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T11:33:08.356524-07:00","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":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012579405","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T11:33:08.316940-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:13.090420-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"12:20:28","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":120,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint by Defendants Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Bruce Ericson, # 2 Exhibit A-1 - FY 2025 Form 10-K, # 3 Exhibit A-2 - FY 2024 Form 10-K, # 4 Exhibit A-3 - ASC 606)(Shoemaker, Andrew) (Entered: 03/31/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446064210/","id":446064210,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460777845/","id":460777845,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-03T15:30:12.510706-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-03T15:30:12.523903-08:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-03T15:30:12.492378-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-03T15:30:12.492389-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":"16:04:20","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446051030/","id":446051030,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460764379/","id":460764379,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-03T14:30:17.021399-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-03T14:30:17.028781-08:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-03T14:30:17.005737-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-03T14:30:17.005752-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":"14:34:16","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446039052/","id":446039052,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460752355/","id":460752355,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/28/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-03T14:03:21.694797-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-03T14:03:21.707194-08:00","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":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012342957","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-03T14:03:21.672988-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-29T05:53:12.734733-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-03","time_filed":"14:25:13","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":104,"description":"MOTION for Extension of Time to Set Schedule by Plaintiff Hunsu Son. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Haklay, Gonen) (Entered: 12/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816769/","id":445816769,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526039/","id":460526039,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/25/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.982806-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:17.123512-08:00","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":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012331824","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.806677-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.917104-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-25.002","pacer_sequence_number":92,"description":"ERRATA re 24 Notice (Other) by Defendants Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum Corporation. (Shoemaker, Andrew) (Entered: 11/25/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816768/","id":445816768,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526038/","id":460526038,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/24/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.684116-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.728362-08:00","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":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012330988","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.584029-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.625757-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":89,"description":"NOTICE re 1 Complaint, NOTICE OF RELATED CASES by Defendants Kenneth P. Gianella, James J. Lerner, Laura Nash, Quantum Corporation (Shoemaker, Andrew) (Entered: 11/25/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816767/","id":445816767,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526037/","id":460526037,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/23/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.414557-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T02:48:09.546958-07:00","sha1":"d30099790299ed8e60c275365b1304fc531db585","page_count":7,"file_size":191598,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.23.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.23.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:39:51.148979-07:00","document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012328780","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.304668-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.348589-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.003","pacer_sequence_number":84,"description":"BRIEF in Opposition to 17 MOTION for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff filed by Movant Hunsu Son. (Kim, Phillip) (Entered: 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816766/","id":445816766,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526036/","id":460526036,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/22/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.155934-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.259740-08:00","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":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012328741","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.067226-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:16.103652-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":82,"description":"NOTICE Of Non-Opposition Of Rick Scharff To The Motion Of Hunsu Son For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Counsel by Movant Rick Scharff (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Entered: 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816765/","id":445816765,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526035/","id":460526035,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/21/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.884981-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.946333-08:00","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":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012328303","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.795424-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.836499-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":75,"description":"NOTICE re 17 MOTION for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 13 MOTION for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff (Notice of Non-Opposition of Chandruakanthan Sathasivam to Competing Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel) by Movant Chandruakanthan Sathasivam (Hood, Joseph) (Entered: 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816764/","id":445816764,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526034/","id":460526034,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/20/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.672367-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.759771-08:00","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":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012311220","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.607326-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.632432-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":72,"description":"NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jacob A. Goldberg on behalf of Seung Lee Attorney Jacob A. Goldberg added to party Seung Lee (pty:pla) (Goldberg, Jacob) (Entered: 11/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816763/","id":445816763,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526033/","id":460526033,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/19/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.412315-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.526826-08:00","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":"19","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":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.312456-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.346064-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MEMORANDUM regarding 17 MOTION for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Chandruakanthan Sathasivam, 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff filed by Rick Scharff. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/04/2025. Text Only Entry (pabsec, ) (Entered: 11/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816762/","id":445816762,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526032/","id":460526032,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.199022-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T05:23:58.553233-07:00","sha1":"3f1a2e7bbac254f0182c8d8273be63b8e3143e2f","page_count":2,"file_size":87893,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF COLORADO\n\nCivil Action No.: 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC\n\nSEUNG LEE, Individually and on Behalf of\nAll Others Similarly Situated,\n\nPlaintiffs,\n\nv.\n\nQUANTUM CORPORATION,\nJAMES J. LERNER,\nKENNETH P. GIANELLA, and\nLAURA NASH,\n\nDefendants.\n\n\n DECLARATION OF J. ALEXANDER HOOD II IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF\n CHANDRUAKANTHAN SATHASIVAM FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF\n AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n I, J. Alexander Hood II, hereby declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Pomerantz LLP (\u201cPomerantz\u201d), counsel for\n\nChandruakanthan Sathasivam (\u201cSathasivam\u201d), and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth\n\nherein. I make this Declaration in support of Sathasivam\u2019s motion for appointment as Lead\n\nPlaintiff for the Class in the above-captioned action (the \u201cAction\u201d) and approval of his selection\n\nof Pomerantz as Lead Counsel for the Class.\n\n 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a chart setting forth\n\nSathasivam\u2019s financial interest in this Action.\n\n 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the press release published\n\nvia Business Wire on September 4, 2025, announcing the pendency of the Action.\n\n 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a Shareholder\n\nCertification executed by Sathasivam.\n\n 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a Declaration executed\n\nby Sathasivam.\n\n 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the firm resume of\n\nPomerantz.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing facts are true and correct.\n\n Executed on November 3, 2025.\n\n /s/ J. Alexander Hood II\n J. Alexander Hood II\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:39:54.189794-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285964","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479579601/","id":479579601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/1/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:39:56.753998-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T05:23:26.771665-07:00","sha1":"7c90cf2d2e8a1ade70518a8a570c255a4fec683b","page_count":2,"file_size":145482,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-1 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-1 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 2 of 2\n\n\nQuantum Corporation (QMCO)\nClass Period: November 15, 2024 to August 18, 2025\n(Includes 90-Day Sales @ Statutory Pricing) 74-Days*\n Mean Price\n $9.4870\n Purchase or Acquire Sales Shares Estimated Estimated\nPlaintiff Date Shares Price Amount Date Shares Price Amount Retained Value Gain(Loss)\n\nChandruakanthan Sathasivam 12/27/2024 1,000 $75.0000 ($75,000) 0 $0 1,000 $9,487 ($65,513)\n\n\n\n\n *Avg Closing Prices from August 19, 2025 to October 31, 2025\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:40:07.204503-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285965","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Damages Analysis","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479579602/","id":479579602,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/2/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:39:56.782167-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T05:23:26.860514-07:00","sha1":"f8d1179a70cd214db2baad4dc7c9b03e58e4249e","page_count":7,"file_size":399327,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n Sep 4, 2025 4:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time\n\n\n EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Files\n Securities Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of\n Quantum Corporation Investors - QMCO\n Share\n\n\n\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm,\n announces that it has filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of securities of\n Quantum Corporation (NASDAQ: QMCO) between November 15, 2024, and August\n 18, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for\n Quantum Corporation investors under the federal securities laws.\n\n To join the Quantum Corporation class action, go to\n https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43932 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-\n free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class\n action.\n\n\n According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements\n and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Quantum Corporation improperly recognized\n revenue during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025; (2) Quantum Corporation\n would therefore need to restate its previously filed financial statements for the\n fiscal third quarter ended December 31, 2024; and (3) as a result, Defendants\u2019\n statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and\n misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details\n entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.\n\n A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,\n you must move the Court no later than November 3, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a\n representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the\n litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-\n form/?case_id=43932 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 3 of 7\n action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653\n or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.\n\n NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS\n CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE.\n YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN\n ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR\u2019S\n ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT\n UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.\n\n Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-\n law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:\n https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.\n\n Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its\n practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law\n Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of\n securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4\n each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class\n action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm\u2019s\n attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected\n sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.\n\n Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.\n\n\n Contacts\n Laurence Rosen, Esq.\n Phillip Kim, Esq.\n The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n New York, NY 10016\n Tel: (212) 686-1060\n Toll Free: (866) 767-3653\n Fax: (212) 202-3827\n case@rosenlegal.com\n www.rosenlegal.com\n\n\n Industry: Class Action Lawsuit Professional Services Legal\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n NASDAQ:QMCO\n\n\n\n RELEASE VERSIONS\n\n\n English\n\n\n CONTACTS\n Laurence Rosen, Esq.\n Phillip Kim, Esq.\n The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n New York, NY 10016\n Tel: (212) 686-1060\n Toll Free: (866) 767-3653\n Fax: (212) 202-3827\n case@rosenlegal.com\n www.rosenlegal.com\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 5 of 7\n\n\n More News From The Rosen Law\n Firm, P.A.\n Get RSS Feed\n\n\n Rosen Law Firm Urges Avantor, Inc. (NYSE: AVTR) Stockholders with\n Losses in Excess of $100K to Contact the Firm for Information About\n Their Rights\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces\n that a shareholder filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and acquirers of Avantor,\n Inc. (NYSE: AVTR) common stock between March 5, 2024 and October 28, 2025, both dates\u2026\n\n\n\n Rosen Law Firm Encourages Braskem S.A. Investors to Inquire About\n Securities Class Action Investigation \u2013 BAK\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm,\n announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Braskem\n S.A. (NYSE: BAK) resulting from allegations that Braskem may have issued materially misleadin\u2026\n\n\n\n Rosen Law Firm Encourages Tvardi Therapeutics, Inc. Investors to Inquire\n About Securities Class Action Investigation \u2013 TRVD\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm,\n announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tvardi\n Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRVD) resulting from allegations that Tvardi Therapeutics may\u2026\n\n\n\n Back to Newsroom\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 6 of 7\n\n Wish your news had this kind of\n reach?\n Sign Up\n\n\n Learn About Business Wire\n\n\n\n\nCompany\n\nAbout Business Wire\nCareers\nMedia Center\n\nServices\n\nPress Release Distribution\nVisibility & Engagement\nComplimentary Features\nInvestor Communications\nReporting & Analytics\n\nSolutions\n\nPR Professionals\nIR Professionals\nAgencies\nPublic Companies\nExplore by Industry\n\nNewsroom\n\nIndustries\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-2 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 7 of 7\nSubjects\nLanguages\n\nResources\n\nBlog\n\nFor Journalists\nSign Up\n\n\n\n\n\u00a9 2025 Business Wire, Inc.\n\nPrivacy Policy Cookie Policy Copyright Accessibility Statement Terms of Use\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:40:12.858615-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285966","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - Press Release","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479579603/","id":479579603,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/3/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:39:56.794924-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T04:16:00.718321-07:00","sha1":"00029fcd7fc9d35ec6fb88ee61cbcff13f73f6f2","page_count":4,"file_size":217771,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:40:26.136868-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285967","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Certification","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479579604/","id":479579604,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/4/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:39:56.807119-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T05:05:58.106173-07:00","sha1":"33a232d33fb15dd5dd33a75a99053f3ca412826b","page_count":5,"file_size":220557,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-4 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 4\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-4 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n\u000f\u001b\u0015 \u001e\u0018\u0017\u001a\u0001\u0010\u001a!\u0016\u0019\u001b\u001c\u0016\u0001\u0012\u000f \u0001\u0003 \u0004\u0004\u0011\u0004 \u0005\u0002\u0005\b \u0004\u0002\u0006\u0010\u0003\u000e\u0002 \b \u0002 \u0011\u000e \u0007\u0005 \u0004 \u000f\n pg 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTION\n\n I, the undersigned, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I, Chandruakanthan Sathasivam, respectfully submit this Declaration in support of\n\n my motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of my selection of Pomerantz LLP\n\n (\u201cPomerantz\u201d) as Lead Counsel in the instant class action on behalf of investors in the securities\n\n of Quantum Corporation (\u201cQuantum\u201d) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of\n\n 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d). In addition to Pomerantz, I am also represented by the Bronstein, Gewirtz &\n\n Grossman, LLC law firm in this action. I am informed of and understand the requirements and\n\n duties imposed by the PSLRA. I have personal knowledge about the information in this\n\n Declaration.\n\n 2. I, Chandruakanthan Sathasivam, live in Toronto, Canada. I am a truck driver. I am\n\n 55 years old and have been investing in the securities markets for 5 years. As reflected in my\n\n Certification, I purchased publicly traded Quantum securities during the Class Period and suffered\n\n substantial losses as a result of the violations of the federal securities laws alleged in this action.\n\n 3. I have discussed this case with my counsel. Accordingly, I am aware of the current\n\n status of this litigation. I understand that Pomerantz did not file the initial complaint in this\n\n litigation. I understand that, in addition to myself, other investors in Quantum securities may file\n\n motions seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this action. I understand that on November 3,\n\n 2025, Pomerantz will file a memorandum of law in support of my motion for appointment as Lead\n\n Plaintiff. I understand that this Declaration and other supporting submissions prepared by my\n\n counsel will be filed concurrently with the memorandum of law. I understand that the Lead\n\n Plaintiff role includes evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and prospects for\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-4 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n\u000f\u001b\u0015 \u001e\u0018\u0017\u001a\u0001\u0010\u001a!\u0016\u0019\u001b\u001c\u0016\u0001\u0012\u000f \u0001\u0003 \u0004\u0004\u0011\u0004 \u0005\u0002\u0005\b \u0004\u0002\u0006\u0010\u0003\u000e\u0002 \b \u0002 \u0011\u000e \u0007\u0005 \u0004 \u000f\n pg 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n resolution of this matter. I understand that it is the Lead Plaintiff\u2019s responsibility to direct counsel\n\n with respect to this litigation, after receiving the benefit of counsel\u2019s advice. I approved Pomerantz\n\n as my designated Lead Counsel. I participated in a call with an attorney from Pomerantz to discuss\n\n this litigation and approved the filing of a motion on my behalf seeking appointment as Lead\n\n Plaintiff.\n\n 4. I attest to, among other things, my belief in the merits of this action; my desire to\n\n achieve the best possible result for the Class; my interest in prosecuting this case; my\n\n understanding of the fiduciary obligations of a Lead Plaintiff; and my preparedness to supervise\n\n counsel and undertake all actions necessary to ensure that the Class\u2019s claims will be zealously and\n\n efficiently litigated. I hereby affirm that the foregoing statements, as well as all other statements\n\n set forth in this Declaration, are true and correct statements of my views and intentions with respect\n\n to this litigation, and that I seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this action.\n\n 5. Given my significant financial interest in the claims against the defendants, I am\n\n strongly motivated to recover the significant losses that I and the Class suffered as a result of\n\n defendants\u2019 violations of the federal securities laws. My principal goal in seeking to serve as Lead\n\n Plaintiff in this case is to achieve the best possible recovery for the Class from all culpable parties.\n\n I am committed to ensuring the litigation is litigated as zealously and efficiently as possible, in\n\n accordance with my duties under the PSLRA.\n\n 6. If appointed Lead Plaintiff, I will satisfy my fiduciary obligations to the Class by,\n\n among other steps, conferring with my counsel regarding litigation strategy and other matters,\n\n attending court proceedings, depositions, any settlement mediations, and hearings as needed, and\n\n reviewing and authorizing the filing of important litigation documents. Through these and other\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-4 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n\u000f\u001b\u0015 \u001e\u0018\u0017\u001a\u0001\u0010\u001a!\u0016\u0019\u001b\u001c\u0016\u0001\u0012\u000f \u0001\u0003 \u0004\u0004\u0011\u0004 \u0005\u0002\u0005\b \u0004\u0002\u0006\u0010\u0003\u000e\u0002 \b \u0002 \u0011\u000e \u0007\u0005 \u0004 \u000f\n pg 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n measures, I will ensure that the Quantum securities litigation will be vigorously prosecuted\n\n consistent with the obligations of a Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA and in the best interests of the\n\n Class, and will seek to obtain the greatest possible recovery for the Class.\n\n 7. After reviewing the allegations pleaded in the complaint, and consulting with my\n\n counsel, I independently determined to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and subsequently\n\n approved the filing of a motion seeking my appointment as Lead Plaintiff. I agree that my\n\n resources and ability to engage in decision-making will materially benefit and advance the interests\n\n of the Class in this case.\n\n 8. I understand that the Lead Plaintiff\u2019s share of any recovery is the same as every\n\n other potential Class member. As my Certification states, I will not accept any payment for serving\n\n as a representative party beyond my pro rata share, except any reasonable costs and expenses\n\n directly related to the Class representation as ordered or approved by the Court pursuant to the\n\n PSLRA.\n\n 9. I understand that the PSLRA and courts throughout the country, including courts in\n\n this District, have endorsed the appointment of investors to serve as Lead Plaintiff when investors\n\n establish that they can oversee the litigation and their proposed Lead Counsel in an independent\n\n manner. I intend to prosecute this litigation in such an independent and vigorous manner.\n\n 10. I also understand and appreciate the Lead Plaintiff\u2019s obligation under the PSLRA\n\n to select Lead Counsel and to monitor the action to ensure it is prosecuted efficiently. I have\n\n fulfilled this responsibility by selecting and retaining Lead Counsel with a proven history of\n\n handling this type of complex litigation. In this case, I selected Pomerantz to serve as Lead\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-4 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n\u000f\u001b\u0015 \u001e\u0018\u0017\u001a\u0001\u0010\u001a!\u0016\u0019\u001b\u001c\u0016\u0001\u0012\u000f \u0001\u0003 \u0004\u0004\u0011\u0004 \u0005\u0002\u0005\b \u0004\u0002\u0006\u0010\u0003\u000e\u0002 \b \u0002 \u0011\u000e \u0007\u0005 \u0004 \u000f\n pg 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Counsel. Based on Pomerantz\u2019s experience in achieving substantial recoveries in securities class\n\n actions, I believe that the firm is well-qualified to represent the Class.\n\n 11. Pomerantz has been directed to prosecute this action in an efficient, cost-effective\n\n manner while obtaining the best possible result for the Class. I will continue to supervise counsel\n\n and actively oversee the prosecution of the action for the benefit of the Class by, among other\n\n things, reviewing pleadings, instructing counsel, and/or attending hearings, as necessary.\n\n\n Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States\n of America that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n\n \u0005\u0003\u001e\u001f \u0013\u0015\u001f\u001b\u0014\u0016\u001d\n Executed on this __________ day of ____________________, 2025.\n (Month)\n\n _________________________\n\n Chandruakanthan Sathasivam\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:40:39.722244-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285968","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4 - Movant Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479579605/","id":479579605,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/18/5/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:39:56.825203-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T05:05:51.870017-07:00","sha1":"02240c750791571de07a040a68a577bb3a214f0d","page_count":61,"file_size":755369,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.247064/gov.uscourts.cod.247064.18.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 1 of 61\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 5\n EXHIBIT >\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 2 of 61\n\n\n\n\n POMERANTZ\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 3 of 61\n\n\n\n\n History Pomerantz LLP is one of the most respected law firms in the United States dedicated\n to representing investors. The Firm was founded in 1936 by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,\n widely regarded as a legal pioneer and \u201cdean\u201d of the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, who helped secure\n the right of investors to bring class and derivative actions.\n\n Leadership Today, led by Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, the Firm maintains the\n commitments to excellence and integrity passed down by Abe Pomerantz.\n\n Results Pomerantz achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for defrauded investors in 2018\n as well as precedent-setting legal rulings, in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Pomerantz\n consistently shapes the law, winning landmark decisions that expand and protect investor rights\n and initiating historic corporate governance reforms.\n\n Global Expertise Beyond its three American offices, the Firm has offices in Paris,\n London, and Tel Aviv. Pomerantz also partners with an extensive network of prominent law firms\n across the globe to assist clients, wherever they are situated, in recovering monies lost due to\n corporate misconduct and securities fraud. Our team of attorneys is collectively fluent in English,\n Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish,\n and Ukrainian.\n\n Practice Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights through our\n securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring service. The Firm represents some of the\n largest and most influential pension funds, asset managers and institutional investors around the\n globe, monitoring assets of over $9.4 trillion and growing. Pomerantz\u2019s practice includes\n corporate governance, antitrust, and strategic consumer litigation.\n\n Recognition Pomerantz has been recognized as a top tier firm by The Legal 500, Benchmark\n Litigation, and Chambers USA, among others. In 2020, Pomerantz was named the Plaintiff Firm of\n the Year by Benchmark Litigation and honored with European Pensions\u2019 inaugural Thought\n Leadership Award. Courts across the country have noted the quality of our legal work, and\n Pomerantz attorneys regularly receive praise from their peers. The 2024 Benchmark Litigation\n guide describes Pomerantz\u2019s \u201cprodigious capacity for cases and its tenacity to keep pursuing\n them\u201d as well as the Firm\u2019s work on litigation \u201cwith more meaningful angles.\u201d The Firm\u2019s attorneys\n have been recognized by major industry publications, including The National Law Journal, The\n New York Law Journal, Law360, and Lawdragon. Among the prestigious honors received by\n Pomerantz attorneys are the Benchmark Litigation Plaintiff Litigator of the Year Award (Jeremy\n Lieberman, 2019; Emma Gilmore 2024), New York Law Journal Innovation Award (Jennifer Pafiti,\n 2023), and Law360 Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar (Murielle Steven Walsh, 2024).\n\n\n Pomerantz is headquartered in New York City, with offices in\n Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 1\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 4 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Securities Litigation\n Significant Landmarks\n\nIn re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\nOn January 3, 2018, in a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz, as sole Lead Counsel for the class,\nalong with Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (\u201cUSS\u201d), achieved a historic $2.95\nbillion settlement with Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A. (\u201cPetrobras\u201d) and its related entity, Petrobras International\nFinance Company, as well as certain of Petrobras\u2019 former executives and directors. On February 2, 2018,\nPomerantz and USS reached a $50 million settlement with Petrobras\u2019 auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers\nAuditores Independentes, bringing the total recovery for Petrobras investors to $3 billion.\n\nThis is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever\nin a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever\nachieved in the United States, the largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead\nPlaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of\nfinancial reports.\n\nThe class action, brought on behalf of all purchasers of common and preferred American Depositary\nShares (\u201cADSs\u201d) on the New York Stock Exchange, as well as purchasers of certain Petrobras debt,\nprincipally alleged that Petrobras and its senior executives engaged in a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar\nmoney-laundering and bribery scheme, which was concealed from investors.\n\nIn addition to the multi-billion-dollar recovery for defrauded investors, Pomerantz secured precedent-\nsetting decisions when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals squarely rejected defendants\u2019 invitation to\nadopt the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the Third Circuit, which would have\nrequired plaintiffs to demonstrate that determining membership in a class is \u201cadministratively feasible.\u201d\nThe Second Circuit\u2019s rejection of this standard is not only a victory for bondholders in securities class\nactions, but also for plaintiffs in consumer fraud class actions and other class actions where\ndocumentation regarding Class membership is not readily attainable. The Second Circuit also refused to\nadopt a requirement, urged by defendants, that all securities class action plaintiffs seeking class\ncertification prove through direct evidence (i.e., an event study) that the prices of the relevant securities\nmoved in a particular direction in response to new information.\n\nPirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\nIn August 2019, Pomerantz, as Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $110 million settlement for the\nClass in this high-profile securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Fiat Chrysler concealed from\ninvestors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software designed to cheat\nNOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat Chrysler of\nviolating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors with as much\nas 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics in class action\nsettlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 2\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 5 of 61\n\n\n\n\nIn addition to creating precedent-setting case law in successfully defending the various motions to dismiss\nthe Fiat Chrysler litigation, Pomerantz also significantly advanced investors\u2019 ability to obtain critically\nimportant discovery from regulators that are often at the center of securities actions. During the litigation,\nPomerantz sought the deposition of a former employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety\nAdministration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d). The United States Department of Transportation (\u201cUSDOT\u201d), like most federal\nagencies, has enacted a set of regulations\u2014known as \u201cTouhy regulations\u201d\u2014governing when its\nemployees may be called by private parties to testify in court. On their face, USDOT\u2019s regulations apply to\nboth \u201ccurrent\u201d and \u201cformer\u201d employees. In response to Pomerantz\u2019s request to depose a former\nemployee of NHSTA that interacted with Fiat Chrysler, NHTSA denied the request, citing the Touhy\nregulation. Despite the widespread application, and assumed appropriateness, of applying these\nregulations to former employees throughout the case law, Pomerantz filed an action against USDOT and\nNHTSA, arguing that the statute pursuant to which the Touhy regulations were enacted speaks only of\n\u201cemployees,\u201d which should be interpreted to apply only to current employees. The court granted\nsummary judgment in favor of Pomerantz\u2019s clients, holding that \u201cUSDOT\u2019s Touhy regulations are unlawful\nto the extent that they apply to former employees.\u201d This victory will greatly shift the discovery tools\navailable, so that investor plaintiffs in securities class actions against highly regulated entities (for\nexample, companies subject to FDA regulations) will now be able to depose former employees of the\nregulators that interacted with the defendants during the class period to get critical testimony concerning\nthe company\u2019s violations and misdeeds.\n\nKarimi v. Deutsche Bank AG, 1:22-cv-02854 (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nOn September 27, 2022, Pomerantz reached a $26.25 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors\nin a securities class action against Deutsche Bank AG. The settlement represents over 49% of estimated\nrecoverable damages, far in excess of the 1.8% median recovery in similar cases.\n\nThe complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank failed to properly adhere to its own Know Your Customer\n(\u201cKYC\u201d) policies when dealing with customers it considered high-risk, such as accused sex offender Jeffrey\nEpstein, Russian oligarchs and politically exposed persons (\u201cPEPs\u201d) reportedly engaged in criminal\nactivities. The Bank repeatedly assured investors that it had \u201cdeveloped effective procedures for assessing\nclients and processes for accepting new clients in order to facilitate comprehensive compliance\u201d with\nthese policies. In reality, however, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly exempted high net-\nworth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, further enabling their crimes through the\nuse of the Bank\u2019s facilities.\n\nFor example, in 2013, Deutsche Bank took on Jeffrey Epstein as a client, despite his previous convictions\nfor and new allegations of child sex trafficking and abuse. Because Epstein was regarded as a \u201chigh-risk\u201d\ncustomer, he should have been subject to the strict due diligence required by the Bank\u2019s KYC program;\nhowever, he was instead classified as an \u201cHonorary PEP,\u201d and his activities within the Bank were allowed\nto continue, largely due to the business he could generate for the Bank. Prior to his onboarding as a client,\n\u201c40 underage girls had come forward with testimony of Epstein sexually assaulting them,\u201d and despite\nthese allegations, Deutsche Bank remained \u201ccomfortable with things continuing.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 3\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 6 of 61\n\n\n\n\nHoward v. Arconic et al., No. 2:17-cv-01057 (W.D.Pa.)\n\nIn August 2023, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $74 million settlement on\nbehalf of defrauded investors in a securities class action against the American industrial company Arconic.\n\nOn June 14, 2017, a devastating fire broke out in the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London, United\nKingdom, resulting in the deaths of 72 people and injuries to more than 70 other tenants. In the wake of\nthe tragedy, numerous investigations were conducted, ultimately revealing that, while an electrical fault\nwithin the building instigated the blaze, Arconic\u2019s Reynobond PE panels, which covered the outside of the\nbuilding, likely acted as an accelerant, contributing to the rapid spread of the flames to the floors above.\n\nIn August 2017, Pomerantz filed a securities class action against Arconic alleging that its stock price was\nartificially inflated during the Class Period by the company\u2019s misstatements about the safety of its\nReynobond PE insulating panels. Following a partial dismissal, Pomerantz filed a second amended\ncomplaint, which cited numerous instances in which Arconic sold Reynobond PE panels for use in other\nhigh-rise towers in the UK and across the globe.\n\nNotably, despite the United States\u2019 near universal ban of combustible Reynobond for buildings taller than\ntwelve meters (40 feet), plaintiffs found that Arconic had sold these panels for use in the construction of\nnumerous structures measuring twelve meters or higher throughout the country, including a terminal at\nthe Dallas/Fort Worth airport and Ohio\u2019s Cleveland Browns stadium. The complaint also pointed to at\nleast eighteen other instances in which deadly fires had spread through exterior wall assemblies, most of\nwhich involved high-rise buildings. The new allegations included in the second amended complaint\nconvinced Chief U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak to not only change his mind on many of the claims he\nhad previously dismissed, but also to make new law in plaintiffs favor on several significant issues,\nincluding the element of scienter, i.e., intent to deceive investors.\n\nThe $74 million settlement represents approximately 22% of recoverable damages for defrauded Arconic\nshareholders, an amount far exceeding the 1.8% median recovery for all securities class action settlements\nin 2022.\n\nKaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P, No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y.)\nIn May 2017, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $135 million recovery for the\nClass in this securities class action that stemmed from what has been called the most profitable insider\ntrading scheme in U.S. history. After years of vigorous litigation, billionaire Steven A. Cohen's former\nhedge fund, S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, agreed to settle the lawsuit by investors in the drug maker Elan\nCorp, who said they lost money because of insider trading by one of his portfolio managers.\n\nIn re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2185 (S.D. Tex.)\nBeginning in 2012, Pomerantz pursued ground-breaking individual lawsuits for institutional investors to\nrecover losses in BP p.l.c.\u2019s London-traded common stock and NYSE-traded American Depository Shares\n(ADSs) arising from its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Over nine years, Pomerantz briefed and argued every\nsignificant dispute on behalf of 125+ institutional plaintiffs, successfully opposed three motions to dismiss,\nwon other contested motions, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million party and non-party documents, led\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 4\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 7 of 61\n\n\n\n\nthe Individual Action Plaintiffs Steering Committee, served as sole Liaison with BP and the Court, and\nworked tirelessly with our clients\u2019 outside investment management firms to develop crucial case evidence.\n\nA threshold challenge was how to litigate in U.S. court given the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Morrison\nv. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), which barred recovery for losses in foreign-traded\nsecurities under the U.S. federal securities laws. In 2013 and 2014, Pomerantz won significant victories in\ndefeating BP\u2019s forum non conveniens arguments, which sought to force dismissal of the English common\nlaw claims from U.S. courts for refiling in English courts, first as regards U.S. institutions and, later, foreign\ninstitutions. Pomerantz also defeated BP\u2019s attempt to extend the U.S. federal Securities Litigation Uniform\nStandards Act of 1998 to reach, and dismiss, these foreign law claims in deference to non-existent\nremedies under the U.S. federal securities laws. These rulings paved the way for 125+ global institutional\ninvestors to pursue their claims and marked the first time, post-Morrison, that U.S. and foreign investors,\npursuing foreign claims seeking recovery for losses in a foreign company\u2019s foreign-traded securities, did\nso in a U.S. court. In 2017, Pomerantz earned an important victory that expanded investor rights under\nEnglish law, permitting certain BP investors to pursue a \u201cholder claim\u201d theory seeking to recover losses in\nsecurities held, rather than purchased anew, in reliance on the alleged fraud\u2014a theory barred under the\nU.S. federal securities laws since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). This win\nwas significant, given the dearth of precedent from anywhere recognizing the viability of a \u201cholder claim\u201d\nunder any non-U.S. law and holding that a given plaintiff alleged facts sufficiently evidencing reliance and\ndocumenting the resulting retention of an identifiable amount of shares on a date certain.\n\nIn Q1 2021, Pomerantz secured confidential, favorable monetary settlements from BP for our nearly three\ndozen clients, including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and\ninvestment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia.\n\nIn re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.)\nIn June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York\ngranted final approval of a $225 million settlement proposed by Pomerantz and Lead Plaintiff the Menora\nGroup, with Comverse Technology and certain of Comverse\u2019s former officers and directors, after four\nyears of highly contested litigation. The Comverse settlement is one of the largest securities class action\nsettlements reached since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).1 It is the\nsecond-largest recovery in a securities litigation involving the backdating of options, as well as one of the\nlargest recoveries\u2014$60 million\u2014from an individual officer-defendant, Comverse\u2019s founder and former\nCEO, Kobi Alexander.\n\n Other Significant Settlements\n\nEven before the enactment of the PSLRA, Pomerantz represented state agencies in securities class actions,\nincluding the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (recovered $100 million) against a major\ninvestment bank. In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litig., No. 91-cv-5471 (S.D.N.Y.).\n\nPomerantz recovered $50 million for the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey and several New Jersey\npension funds in an individual action. This was a substantially higher recovery than what our clients would\n\n1 Institutional Shareholder Services, SCAS Top 100 Settlements Quarterly Report (Sept. 30, 2010).\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 5\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 8 of 61\n\n\n\n\nhave obtained had they remained in a related federal class action. Treasurer of State of New Jersey v. AOL\nTime Warner, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., Mercer Cty.).\n\nPomerantz has litigated numerous cases for the Louisiana School Employees\u2019 Retirement System. For\nexample, as Lead Counsel, Pomerantz recovered $74.75 million in a securities fraud class action against\nCitigroup, its CEO Sanford Weill, and its now infamous telecommunications analyst Jack Grubman. In re\nSalomon Analyst AT&T Litig., No. 02-cv-6801 (S.D.N.Y.) Also, the Firm played a major role in a complex\nantitrust and securities class action which settled for over $1 billion. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers\nAntitrust Litig., MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.). Pomerantz was a member of the Executive Committee in In re\nTranskaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165 (D. Mass.), helping to win a $50\nmillion settlement for the class.\n\nIn 2008, together with Co-Counsel, Pomerantz identified a substantial opportunity for recovery of losses\nin Countrywide mortgage-backed securities (\"MBS\") for three large New Mexico funds (New Mexico State\nInvestment Council, New Mexico Public Employees' Retirement Association, and New Mexico Educational\nRetirement Board), which had been overlooked by all of the firms then in their securities litigation pool.\nWe then filed the first non-class lawsuit by a public institution with respect to Countrywide MBS. See N.M.\nState Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct.). In Fall 2010,\nwe negotiated for our clients an extremely favorable but confidential settlement.\n\nOver its long history, Pomerantz has achieved significant settlements in numerous cases, a sampling of\nwhich appears below:\n\n\u2022 In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\n $3 billion settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\n $110 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-00373 (N.D. Cal. 2018)\n $80 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262\n $31 million partial settlement with three defendants in this multi-district litigation in which Pomerantz\n represents the Berkshire Bank and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico\n\u2022 Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)\n $135 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Groupon, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 12-cv-02450 (N.D. Ill. 2015)\n $45 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)\n $75 million settlement in class action arising out of alleged accounting manipulations.\n\u2022 In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litig., No. 00-cv-736-17 (D.S.C. 2004)\n $54.5 million in total settlements in class action alleging accounting manipulations by corporate\n officials and auditors; last settlement reached on eve of trial.\n\u2022 Duckworth v. Country Life Ins. Co., No. 1998-CH-01046 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. 2000)\n $45 million recovery.\n\u2022 Snyder v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 97/0633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cty. 1998)\n Settlement valued at $100 million in derivative case arising from injuries to consumers purchasing life\n insurance policies.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 6\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 9 of 61\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 In re National Health Lab., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 92-1949 (S.D. Cal. 1995)\n $64 million recovery.\n\u2022 In re First Executive Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 89-cv-07135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n $102 million recovery for the class, exposing a massive securities fraud arising out of the Michael\n Milken debacle.\n\u2022 In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., MDL No. 712 (D. Conn. 1994)\n Over $66 million benefit in securities fraud action.\n\u2022 In re Telerate, Inc. S\u2019holders Litig., C.A. No. 1115 (Del. Ch. 1989)\n $95 million benefit in case alleging violation of fiduciary duty under state law.\n\nPomerantz has also obtained stellar results for private institutions and Taft-Hartley funds. Below are a few\nexamples:\n\n\u2022 In re Charter Commc\u2019ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1186 (E.D. Mo. 2005) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead\n Plaintiff StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC); $146.25 million class settlement, where Charter also\n agreed to enact substantive improvements in corporate governance.\n\u2022 In re Am. Italian Pasta Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-865 (W.D. Mo. 2008) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 and 417; $28.5 million aggregate settlements).\n\u2022 Richardson v. Gray, No. 116880/1995 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999); and In re Summit Metals, No. 98-\n 2870 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) (two derivative actions where the Firm represented C.C. Partners Ltd. and\n obtained judgment of contempt against controlling shareholder for having made \u201cextraordinary\u201d\n payments to himself in violation of a preliminary injunction; persuaded the court to jail him for two\n years upon his refusal to pay; and, in a related action, won a $43 million judgment after trial and\n obtained turnover of stock of two companies).\n\n Shaping the Law\n\nNot only has Pomerantz established a long track record of obtaining substantial monetary recoveries for\nour clients; whenever appropriate, we also pursue corporate governance reforms on their behalf. In In re\nChesapeake Shareholders Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. 2011), for\nexample, the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel, representing a public pension client in a derivative case\narising from an excessive compensation package granted to Chesapeake\u2019s CEO and founder. This was a\nderivative action, not a class action. Yet it is illustrative of the results that can be obtained by an\ninstitutional investor in the corporate governance arena. There we obtained a settlement which called for\nthe repayment of $12.1 million and other consideration by the CEO. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 3, 2011)\ncharacterized the settlement as \u201ca rare concession for the 52-year-old executive, who has run the\ncompany largely by his own rules since he co-founded it in 1989.\u201d The settlement also included\ncomprehensive corporate governance reforms.\n\nThe Firm has won many landmark decisions that have enhanced shareholders\u2019 rights and improved\ncorporate governance. These include decisions that established that:\n\n\u2022 defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance on an efficient market must do so by a\n preponderance of the evidence. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v.\n Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 7\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 10 of 61\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage. Waggoner v. Barclays\n PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v. Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\u2022 the ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish\n a membership with definite boundaries. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petr\u00f3leo\n Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017);\n\u2022 companies cannot adopt bylaws to regulate the rights of former stockholders. Strougo v. Hollander,\n C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015);\n\u2022 a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective disclosure\n does not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. Acticon AG v. China Ne. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.,\n 692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012);\n\u2022 an MBS holder may bring claims if the MBS price declines even if all payments of principal and interest\n have been made. Transcript of Proceedings, N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-\n 0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 25, 2009);\n\u2022 when a court selects a Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), the\n standard for calculating the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d must take into account sales as well as\n purchases. In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-cv-1825, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 (E.D.N.Y.\n Mar. 2, 2007);\n\u2022 a managing underwriter can owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to an issuer in connection with a\n public offering of the issuer stock, even in the absence of any contractual agreement. Professor John\n C. Coffee, a renowned Columbia University securities law professor, commenting on the ruling, stated:\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to change the practice of all underwriting.\u201d EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11\n (2005);\n\u2022 purchasers of options have standing to sue under federal securities laws. In re Green Tree Fin. Corp.\n Options Litig., No. 97-2679, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D. Minn. July 29, 2002);\n\u2022 shareholders have a right to a jury trial in derivative actions. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970);\n\u2022 a company may have the obligation to disclose to shareholders its Board\u2019s consideration of important\n corporate transactions, such as the possibility of a spin-off, even before any final decision has been\n made. Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1987);\n\u2022 specific standards for assessing whether mutual fund advisors breach fiduciary duties by charging\n excessive fees. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1984);\n\u2022 investment advisors to mutual funds are fiduciaries who cannot sell their trustee positions for a profit.\n Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d 1337 (2d Cir. 1971); and\n\u2022 management directors of mutual funds have a duty to make full disclosure to outside directors \u201cin\n every area where there was even a possible conflict of interest.\u201d Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1st\n Cir. 1971).\n\n Comments from the Courts\n\nThroughout its history, courts time and again have acknowledged the Firm\u2019s ability to vigorously pursue\nand successfully litigate actions on behalf of investors.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation\nsettlement in October 2019, stated:\n\n I commend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and\n thoughtful submissions during the motion practice aspect of this case . . . It\u2019s clear to me\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 8\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 11 of 61\n\n\n\n\n that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\n the settlement . . . This settlement appears to have been obtained through the hard work\n of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their efforts and not piggybacking on any other\n work that resulted in this settlement.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York wrote:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nIn approving the $3 billion settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in June 2018, Judge Jed S.\nRakoff of the Southern District of New York wrote:\n\n [T]he Court finds that Class Counsel's performance was in many respects exceptional, with\n the result that, as noted, the class is poised to enjoy a substantially larger per share\n recovery [65%] than the recovery enjoyed by numerous large and sophisticated plaintiffs\n who separately settled their claims.\n\nAt the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February\n2018, Judge Rakoff stated:\n\n [T]he lawyers in this case [are] some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the\n world.\n\nTwo years earlier, in certifying two Classes in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February 2016, Judge\nRakoff wrote:\n\n [O]n the basis not only of USS\u2019s counsel\u2019s prior experience but also the Court\u2019s\n observation of its advocacy over the many months since it was appointed Lead Counsel,\n the Court concludes that Pomerantz, the proposed class counsel, is \u201cqualified,\n experienced and able to conduct the litigation.\u201d . . . [T]he Pomerantz firm has both the\n skill and resources to represent the Classes adequately.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880, 2016\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 144133 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016) Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote:\n\n Class Counsel has developed a reputation for zealous advocacy in securities class actions\n . . . The settlement amount of $24 million is an outstanding result.\n\nAt the May 2015 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in Courtney v. Avid Technology, Inc.,\nNo. 13-cv-10686 (D. Mass. May 12, 2015), following oral argument by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Judge William\nG. Young stated:\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 9\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 12 of 61\n\n\n\n\n This has been very well litigated. It is always a privilege. I don't just say that as a matter\n of form. And I thank you for the vigorous litigation that I've been permitted to be a part\n of. [Tr. at 8-9.]\n\nAt the January 2012 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in In re Chesapeake Energy Corp.\nShareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. Jan. 30, 2012), following\noral argument by Marc I. Gross, Judge Daniel L. Owens stated:\n\n Counsel, it\u2019s a pleasure, and I mean this and rarely say it. I think I\u2019ve said it two times in\n 25 years. It is an extreme pleasure to deal with counsel of such caliber. [Tr. at 48.])\n\nIn approving the $225 million settlement in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-\nCV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.) in June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis stated:\n\n As outlined above, the recovery in this case is one of the highest ever achieved in this type\n of securities action . . . The court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been\n impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s acumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough,\n clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has not taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts\n at any stage of the litigation.\n\nIn approving a $146.25 million settlement in In re Charter Communications Securities Litigation, No. 02-\nCV-1186, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14772 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2005), in which Pomerantz served as sole Lead\nCounsel, Judge Charles A. Shaw praised the Firm\u2019s efforts, citing \u201cthe vigor with which Lead Counsel . . .\ninvestigated claims, briefed the motions to dismiss, and negotiated the settlement.\u201d He further stated:\n\n This Court believes Lead Plaintiff achieved an excellent result in a complex action, where\n the risk of obtaining a significantly smaller recovery, if any, was substantial.\n\nIn approving a $24 million settlement in In re Force Protection, Inc., No. 08 CV 845 (D.S.C. 2011), Judge C.\nWeston Houk described the Firm as \u201cattorneys of great ability and great reputation\u201d and commended the\nFirm for having \u201cdone an excellent job.\u201d\n\nIn certifying a class in a securities fraud action against analysts in DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc.,\n228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Gerard D. Lynch stated that Pomerantz had \u201cably and zealously\nrepresented the interests of the class.\u201d\n\nNumerous courts have made similar comments:\n\nx Appointing Pomerantz Lead Counsel in American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, No 05-CV-0725\n (W.D. Mo.), a class action that involved a massive fraud and restatements spanning several years, the\n District Court observed that the Firm \u201chas significant experience (and has been extremely effective)\n litigating securities class actions, employs highly qualified attorneys, and possesses ample resources\n to effectively manage the class litigation and protect the class\u2019s interests.\u201d\nx In approving the settlement in In re Wiring Devices Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.\n 9, 1980), Chief Judge Jack B. Weinstein stated that \u201cCounsel for the plaintiffs I think did an excellent\n job . . . They are outstanding and skillful. The litigation was and is extremely complex. They assumed\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 10\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 13 of 61\n\n\n\n\n a great deal of responsibility. They recovered a very large amount given the possibility of no recovery\n here which was in my opinion substantial.\u201d\nx In Snyder v. Nationwide Insurance Co., No. 97/0633, (N.Y. Supreme Court, Onondaga Cty.), a case\n where Pomerantz served as Co-Lead Counsel, Judge Tormey stated, \u201cIt was a pleasure to work with\n you. This is a good result. You\u2019ve got some great attorneys working on it.\u201d\nx In Steinberg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (E.D.N.Y. 2004), Judge Spatt, granting class\n certification and appointing the Firm as class counsel, observed: \u201cThe Pomerantz firm has a strong\n reputation as class counsel and has demonstrated its competence to serve as class counsel in this\n motion for class certification.\u201d (224 F.R.D. 67, 766.)\nx In Mercury Savings & Loan, No. 90-cv-00087 LHM (C.D. Cal. 1993), Judge McLaughlin commended the\n Firm for the \u201cabsolutely extraordinary job in this litigation.\u201d\nx In Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litigation, MDL No. 712 (D. Conn.), Judge Eginton described the\n Firm\u2019s services as \u201cexemplary,\u201d praised it for its \u201cusual fine job of lawyering . . . [in] an extremely\n complex matter,\u201d and concluded that the case was \u201cvery well-handled and managed.\u201d (Tr. at 6,\n 5/20/92; Tr. at 10, 10/10/92.)\nx In Nodar v. Weksel, No. 84 Civ. 3870 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Broderick acknowledged \u201cthat the services\n rendered [by Pomerantz] were excellent services from the point of view of the class represented,\n [and] the result was an excellent result.\u201d (Tr. at 21-22, 12/27/90.)\nx In Klein v. A.G. Becker Paribas, Inc., No. 83 Civ. 6456 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Goettel complimented the Firm\n for providing \u201cexcellent . . . absolutely top-drawer representation for the class, particularly in light of\n the vigorous defense offered by the defense firm.\u201d (Tr. at 22, 3/6/87.)\nx In Digital Securities Litigation, No. 83-3255 (D. Mass.), Judge Young lauded the Firm for its \u201c[v]ery fine\n lawyering.\u201d (Tr. at 13, 9/18/86.)\nx In Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 75 F.R.D. 34, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), Judge Frankel,\n referring to Pomerantz, said: \u201cTheir experience in handling class actions of this nature is known to the\n court and certainly puts to rest any doubt that the absent class members will receive the quality of\n representation to which they are entitled.\u201d\nx In Rauch v. Bilzerian, No. 88 Civ. 15624 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), the court, after trial, referred to Pomerantz\n partners as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel,\u201d and as having provided \u201ctop drawer, topflight\n [representation], certainly as good as I\u2019ve seen in my stay on this court.\u201d\n\n\n Corporate Governance Litigation\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. We strongly support policies and procedures designed to give shareholders\nthe ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. We vigorously pursue corporate governance reform,\nparticularly in the area of excess compensation, where it can address the growing disparity between the\nsalaries of executives and the workers of major corporations. We have successfully utilized litigation to\nbring about corporate governance reform in numerous cases, and always consider whether such reforms\nare appropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance Practice Group, led by Partner Gustavo F. Bruckner, enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes actions challenging corporate transactions that arise from an unfair\nprocess or result in an unfair price for shareholders.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 11\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 14 of 61\n\n\n\n\nIn September 2017, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery\nDivision, approved Pomerantz\u2019s settlement in a litigation against Ocean Shore Holding Co. The settlement\nprovided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In so doing, Judge Mendez became the first New\nJersey state court judge to formally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521\nF.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). There has never before been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting\nout the factors a court must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be\ndetermined to be fair and adequate. After conducting an analysis of each of the nine Girsh factors and\nholding that \u201cclass actions settlements involving non-monetary benefits to the class are subject to more\nexacting scrutiny,\u201d Judge Mendez held that the proposed settlement provided a material benefit to the\nshareholders.\n\nIn February 2018, the Maryland Circuit Court, Montgomery County, approved a $17.5 million settlement\nthat plaintiffs achieved as additional consideration on behalf of a class of shareholders of American\nCapital, Ltd. In re Am. Capital, Ltd. S\u2019holder Litig., C.A. No. 422598-V (2018). The settlement resolved\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding a forced sale of American Capital.\n\nPomerantz filed an action challenging the sale of American Capital, a Delaware corporation with its\nheadquarters in Maryland. Among other things, American Capital\u2019s board of directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d)\nagreed to sell the company at a price below what two other bidders were willing to offer. Worse, the\nmerger price was even below the amount that shareholders would have received in the company\u2019s\nplanned phased liquidation, which the company was considering under pressure from Elliott\nManagement, an activist hedge fund and holder of approximate 15% of American Capital stock. Elliott was\nnot originally named as a defendant, but after initial discovery showed the extent of its involvement in\nthe Board\u2019s breaches of fiduciary duty, Elliott was added as a defendant in an amended complaint under\nthe theory that Elliott exercised actual control over the Board\u2019s decision-making. Elliott moved to dismiss\non jurisdictional grounds and additionally challenged its alleged status as a controller of American Capital.\nIn June 2017, minutes before the hearing on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, a partial settlement was\nentered into with the members of the Board for $11.5 million. The motion to dismiss hearing proceeded\ndespite the partial settlement, but only as to Elliott. In July 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss,\nfinding that Elliott, \u201cby virtue solely of its own conduct, . . . has easily satisfied the transacting business\nprong of the Maryland long arm statute.\u201d The court also found that the \u201camended complaint in this case\nsufficiently pleads that Elliott was a controller with respect to\u201d the sale, thus implicating a higher standard\nof review. Elliott subsequently settled the remaining claims for an additional $6 million. Pomerantz served\nas Co-Lead Counsel.\n\nIn May 2017, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon approved the settlement achieved by Pomerantz\nand co-counsel of a derivative action brought by two shareholders of Lithia Motors, Inc. The lawsuit\nalleged breach of fiduciary duties by the board of directors in approving, without any meaningful review,\nthe Transition Agreement between Lithia Motors and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder,\nCEO, and Chairman, who was stepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, Bryan DeBoer,\nnegotiated virtually all the material terms of the Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the\nsenior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car allowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits,\nin addition to the $200,000 per year that he would receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nThe Lithia settlement extracted corporate governance therapeutics that provide substantial benefits to\nLithia and its shareholders and redress the wrongdoing alleged by plaintiffs. The board will now be\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 12\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 15 of 61\n\n\n\n\nrequired to have at least five independent directors\u2014as defined under the New York Stock Exchange\nrules\u2014by 2020; a number of other new protocols will be in place to prevent self-dealing by board\nmembers. Further, the settlement calls for the Transition Agreement to be reviewed by an independent\nauditor who will determine whether the annual payments of $1,060,000 for life to Sidney DeBoer are\nreasonable. Lithia has agreed to accept whatever decision the auditor makes.\n\nIn January 2017, the Group received approval of the Delaware Chancery Court for a $5.6 million\nsettlement it achieved on behalf of a class of shareholders of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. over an\nignored merger offer in 2012. In re Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch.).\n\nThe Group obtained a landmark ruling in Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch.), that fee-shifting\nbylaws adopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to shareholders affected by the transaction.\nThey were also able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the going private\ntransaction.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Super. Ct.), the Group caused Implant Sciences to hold\nits first shareholder annual meeting in five years and put an important compensation grant up for a\nshareholder vote.\n\nIn Smollar v. Potarazu, C.A. No. 10287-VCN (Del. Ch.), the Group pursued a derivative action to bring about\nthe appointment of two independent members to the board of directors, retention of an independent\nauditor, dissemination of financials to shareholders and the holding of first ever in-person annual meeting,\namong other corporate therapeutics.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon athletica, Inc.,\nC.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch.), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, the Chancery Court ordered the\nproduction of the chairman\u2019s 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found that a stock trading plan\nestablished by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than the chairman himself,\nwould liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude potential liability for\ninsider trading.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct.), the Group caused the Merger\nAgreement to be amended to provide a \u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for the holders of North State\nBancorp\u2019s common stock in connection with the shareholder vote on the merger. As a result of the Action,\ncommon shareholders could stop the merger if they did not wish it to go forward.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s commitment to advancing sound corporate governance principles is further demonstrated\nby the more than 26 years that we have co-sponsored the Abraham L. Pomerantz Lecture Series with\nBrooklyn Law School. These lectures focus on critical and emerging issues concerning shareholder rights\nand corporate governance and bring together top academics and litigators.\n\nOur bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor, provides institutional investors updates and insights\non current issues in corporate governance.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 13\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 16 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Strategic Consumer Litigation\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group, led by Partner Jordan Lurie, represents\nconsumers in actions that seek to recover monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of class members while\nalso advocating for important consumer rights. The attorneys in this group have successfully prosecuted\nclaims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song\nBeverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Song Beverly Credit Card Act. They have resolved data breach\nprivacy cases and cases involving unlawful recording, illegal background checks, unfair business practices,\nmisleading advertising, and other consumer finance related actions. All of these actions also have resulted\nin significant changes to defendants\u2019 business practices.\n\nPomerantz currently represents consumers in a nationwide class action against Facebook for mistargeting\nads. Plaintiff alleges that Facebook programmatically displays a material percentage of ads to users\noutside the defined target market and displays ads to \u201cserial Likers\u201d outside the defined target audience\nin order to boost Facebook\u2019s revenue. IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Case No.\n4:18-cv-05286 PJH.\n\nPomerantz has pioneered litigation to establish claims for public injunctive relief under California\u2019s unfair\nbusiness practices statute. For example, Pomerantz has filed cases seeking to prevent major auto\nmanufacturers from unauthorized access to, and use of, drivers\u2019 vehicle data without compensation, and\nseeking to require the auto companies to share diagnostic data extracted from drivers\u2019 vehicles. The\nStrategic Consumer Litigation practice group is also prosecuting class cases against auto manufacturers\nfor failing to properly identify high-priced parts that must be covered in California under extended\nemissions warranties.\n\nOther consumer matters handled by Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group include\nactions involving cryptocurrency, medical billing, price fixing, and false advertising of various consumer\nproducts and services.\n\n\n Antitrust Litigation\nPomerantz has earned a reputation for prosecuting complex antitrust and consumer class actions with\nvigor, innovation, and success. Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust and Consumer Group has recovered billions of\ndollars for the Firm\u2019s business and individual clients and the classes that they represent. Time and again,\nPomerantz has protected our free-market system from anticompetitive conduct such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, exclusive territorial division, pernicious pharmaceutical conduct, and false advertising.\nPomerantz\u2019s advocacy has spanned across diverse product markets, exhibiting the Antitrust and\nConsumer Group\u2019s versatility to prosecute class actions on any terrain.\n\nPomerantz has served and is currently serving in leadership or Co-Leadership roles in several high-profile\nmulti-district litigation class actions. In December 2018, the Firm achieved a $31 billion partial settlement\nwith three defendants on behalf of a class of U.S. lending institutions that originated, purchased or held\nloans paying interest rates tied to the U.S. Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (USD LIBOR). It is alleged\nthat the class suffered damages as a result of collusive manipulation by the LIBOR contributor panel banks\nthat artificially suppressed the USD LIBOR rate during the class period, causing the class members to\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 14\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 17 of 61\n\n\n\n\nreceive lower interest payments than they would have otherwise received. In re Libor Based Financial\nInstruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262.\n\nPomerantz represented baseball and hockey fans in a game-changing antitrust class action against Major\nLeague Baseball and the National Hockey League, challenging the exclusive territorial division of live\ntelevision broadcasts, internet streaming, and the resulting geographic blackouts. See Laumann v. NHL\nand Garber v. MLB (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\nPomerantz has spearheaded the effort to challenge harmful anticompetitive conduct by pharmaceutical\ncompanies\u2014including Pay-for-Delay Agreements\u2014that artificially inflates the price of prescription drugs\nby keeping generic versions off the market.\n\nEven prior to the 2013 precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Actavis, Pomerantz litigated and\nsuccessfully settled the following generic-drug-delay cases:\n\n x In re Flonase Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2008) ($35 million);\n x In re Toprol XL Antitrust Litig. (D. Del. 2006) ($11 million); and\n x In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2004) ($21.5 million).\n\nOther exemplary victories include Pomerantz\u2019s prominent role in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust\nLitigation (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement in excess of $1 billion for class members, one of the\nlargest antitrust settlements in history. Pomerantz also played prominent roles in In re Sorbates Direct\nPurchaser Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in over an $82 million recovery, and in In re\nMethionine Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in a $107 million recovery. These cases illustrate\nthe resources, expertise, and commitment that Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust Group devotes to prosecuting some\nof the most egregious anticompetitive conduct.\n\n\n A Global Advocate for Asset Managers\n and Public and Taft-Hartley Pension Funds\nPomerantz represents some of the largest pension funds, asset managers, and institutional investors\naround the globe, monitoring assets of over $9 trillion, and growing. Utilizing cutting-edge legal strategies\nand the latest proprietary techniques, Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights\nthrough our securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring program.\n\nPomerantz partners routinely advise foreign and domestic institutional investors on how best to evaluate\nlosses to their investment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct and how best to maximize their\npotential recoveries worldwide. In particular, Pomerantz Partners Jeremy Lieberman and Jennifer Pafiti\nregularly travel throughout the U.S. and across the globe to meet with clients on these issues and are\nfrequent speakers at investor conferences and educational forums in North America, Europe, and the\nMiddle East.\n\nPomerantz was honored by European Pensions with its inaugural 2020 Thought Leadership award in\nrecognition of significant contributions the Firm has made in the European pension environment.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 15\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 18 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Institutional Investor Services\nPomerantz offers a variety of services to institutional investors. Through the Firm\u2019s proprietary system,\nPomTrack\u0093, Pomerantz monitors client portfolios to identify and evaluate potential and pending securities\nfraud, ERISA and derivative claims, and class action settlements. Monthly customized PomTrack\u0093 reports\nare included with the service. PomTrack\u0093 currently monitors assets of over $9.4 trillion for some of the\nmost influential institutional investors worldwide.\n\nWhen a potential securities claim impacting a client is identified, Pomerantz offers to analyze the case\u2019s\nmerits and provide a written analysis and recommendation. If litigation is warranted, a team of Pomerantz\nattorneys will provide efficient and effective legal representation. The experience and expertise of our\nattorneys\u2014which have consistently been acknowledged by the courts\u2014allow Pomerantz to vigorously\npursue the claims of investors, taking complex cases to trial when warranted.\n\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. The Firm strongly support policies and procedures designed to give\nshareholders the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. Pomerantz has successfully utilized\nlitigation to bring about corporate governance reform, and always considers whether such reforms are\nappropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz provides clients with insightful and timely commentary on matters essential to effective fund\nmanagement in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor and regularly sponsors conferences\nand roundtable events around the globe with speakers who are experts in securities litigation and\ncorporate governance matters.\n\n\n Attorneys\n Partners\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman is Pomerantz\u2019s Managing Partner. He became associated with the Firm in August\n2004 and was elevated to Partner in January 2010. The Legal 500, in honoring Jeremy as a Leading Lawyer\nand Pomerantz as a 2021 and 2022 Tier 1 Plaintiffs Securities Law Firm, stated that \u201cJeremy Lieberman is\nsuper impressive\u2014a formidable adversary for any defense firm.\u201d Among the client testimonials posted on\nThe Legal 500\u2019s website: \u201cJeremy Lieberman led the case for us with remarkable and unrelenting energy\nand aggression. He made a number of excellent strategic decisions which boosted our recovery.\u201d\nLawdragon has named Jeremy among the Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers in the United States each\nyear from 2019 to 2024. Super Lawyers\u00ae named him among the Top 100 Lawyers in the New York Metro\narea in 2021. In 2020, Jeremy won a Distinguished Leader award from the New York Law Journal. He was\nhonored as Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 2019 Plaintiff Attorney of the Year. In 2018, Jeremy was honored as a\nTitan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360 and as a Benchmark Litigation Star. The Pomerantz team that Jeremy\nleads was named a 2018 Securities Practice Group of the Year.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 16\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 19 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJeremy led the securities class action litigation In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, which arose from a\nmulti-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro\nS.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel. The biggest instance of corruption in the\nhistory of Brazil ensnared not only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including\nformer president Lula da Silva and one-third of the Brazilian Congress. In January and February 2018,\nJeremy achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class\naction settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a\nforeign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the\nlargest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities\nclass action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJeremy also secured a significant victory for Petrobras investors at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,\nwhen the court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that\nhad been imposed by the Third Circuit Courts of Appeals. The ruling will have a positive impact on plaintiffs\nin securities fraud litigation. Indeed, the Petrobras litigation was honored in 2019 as a National Impact\nCase by Benchmark Litigation.\n\nJeremy was Lead Counsel in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF\n(S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm achieved a $110 million settlement for the class. Plaintiff alleged that Fiat\nChrysler concealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d\nsoftware designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had\naccused Fiat Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provided the class\nof investors with as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to\nhistorical statistics in class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between\n1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nIn November 2019, Jeremy achieved a critical victory for investors in the securities fraud class action\nagainst Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey\ncertified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the New York Stock Exchange and\nthe Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of institutional investors that purchased\nPerrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V. to tender Perrigo shares. This is the first\ntime since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a\nnon-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency necessary allow for class\ncertification.\n\nJeremy headed the Firm\u2019s individual action against pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries\nLtd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together, \u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former\nemployees and officers, relating to alleged anticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva\nis a dual-listed company, and the Firm represents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased\nTeva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global\ninvestors when the district court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims.\nClal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn 2019, Jeremy achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile\nsecurities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled\ninstitutional investors about the manipulation of the banking giant\u2019s so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 17\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 20 of 61\n\n\n\n\nin order to provide a trading advantage to high-frequency traders over its institutional investor clients.\nThis case turned on the duty of integrity owed by Barclays to its clients. In November 2017, Jeremy\nachieved precedent-setting victories for investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that\ndirect evidence of price impact is not always necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the\npresumption of reliance, and that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by\na preponderance of the evidence rather than merely meeting a burden of production.\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s securities class action litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., in which Pomerantz, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case involved the biggest data\nbreaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were compromised. This was the first\nsignificant settlement to date of a securities fraud class action filed in response to a data breach.\n\nIn 2018 Jeremy achieved a $3.3 million settlement for the Class in the Firm\u2019s securities class action against\nCorinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in the country, for alleged\nmisrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable regulations, and enrollment\nstatistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a particularly noteworthy victory\nbecause Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had dismissed two prior lawsuits\nagainst Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s litigation team that in 2018 secured a $31 million partial settlement with three\ndefendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, a closely watched multi-district\nlitigation, which concerns the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rigging scandal.\n\nIn In re China North East Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation, Jeremy achieved a significant victory for\nshareholders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whereby the Appeals Court\nruled that a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective\ndisclosure did not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. The Second Circuit\u2019s decision was deemed\n\u201cprecedential\u201d by the New York Law Journal and provides critical guidance for assessing damages in a \u00a7\n10(b) action.\n\nJeremy had an integral role in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which he and his\npartners achieved a historic $225 million settlement on behalf of the Class, which was the second-largest\noptions backdating settlement to date.\n\nJeremy regularly consults with Pomerantz\u2019s international institutional clients, including pension funds,\nregarding their rights under the U.S. securities laws. Jeremy is working with the Firm\u2019s international clients\nto craft a response to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., which limited\nthe ability of foreign investors to seek redress under the federal securities laws.\n\nJeremy is a frequent lecturer worldwide regarding current corporate governance and securities litigation\nissues.\n\nJeremy graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2002. While in law school, he served as a\nstaff member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Upon graduation, he began his career at a major New\nYork law firm as a litigation associate, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 18\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 21 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJeremy is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern,\nEastern, and Western Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern\nDistricts of Texas, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin, and the Northern District of Illinois; United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third,\nFourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme\nCourt.\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner heads Pomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance practice group, which enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes litigation challenging corporate actions that harm shareholders. Under\nGustavo\u2019s leadership, the Corporate Governance group has achieved numerous noteworthy litigation\nsuccesses. He has been quoted on corporate governance issues by The New York Times, The Wall Street\nJournal, Bloomberg, Law360, and Reuters, and was honored from 2016 through 2021 by Super Lawyers\u00ae\nas a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on no more than 5% of eligible\nattorneys in the New York Metro area. In 2023, he was included on Lawdragon\u2019s list of the 500 Leading\nPlaintiff Financial Lawyers. Gustavo regularly appears in state and federal courts across the nation.\nGustavo presented at the prestigious Institute for Law and Economic Policy conference.\n\nGustavo is a fierce advocate of aggressive corporate clawback policies that allow companies to recover\ndamages from officers and directors for reputational and financial harm. Most recently, in McIntosh vs\nKeizer, et al., Docket No. 2018-0386 (Del. Ch.), Pomerantz filed a derivative suit on behalf of Hertz Global\nHoldings, Inc. shareholders, seeking to compel the Hertz board of directors to claw back millions of dollars\nin unearned and undeserved payments that the Company made to former officers and directors who\nsignificantly damaged Hertz through years of wrongdoing and misconduct. Under pressure from plaintiff\u2019s\nligation efforts, the Hertz board of directors elected to take unprecedented action and mooted plaintiff\u2019s\nclaims, initiating litigation to recover tens of millions of dollars in incentive compensation and more than\n$200 million in damages from culpable former Hertz executives.\n\nPomerantz, through initiation and prosecution of a shareholder derivative action, forced the Hertz board\nto seek clawback from former officers and directors of the company, unjustly enriched after causing the\nCompany to file inaccurate and false financial statements leading to a $235 million restatement and $16\nmillion fee to the SEC.\n\nIn September 2017, Gustavo\u2019s Corporate Governance team achieved a settlement in New Jersey Superior\nCourt that provided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In approving the settlement, Judge\nJulio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery Division, became the first New Jersey state court judge to\nformally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975).\nNever before has there been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting out the factors a court\nmust consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be determined to be fair and\nadequate.\n\nGustavo successfully argued Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015), obtaining a landmark\nruling in Delaware that bylaws adopted after shareholders are cashed out do not apply to shareholders\naffected by the transaction. In the process, Gustavo and the Corporate Governance team beat back a fee-\nshifting bylaw and were able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 19\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 22 of 61\n\n\n\n\n\u201cgoing private\u201d transaction. Shortly thereafter, the Delaware Legislature adopted legislation to ban fee-\nshifting bylaws.\n\nIn Stein v. DeBoer (Or. Cir. Ct. 2017), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance group achieved a settlement\nthat provides significant corporate governance therapeutics on behalf of shareholders of Lithia Motors,\nInc. The company\u2019s board had approved, without meaningful review, the Transition Agreement between\nthe company and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder, CEO, and Chairman, who was\nstepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, negotiated virtually all the material terms of\nthe Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the senior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car\nallowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits, in addition to the $200,000 per year that he\nwould receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance\ngroup, by initiating litigation, caused Implant Sciences to hold its first shareholder annual meeting in 5\nyears and to place an important compensation grant up for a shareholder vote.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate\nGovernance team caused the North State Bancorp merger agreement to be amended to provide a\n\u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for common shareholders in connection with the shareholder vote\non the merger. As a result of the action, common shareholders had the ability to stop the merger if they\ndid not wish it to go forward.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters\u2019 Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon Athletica,\nInc., C.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, Gustavo successfully\nargued for the production of the company chairman\u2019s Rule 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found\nthat a stock trading plan established by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than\nthe chairman himself, would liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude\npotential liability for insider trading.\n\nGustavo was Co-Lead Counsel in In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7328-VCN\n(Del. Ch. 2012), obtaining the elimination of stand-still provisions that allowed third parties to bid for\nGreat Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a third-party bidder and approximately $94 million\n(57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf shareholders.\n\nGustavo received his law degree in 1992 from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he served\nas an editor of the Moot Court Board and on the Student Council. Upon graduation, he received the award\nfor outstanding student service.\n\nAfter graduating law school, Gustavo served as Chief-of-Staff to a New York City legislator.\n\nGustavo is a Mentor and Coach to the NYU Stern School of Business, Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial\nStudies, New Venture Competition. He was a University Scholar at NYU where he obtained a B.S. in\nMarketing and International Business in 1988 and an MBA in Finance and International Business in 1989.\nGustavo is a Trustee and former Treasurer of the Beit Rabban Day School, and an arbitrator in the Civil\nCourt of the City of New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 20\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 23 of 61\n\n\n\n\nGustavo is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey; the United States District Courts for the\nEastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey; the Eastern District\nof Wisconsin; the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits; and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\nBrian Calandra\n\nBrian Calandra joined Pomerantz in June 2019 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in January 2023.\nHe has extensive experience in securities, antitrust, complex commercial, and white-collar matters in\nfederal and state courts nationwide. Brian has represented issuers, underwriters, and individuals in\nsecurities class actions involving the financial, telecommunications, real estate, and pharmaceutical\nindustries. He has also represented financial institutions in antitrust class actions concerning foreign\nexchange; supra-national, sub-sovereign and agency bonds; bonds issued by the government of Mexico;\nand credit card fees. In 2021, Brian was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation\nAttorney\u201d.\n\nBrian has written multiple times on developments in securities law and other topics, including co-\nauthoring an overview of insider trading law and enforcement for Practical Compliance & Risk\nManagement for the Securities Industry, co-authoring an analysis of anti-corruption compliance risks\nposed by sovereign wealth funds for Risk & Compliance, and authoring an analysis of the effects of the\n2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act on women in bankruptcy for\nthe Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Brian was a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP. Brian graduated\nfrom Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 2009, cum laude, Order of the Coif. While at Rutgers, Brian was co-\neditor-in-chief of the Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter and received the Justice Henry E. Ackerson Prize for\nDistinction in Legal Skills and the Carol Russ Memorial Prize for Distinction in Promoting Women\u2019s Rights.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United\nStates Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Tenth Circuits; and the United States\nSupreme Court.\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia is a Partner in Pomerantz\u2019s New York office, where he specializes in securities class action\nlitigation. He has extensive experience litigating high-profile securities cases in federal and state courts\nacross the country. Justin has represented issuers, underwriters, and senior executives in matters\ninvolving a range of industries, including the financial services, life sciences, real estate, technology, and\nconsumer retail sectors. His practice covers the full spectrum of proceedings from pre-suit demand\nthrough settlement.\n\nJustin joined Pomerantz as a Partner in October 2022. Before joining Pomerantz, Justin was counsel at a\nlarge international law firm where he focused on securities litigation and other complex shareholder class\naction litigation. He previously served as a law clerk to Judge Mark Falk of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 21\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 24 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJustin received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the\nFordham International Law Journal. He earned his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University with a\nconcentration in Business and Economics.\n\nJustin is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Colorado; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third,\nand Tenth Circuits.\n\nEmma Gilmore\n\nEmma Gilmore is a Partner at Pomerantz and is regularly involved in high-profile class-action litigation. In\n2024, Benchmark Litigation selected her as \u201cPlaintiff Litigator of the Year.\u201d In 2023, the National Law\nJournal named her a Plaintiffs\u2019 Attorney Trailblazer and Benchmark Litigation shortlisted her for Plaintiff\nLitigator of the Year. Emma was honored by Law360 in 2023 and in 2018 as an MVP in Securities Litigation,\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. In 2018, Emma was the\nfirst woman plaintiff attorney to receive this outstanding award since it was initiated in 2011. In 2021,\nEmma was awarded a spot on National Law Journal\u2019s prestigious Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar list. In\n2021 and 2020, she was named by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation\u2014an\nhonor bestowed on only seven plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers in the U.S. those years. The National Law Journal and\nthe New York Law Journal honored her as a \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer.\u201d Emma has been honored since\n2018 as a Super Lawyer\u00ae. She has been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff\nFinancial Lawyers.\n\nEmma is regularly invited to speak about recent trends and developments in securities litigation. She\nserves on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Securities Litigation Committee. Emma regularly counsels\nclients around the world on how to maximize recoveries on their investments.\n\nEmma played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s class action case in the Southern District of New York against\nBrazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in\nwhich the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. In a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz achieved a historic\n$3 billion settlement with Petrobras. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a\ndecade but is the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest class\naction settlement ever achieved in the United States, and the largest settlement achieved by a foreign\nlead plaintiff. The biggest instance of corruption in the history of Brazil had ensnared not only Petrobras'\nformer executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former president Lula da Silva and one-third of\nthe Brazilian Congress. Emma traveled to Brazil to uncover evidence of fraud and drafted the complaint.\nShe deposed and defended numerous fact and expert witnesses, including deposing the former CEO of\nPetrobras, the whistleblower, and the chief accountant. She drafted the appellate brief, playing an\ninstrumental role in securing a significant victory for investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of\nAppeals, when the Court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class\ncertification that had been imposed by other circuit courts. She opposed defendants' petition for a writ\nof certiorari to the Supreme Court. Emma successfully obtained sanctions against a professional objector\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 22\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 25 of 61\n\n\n\n\nchallenging the integrity of the settlement, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the\nSecond Circuit.\n\nEmma organized a group of twenty-seven of the foremost U.S. scholars in the field of evidence and\nspearheaded the effort to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf in a critical\nissue for investors. One of the two issues before the High Court in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al v.\nArkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20-222) squarely affected investors\u2019 ability to pursue\nclaims collectively as a class: whether, in order to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the\nCourt in the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, defendants bear the burden of persuasion, or whether\nthey bear only the much lower burden of production. The scholars argued that defendants carry the higher\nburden of persuasion. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Pomerantz and the scholars.\n\nEmma led the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Deutsche Bank and its executives, arising from the\nBank\u2019s improper anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that,\ndespite the Bank\u2019s representations that it implemented a \u201crobust and strict\u201d Know Your Customer\nprogram with \u201cspecial safeguards\u201d for politically exposed persons (PEPs), defendants repeatedly\nexempted high-net-worth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, enabling their criminal\nactivities through the Bank\u2019s facilities. For example, Deutsche Bank continued \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d with\nJeffrey Epstein even after learning that 40 underage girls had come forward with testimony that he had\nsexually assaulted them. Deutsche Bank\u2019s former CEOs also onboarded, retained, and serviced Russian\noligarchs and other clients reportedly engaged in criminal activities, with little or no due diligence. On\nOctober 20, 2022, Emma secured for investors nearly 50% of recoverable damages, which reflects a\npremium for the palpable misconduct and is exceptionally high for securities class action settlements. The\nDeutsche Bank litigation and settlement serve as important legal precedents aimed to deter financial\ninstitutions from enabling the wealthy and powerful to commit crimes in return for financial benefits to\nthe institutions.\n\nEmma played a leading role in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action that alleged\nBarclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking giant\u2019s use of so-called\n\u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. She secured an important precedent-setting opinion from the Second Circuit.\nEmma organized a group of leading evidence experts who filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs\u2019 position\nin the Second Circuit.\n\nEmma secured a unanimous decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, benefiting\ndefrauded investors in Costa Brava Partnership III LP v. ChinaCast Education Corp. In an issue of first\nimpression, the Ninth Circuit held that imputation of the CEO's scienter to the company was warranted\nvis-a-vis innocent third parties, despite the fact that the executive acted for his own benefit and to the\ncompany's detriment.\n\nShe has also devoted a significant amount of time to pro bono matters. She played a critical role in securing\na unanimous ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional a state law banning\ncohabiting individuals from adopting children or serving as foster parents. The ruling was a relief for the\n1,600-plus children in the state of Arkansas who needed a permanent family. The litigation generated\nsignificant publicity, including coverage by the Arkansas Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York\nTimes.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 23\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 26 of 61\n\n\n\n\nShe was Lead Counsel in the Firm's class action litigation against Arconic, in which she secured a $74\nmillion settlement for the class. Arconic is the U.S. company that manufactured the highly flammable\naluminum cladding allegedly responsible for the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that eradicated a\npublic housing block, killing 72 people and injuring 70 other tenants. Arconic repeatedly misrepresented\nto the market its safety protocols and the safety classification of its cladding products. When the truth\nabout Arconic\u2019s unsafe practices emerged, investors lost over $1 billion in damages.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Emma was a litigation associate with the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher\nand Flom, LLP, and Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. She worked on the WorldCom Securities Litigation, which\nsettled for $2 billion.\n\nShe also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, former U.S. Chief Judge for the Eastern\nDistrict of New York.\n\nEmma graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, where she served as a staff editor for the Brooklyn\nLaw Review. She was the recipient of two CALI Excellence for the Future Awards, in the subjects of\nevidence and discovery. She graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University, with a BA in\nFrench and a minor in Business.\n\nShe serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMichael Grunfeld\n\nMichael Grunfeld is a Partner at Pomerantz LLP. He has extensive experience in securities, derivative,\ncomplex commercial, and white-collar matters in both federal and state courts nationwide.\n\nHe has played a leading role in some of the Firm\u2019s significant class action litigation, including its case\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc. arising out of the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which the Firm, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement on behalf of the Class. This settlement made history as the\nfirst substantial shareholder recovery in a securities fraud class action related to a cybersecurity breach.\nMichael also plays a leading role in many of the Firm\u2019s other ongoing class actions.\n\nIn 2020 and 2022, Michael was included on Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under Hot List, an honor granted\nto a few of the \u201cbest and brightest law firm partners [under 40 years old] who stand out in their practices.\u201d\nIn 2019, Law360 named him a Rising Star. Michael has been ranked by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Top-Rated\nSecurities Litigation Attorney from 2020 - 2024, and as a New York Metro Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.\n\nMichael also leads Pomerantz\u2019s litigation on behalf of the Colorado Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System\nas an intervenor in The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust v. Johnson & Johnson. At issue is an activist\ninvestor\u2019s attempt to have Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d) shareholders vote on a proxy proposal instituting a\ncorporate bylaw that would require all securities fraud claims against the company to be pursued through\nmandatory arbitration, and that would waive shareholder\u2019s rights to bring securities\nclass actions. In March 2022, the district court handed down an important victory for shareholders when\nit granted J&J\u2019s and the Intervenors\u2019 Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 24\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 27 of 61\n\n\n\n\nMichael co-authored a chapter on damages in securities class actions for the LexisNexis treatise, Litigating\nSecurities Class Actions.\n\nHis earlier career highlights include serving as a clerk for Judge Ronald Gilman of the Sixth Circuit Court of\nAppeals and as a foreign law clerk for Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court. Before joining\nPomerantz, he worked as a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,\nWharton & Garrison LLP.\n\nMichael graduated from Columbia Law School in 2008, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. He\ngraduated from Harvard University with an A.B. in Government, magna cum laude, in 2004.\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado; and the United States\nCourts of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II joined Pomerantz in June 2015 and was elevated to Of Counsel to the Firm in 2019.\nHe was elevated to Partner in 2022. Alex leads the Firm\u2019s case origination team, identifying and\ninvestigating potential violations of the federal securities laws. In 2023, Alex was selected as a Rising Star\nin the National Law Journal\u2019s Elite Trial Lawyers awards competition. This award honors lawyers under 40\nwho represent the next generation of legal leaders. He has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each\nyear since 2019.\n\nHe has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2019.FF\n\nAlex played a key role in securing Pomerantz\u2019s appointment as Lead Counsel in actions against Meta\nPlatforms, Inc., AT&T, Inc., Adobe, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Yahoo!,\nInc., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Wynn Resorts Limited, Perrigo Company plc, among others.\n\nAlex also oversees the firm\u2019s involvement on behalf of institutional investors in non-U.S. litigations,\nassisting Pomerantz clients with respect to evaluating and pursuing recovery in foreign jurisdictions,\nincluding matters in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, and elsewhere.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Alex practiced at nationally recognized law firms, where he was involved in\ncommercial, financial services, corporate governance, and securities matters.\n\nAlex graduated from Boston University School of Law (J.D.) and from the University of Oregon School of\nLaw (LL.M.). During law school, he served as a member of the Boston University Review of Banking &\nFinancial Law and participated in the Thomas Tang Moot Court Competition. In addition, Alex clerked for\nthe American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and, as a legal extern, worked on the Center for Biological\nDiversity\u2019s Clean Water Act suit against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.\n\nAlex is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern,\nWestern and Northern Districts of New York; the District of Colorado; the Eastern District of Michigan; the\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 25\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 28 of 61\n\n\n\n\nEastern District of Wisconsin; the Northern District of Illinois; the Northern District of Indiana; the\nSouthern District of Texas; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nOmar Jafri\n\nOmar Jafri is a Partner at Pomerantz. He represents defrauded investors in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation. Lawdragon has named him one of the country\u2019s Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers,\nand Super Lawyers\u00ae has recognized him as a Top-Rated Securities Litigator. Previously, Omar was\nrecognized by the National Law Journal as a Rising Star of the Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar. The National Law Journal\nselected lawyers who \u201cdemonstrated repeated success in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over\nthe last 18 months [and] possess a solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years.\u201d He\nwas also recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation between 2021 and 2023.\n\nOmar has played an integral role in numerous cases where the Firm achieved significant recoveries for\ndefrauded shareholders as Lead, Co-Lead or Additional Counsel, including: Roofer\u2019s Pension Fund v. Papa\net al. ($97 million recovery); In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Securities Litigation ($44 million\nrecovery); In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation ($24 million recovery); In re Aveo\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation ($18 million recovery, which was more than four times larger\nthan the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in its parallel litigation); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million\nsettlement); Cooper v. Thoratec Corporation et al. ($11.9 million settlement following a reversal in the\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the lower court repeatedly dismissed the case);\nThomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. Securities Litigation ($6.2 million settlement with majority\nshareholder, Avenue Capital); Solomon v. Sprint Corporation et al. ($3.75 million settlement); In re\nPaysign, Inc. Securities Litigation ($3.75 million settlement); Schaeffer v. Nabriva Therapeutics plc et al.\n($3 million settlement); In re Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement);\nTorres et al. v. Berry Corporation et al. ($2.5 million settlement); and Busic v. Orphazyme A/S et al. ($2.5\nmillion settlement).\n\nThrough vigorous litigation, Omar has helped shape important precedents for all investors. NantKwest\nwas the first case in the United States to recognize statistical proof of traceability. In Roofer\u2019s Pension\nFund v. Papa et al., the District Court independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a foreign\nexchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency to allow for class certification for the\nfirst time since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morrison. Nabriva was the first case in the Second Circuit\nto sustain a complaint based on the failure to disclose the FDA\u2019s serious criticisms identified in a Form 483\nletter. In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics et al., while the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit\ndisagreed on the merits, the Circuit held that it is erroneous to dismiss a case for lack of standing when a\nnamed plaintiff can be substituted with another class member, shutting the door on such defense tactics\nin any future case filed in that Circuit. In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation Securities Litigation was one\nof the first decisions in the country to conclude that the dissemination of a misleading emoji can be an\nactionable misrepresentation under the federal securities laws. And in Glazer Capital Management, L.P.\net al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al., Omar won a rare reversal in a securities fraud class action in\nthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a published decision that reversed the dismissal\nin Forescout, the Ninth Circuit held that lower courts must not comingle the lower standard for falsity with\nthe higher standard for scienter in analyzing the sufficiency of a securities fraud complaint, and repudiated\nnumerous arguments concerning the testimony of Confidential Witnesses that the defense bar had\nconvinced many lower courts to erroneously endorse over the years.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 26\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 29 of 61\n\n\n\n\nOmar started his legal career at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and has litigated major disputes\non behalf of institutional investors arising out of the credit crisis, including disputes related to\nCollateralized Debt Obligations, Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps and other\ncomplex financial investments. Omar also represented the Examiner in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,\nthe largest in history at the time, and helped draft a report that identified colorable claims against\nLehman\u2019s senior executives for violating their fiduciary duties. He also has a robust pro bono criminal\ndefense practice and has represented indigent defendants charged with crimes that range from simple\nbattery to arson and murder.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Omar was a law clerk to Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States District\nCourt for the Northern District of Georgia, and an associate at an international law firm where he\nrepresented clients in a wide variety of matters, including securities litigation, complex commercial\nlitigation, white collar criminal defense, and internal investigations.\n\nOmar is a 2004 honors graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, and a 2008, magna cum laude,\ngraduate of the University of Illinois College of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and\nreceived the Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\n\nOmar is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois\n(Trial Bar) and the Northern District of Indiana; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,\nFifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nJordan L. Lurie\n\nJordan L. Lurie joined Pomerantz as a partner in the Los Angeles office in December 2018. Jordan heads\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice. He was named a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer\u00ae.\n\nJordan has litigated shareholder class and derivative actions, complex corporate securities and consumer\nlitigation, and a wide range of fraud and misrepresentation cases brought under state and federal\nconsumer protection statutes involving unfair competition, false advertising, and privacy rights. Among\nhis notable representations, Jordan served as Lead Counsel in the prosecution and successful resolution\nof major nationwide class actions against Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Chrysler and General\nMotors. He also successfully preserved a multi-million dollar nationwide automotive class action\nsettlement by convincing the then Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit and his wife, who were also class\nmembers and had filed objections to the settlement, to withdraw their objections and endorse the\nsettlement.\n\nJordan has argued cases in the California Court of Appeals and in the Ninth Circuit that resulted in\npublished opinions establishing class members\u2019 rights to intervene and clarifying the standing\nrequirements for an objector to appeal. He also established a Ninth Circuit precedent for obtaining\nattorneys\u2019 fees in a catalyst fee action. Jordan has tried a federal securities fraud class action to verdict.\nHe has been a featured speaker at California Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminars and is a\ntrained ombudsman and mediator. In 2020, Jordan was recognized as a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 27\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 30 of 61\n\n\n\n\nOutside of his legal practice, Jordan is an active educator and community leader and has held executive\npositions in various organizations in the Los Angeles community. Jordan participated in the first Wexner\nHeritage Foundation leadership program in Los Angeles and the first national cohort of the Board Member\nInstitute for Jewish Nonprofits at the Kellogg School of Management.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jordan was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Weiss & Lurie\nand Senior Litigator at Capstone Law APC.\n\nJordan graduated cum laude from Yale University in 1984 with a B.A in Political Science and received his\nlaw degree in 1987 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, where he served as\nNotes Editor of the University of Southern California Law Review.\n\nJordan is a member of the State Bar of California and has been admitted to practice before the United\nStates District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, the Eastern\nand Western Districts of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.\n\nJennifer Pafiti\n\nJennifer Pafiti became associated with the Firm in April 2014 and was elevated to Partner in December\n2015. A dually qualified U.K. solicitor and U.S. attorney, she is the Firm\u2019s Head of Client Services and also\ntakes an active role in complex securities litigation, representing clients in both class and non-class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJennifer received the Innovative Leader Award in Corporate Counsel\u2019s 2024 Women, Influence, and Power\nin Law Awards. She has been recognized with inclusion in the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers\nlist and the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Leaders list. In 2023, Jennifer was one of only\nfour individuals to be honored with the New York Law Journal\u2019s Innovation Award, which recognizes\n\u201ccreative and inspiring approaches by forward-thinking firms and individuals.\u201d Jennifer was nominated as\na 2023 Lawyer of Distinction. In 2022, The Enterprise World named Jennifer as The Most Successful\nBusiness Leader to Watch. In 2021, Jennifer was selected as one of the \u201cWomen, Influence and Power in\nLaw\u201d honorees by Corporate Counsel, in the Collaborative Leadership\u2014Law Firm category. Lawdragon\nhas named Jennifer among the Leading 500 Lawyers in the United States every year since 2021. In 2020\nshe was named a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae and was recognized by Benchmark\nLitigation as a Future Star. Lawdragon has recognized Jennifer as a Leading Plaintiff Financial Attorney\nfrom 2019 through 2021. In 2019, she was also honored by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Southern California Rising\nStar in Securities Litigation, named to Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 40 & Under Hot List of the best young\nattorneys in the United States, and recognized by Los Angeles Magazine as one of Southern California\u2019s\nTop Young Lawyers. In 2018, Jennifer was recognized as a Lawyer of Distinction. She was honored by Super\nLawyers\u00ae in 2017 as both a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California. In\n2016, the Daily Journal selected Jennifer for its \u201cTop 40 Under 40\u201d list of the best young attorneys in\nCalifornia.\n\nJennifer was an integral member of the Firm\u2019s litigation team for In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, a\ncase relating to a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme at Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo\nBrasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. She helped secure a significant victory\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 28\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 31 of 61\n\n\n\n\nfor investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court rejected the heightened\nascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other Circuit courts\nsuch as the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Working closely with Lead Plaintiff, Universities\nSuperannuation Scheme Limited, she was also instrumental in achieving the historic settlement of $3\nbillion for Petrobras investors. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJennifer was involved, among other cases, in the securities class action against rare disease\nbiopharmaceutical company, KaloBios, and certain of its officers, including CEO Martin Shkreli. In 2018,\nPomerantz achieved a settlement of $3 million plus 300,000 shares for defrauded investors\u2014an excellent\nrecovery in light of the company\u2019s bankruptcy. Isensee v. KaloBios. Jennifer also helped achieve a $10\nmillion recovery for the class in a securities litigation against the bankrupt Californian energy company,\nPG&E, which arose from allegedly false statements made by the company about its rolling power outages\nin the wake of the catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. Vataj\nv. Johnson, et al.\n\nJennifer earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology at Thames Valley University in England, prior\nto studying law. She earned her law degrees at Thames Valley University (G.D.L.) and the Inns of Court\nSchool of Law (L.P.C.) in the U.K.\n\nBefore studying law in England, Jennifer was a regulated financial advisor and senior mortgage\nunderwriter at a major U.K. financial institution. She holds full CeFA and CeMAP qualifications. After\nqualifying as a solicitor, Jennifer specialized in private practice civil litigation, which included the\nrepresentation of clients in high-profile cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. Prior to joining Pomerantz,\nJennifer was an associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in their San Diego office.\n\nJennifer regularly travels throughout the U.S. and Europe to advise clients on how best to evaluate losses\nto their investment portfolios attributable to financial fraud or other misconduct, and how best to\nmaximize their potential recoveries. Jennifer is also a regular speaker at events on securities litigation and\nfiduciary duty. In 2022, Thought Leaders 4 Disputes published Jennifer\u2019s article entitled \u201cThe Globalisation\nof Securities Litigation.\u201d\n\nJennifer served on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on\nspecific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and expands\neconomic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.\n\nJennifer is a member of the National Association of Pension Fund Attorneys and represents the Firm as a\nmember of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems, the State Association of County\nRetirement Systems, the National Association of State Treasurers, the National Conference of Employee\nRetirement Systems, the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the\nU.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 29\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 32 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in England and Wales; California; the United States District Courts for the\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit.\n\nJoshua B. Silverman\n\nJoshua B. Silverman is a partner in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office. He specializes in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJosh was Lead Counsel in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, achieving a $45 million settlement, one\nof the highest percentage recoveries in the Seventh Circuit. He was also Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in In re\nMannKind Corp. Securities Litigation ($23 million settlement); In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities\nLitigation ($18 million settlement, more than four times larger than the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in parallel\nlitigation); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (very favorable\nconfidential settlement); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Cheslock Bakker & Associates (summary\njudgment award in excess of $30 million); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million settlement); Bruce\nv. Suntech Power Holdings Corp. ($5 million settlement); In re AgFeed, Inc. Securities Litigation ($7 million\nsettlement); and In re Hemispherx BioPharma Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement). Josh also\nplayed a key role in the Firm's representation of investors before the United States Supreme Court\nin StoneRidge, and prosecuted many of the Firm's other class cases, including In re Sealed Air Corp.\nSecurities Litigation ($20 million settlement).\n\nJosh, together with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a critical victory for investors in the\nsecurities fraud class action against Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey certified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the\nNew York Stock Exchange and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of\ninstitutional investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V.\nto tender Perrigo shares. This is the first time since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed\nthe market of a security traded on a non-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market\nefficiency necessary allow for class certification.\n\nSeveral of Josh\u2019s cases have set important precedent. For example, In re MannKind established that\ninvestors may support complaints with expert information. New Mexico v. Countrywide recognized that\ninvestors may show Section 11 damages for asset-backed securities even if there has been no interruption\nin payment or threat of default. More recently, NantKwest was the first Section 11 case in the nation to\nrecognize statistical proof of traceability.\n\nIn addition to prosecuting cases, Josh regularly speaks at investor conferences and continuing legal\neducation programs.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Josh practiced at McGuireWoods LLP and its Chicago predecessor, Ross &\nHardies, where he represented one of the largest independent futures commission merchants in\ncommodities fraud and civil RICO cases. He also spent two years as a securities trader, and continues to\nactively trade stocks, futures, and options for his own account.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 30\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 33 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJosh is a 1993 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he received Phi Beta Kappa honors, and a\n1996 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.\n\nJosh is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;\nthe United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; and\nthe United States Supreme Court.\n\nBrenda Szydlo\n\nBrenda Szydlo joined Pomerantz in January 2016 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in 2022. She\nbrings to the Firm extensive experience in complex civil litigation in federal and state court on behalf of\nplaintiffs and defendants, with a particular focus on securities and financial fraud litigation, litigation\nagainst pharmaceutical corporations, accountants\u2019 liability, and commercial litigation. In 2020-2024,\nBrenda was recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d She was\nincluded on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list in 2022\u20132025 and was named New\nYork Metro Top Women 2024 for Securities Litigation.\n\nBrenda played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case in the Southern District of New York\nagainst Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved a precedent-setting legal ruling and a historic\n$3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nBrenda has represented investors in additional class and private actions that have resulted in significant\nrecoveries, such as In re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was $486 million, and In re\nRefco, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was in excess of $407 million. She has also represented\ninvestors in opt-out securities actions, such as investors opting out of In re Bank of America Corp.\nSecurities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation in order to pursue their own securities action.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brenda served as Senior Counsel in a prominent plaintiff advocacy firm, where\nshe represented clients in securities and financial fraud litigation, and litigation against pharmaceutical\ncorporations and accounting firms. Brenda also served as Counsel in the litigation department of one of\nthe largest premier law firms in the world, where her practice focused on defending individuals and\ncorporations in securities litigation and enforcement, accountants\u2019 liability actions, and commercial\nlitigation.\n\nBrenda is a graduate of St. John\u2019s University School of Law, where she was a St. Thomas More Scholar and\nmember of the Law Review. She received a B.A. in economics from Binghamton University.\n\nBrenda is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits; and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 31\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 34 of 61\n\n\n\n\nMatthew L. Tuccillo\n\nA Partner since 2013, Matthew L. Tuccillo joined Pomerantz in 2011. With 25+ years of experience, he is\nrecognized as a top national securities litigator.\n\nMatt serves as the Firm\u2019s lead litigator on high-stakes securities class action litigation in courts nationwide.\nHe closely advises his institutional clients, which are regularly appointed to serve as lead plaintiffs\noverseeing such lawsuits, which often have class-wide damages of $500 million - $1 billion+. Matt\u2019s\nrepresentative cases include:\n\nx In In re Emergent Biosolutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (D. Md.), arising from\n a company\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing failures, Matt investigated and prepared a robust\n amended complaint, then succeeded in overcoming Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in September\n 2023, in securing class certification in June 2024, and in leading the case is through discovery. Matt\n secured a $40 million class-wide settlement following a mediation and months of ensuring\n negotiations. The court granted preliminary in October 2024.\nx In Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-4330-AB (S.D. Tex.), Matt successfully opposed a\n motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging a years-long, multi-prong fraud by an engineering and\n construction company that did a risky merger, delayed massive write-downs, and declared\n bankruptcy. Matt led the case through discovery, securing court orders that required defendants to\n review for production 1.25 million+ documents identified via plaintiff-authored search terms on\n plaintiff-selected custodians, as a prelude to production of 450,000+ defense and third party\n documents and 40 party and non-party fact depositions. Matt secured an order partially certifying\n the class in June 2024, which both sides cross-appealed to the Fifth Circuit.\nx In Ramos v. Comerica, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-06843-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), securities class action claims arose\n from a bank\u2019s statements regarding certain government contract programs and related operating and\n financial metrics. After multiple fact-driven amendments and hard-fought litigation of two motions\n to dismiss, the case appears for appellate litigation before the Ninth Circuit.\nx In In re Miniso Group Holding Limited Securities Litigation, No. CV-22-5815 (MR Wx) (S.D.N.Y.),\n securities class action claims arose from a China-based retail company\u2019s U.S. IPO. A further amended\n complaint will be filed after the court resolves a pending reconsideration motion regarding its dismiss\n rulings.\nx In Chun v. Fluor Corp., et al., No. 3:18-cv-01338-S (N.D. Tex.), Matt served as co-lead counsel in hard-\n fought litigation concerning underperforming, large-scale, fixed-bid projects through two motions to\n dismiss. A months-long mediation and negotiation process resulted in a court-approved $33 million\n settlement, which was a 37.5% recovery of the upheld claim value.\nx In Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-01828-H-LL (S.D. Cal.), Matt successfully\n opposed a motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit arising from a pharmaceuticals company\u2019s failure to\n advance its lead drug candidate to FDA approval. Notably, the court held that defendants\u2019 scienter\n (intent) was sufficiently pled, even though they bought, rather than sold, company stock during the\n period of alleged fraud. A successful mediation resulted in a court-approved $12.75 million\n settlement.\nx In In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.), where the court praised the\n \u201cuniformly excellent\u201d \u201cquality of lawyering,\u201d Matt spearheaded lawsuits over BP\u2019s Gulf of Mexico oil\n spill by 125+ global institutional investors. Over 9 years, he successfully opposed three motions to\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 32\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 35 of 61\n\n\n\n\n dismiss, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million documents, led the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, was\n the sole interface with BP and the Court, and secured some of the Firm\u2019s most ground-breaking\n rulings. In a ruling of first impression, he successfully argued that investors asserted viable English\n law \u201cholder claims\u201d for losses due to retention of already-owned shares in reliance on a fraud, a theory\n barred under U.S. law since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). He\n successfully argued against forum non conveniens (wrong forum) dismissal of 80+ global institutions\u2019\n lawsuits - the first ruling after Morrison v. Nat\u2019l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), to permit\n foreign investors to pursue in U.S. court their foreign law claims for losses in a foreign company\u2019s\n securities traded on a foreign exchange. He successfully argued that the U.S. Securities Litigation\n Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which extinguishes U.S. state law claims in deference to the\n U.S. federal law, should not extend to the foreign law claims of U.S. and foreign investors, a ruling that\n saved those claims from dismissal where U.S. federal law afforded no remedy after Morrison. In 2021,\n Matt achieved mediator-assisted, confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients\n including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and trusts from\n the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia. Notably, seven of these plaintiffs\n were Matt\u2019s institutional clients from the U.S., U.K., and Canada.\nx In In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J.), Matt pled a multi-\n year fraud arising at one of Canada\u2019s largest banks, based on extensive statements by former\n employees detailing underlying retail banking misconduct. Matt persuaded the court to reject a\n motion to dismiss in an order noteworthy because it validated the scienter (intent) pleading despite\n no witness speaking directly to the individual defendants\u2019 state of mind. The court approved a $13.25\n million class-wide settlement achieved after mediation.\nx In Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00755-AWT (D. Conn.), Matt persuaded the\n court, after an initial dismissal, to uphold a second amended complaint asserting five threads of fraud\n by an education funding company and its founders and to approve a $7.5 million class-wide\n settlement. Notably, the court held that the company\u2019s reported financial results violated SEC\n Regulation S-K, Item 303, for failure to disclose known trends and impacts from underlying misconduct\n \u2013 a rare ruling absent an accounting restatement.\nx In In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-05841 (N.D. Cal.), a lawsuit\n against a bankrupt drug company and its jailed ex-CEO, Matt negotiated two class-wide settlements\n totaling $3.25+ million, including cash payments and stock from the company, that were approved by\n the bankruptcy and district courts.\nx In In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-cv-09456 (S.D.N.Y.), Matt worked with\n mining, accounting, damages, and market efficiency experts to survive a motion to dismiss by a\n Canadian company with mining operations in China and NYSE-traded stock. In approving the $14\n million settlement achieved after two mediations, Judge Rakoff called the case \u201cunusually complex,\u201d\n given the technical nature of mining metrics, the need to compare mining standards in Canada, China,\n and the U.S., and the volume of Chinese-language evidence.\n\nMatt was also on the multi-firm team that represented commercial real estate investors against the\nEmpire State Building\u2019s long-term lessees/operators regarding a consolidation, REIT formation, and IPO in\nIn re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which was resolve for\na $55 million cash/securities settlement fund, a $100 million tax benefit from restructured terms, remedial\ndisclosures, and deal protections.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 33\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 36 of 61\n\n\n\n\nMatt regularly counsels institutional investors, foreign and domestic, regarding pending or potential\ncomplex litigation in the U.S. He is skilled at identifying potential securities frauds early, regularly\nproviding clients with the first opportunity to evaluate and pursue their claims, and he has worked\nextensively with outside investment management firms retained by clients to identify a winning set of\nsupporting evidence. When litigation is filed, he fully oversees its conduct and resolution, counseling\nclients throughout every step of the process, while handling all significant motions and courtroom\narguments. These skills have enabled him to sign numerous institutional clients for litigation and portfolio\nmonitoring services, including public and private pension plans, investment management firms and\nsponsored investment vehicles, from both the U.S. and abroad. Matt\u2019s clients have spearheaded the\nFirm\u2019s litigation efforts in the BP, Fluor, McDermott, Emergent, Miniso, and Comerica litigations discussed\nabove.\n\nMatt takes great pride in representing union clients. He got his own union card as a teenager (United\nFood & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 371), following in the footsteps of his grandfather\n(International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 560).\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Matt worked at a large full-service firm then plaintiff-side boutique firms in\nBoston and Connecticut, litigating complex business disputes and securities, consumer, and employment\nclass actions. His pro bono work included securing Social Security benefits for a veteran with non-service-\nrelated disabilities.\n\nMatt graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999, where he made the Dean\u2019s List. He\ngraduated from Wesleyan University in 1995, and among his various volunteer activities, he served as\nPresident of the Wesleyan Lawyers Association from 2017-2020.\n\nHis has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d (2016-present),\nLawdragon Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer (2019-present), Benchmark Litigation Star (2021-2023),\nLegal 500 Recommended Securities Litigator (2016, 2021), American Lawyer Top Rated Litigator (2023)\nand Northeast Trailblazer (2021), and a Martindale-Hubbell AV\u00ae Preeminent\u2122 peer-rated attorney (2014-\npresent). His advocacy has been covered by Bloomberg, Law360, the Houston Chronicle, the Hartford\nBusiness Journal, and other outlets.\n\nHe is a member of the Bars the Supreme Court of the United States; the State of New York; the State of\nConnecticut; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals; and\nthe United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, Connecticut,\nMassachusetts, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Southern District\nof Texas. He is regularly admitted pro hac vice in state and federal courts nationwide.\n\nAustin P. Van\n\nAustin focuses his practice on securities class actions and other high-profile litigations. Austin has\nrepeatedly been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 34\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 37 of 61\n\n\n\n\nhas been named as a Recommended Lawyer by The Legal 500. From 2018\u20132024, Austin has been honored\nas a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star. In 2020, Austin was named an MVP in Securities Litigation by Law360, as\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. Austin was named to\nBenchmark Litigation\u2019s \u201c40 and Under Hotlist\u201d in 2020 and 2021.\n\nAustin represents clients in some of the largest class actions in the country:\nx Currently represents institutional investor lead plaintiffs in a shareholder securities class action\n against social media and technology behemoth Meta Platforms, Inc. The complaint alleges that Meta\n misrepresented the impact of privacy changes in Apple\u2019s iOS operating system on Meta\u2019s core\n advertising business. Seeks to recover damages amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf\n of global investors resulting from the 26% drop in Meta\u2019s share price following the revelation of the\n true impact of these privacy changes\u2014in absolute terms, the largest one-day drop of a publicly traded\n company in U.S. history. (N.D. Cal. 2024)\nx Currently represents plaintiffs in a putative nationwide consumer class action against Apple, Inc.,\n maker of the iPhone and other technology products. The complaint alleges that Apple violated federal\n and state computer intrusion statutes and state consumer protection laws by tricking iPhone users to\n install updates to their older iPhone devices that effectively crippled them. Successfully argued and\n defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Casey Pitts. (N.D. Cal. 2024)\nx Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Hawaiian Electric Company\n and its officers. The complaint alleges that Hawaiian Electric misrepresented the actions it was taking\n to mitigate wildfire risk, and so concealed the extent of the unmitigated risk of wildfire from investors,\n who suffered billions of dollars in losses when this risk materialized in the 2023 Maui wildfire disaster\n in Lahaina. (N.D. Cal. 2023)\nx Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against GSX Techedu, n/k/a Gaotu\n Techedu, a Chinese online education company. Complaint alleges that GSX falsified half of its student\n enrollment and revenues and caused investors billions of dollars in losses when the truth became\n known. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss. (D.N.J. 2023)\nx Represented institutional investor as lead plaintiff in a securities class action against ATI Physical\n Therapy and its SPAC acquirer. The complaint alleged that ATI misrepresented that its attrition rate\n was low, when in fact the rate was twice the industry average. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019\n motion to dismiss and proceeded to discovery on all claims under Section 10(b), Section 14 and\n Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to proceed. Settled for $24.9 million. (N.D. Ill. 2023)\nx Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Citrix Systems, Inc. The complaint\n alleged that defendants violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by soliciting votes to approve the sale\n of Citrix based on a proxy that concealed from shareholders accelerating SaaS ARR, a key business\n trend, so Citrix paid shareholders less for their shares than was fair. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz. Settled case on favorable terms for\n $17.5 million. (S.D. Fl. 2024)\nx Represented certified class in a securities class action against TechnipFMC, a Fortune 500 oil and gas\n services company. Plaintiffs alleged TechnipFMC overstated its net income in its initial registration\n statement due to its use of incorrect foreign exchange rates. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, argued and won lead plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification, and\n argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion for summary judgment, all before District Judge Alfred\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 35\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 38 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Bennett. Led the class through complete preparations for trial. The case settled for approximately\n $20 million. (S.D. Tex. 2020)\nx Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against electric vehicle manufacturer Faraday\n Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. and its SPAC acquirer, Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. The\n complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Section\n 11 of the Securities Act by misrepresenting the level of committed reservations Faraday had for its\n flagship car in SEC filings, including in a proxy statement for the de-SPAC acquisition of Faraday.\n Successfully argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Christina Snyder\n and defeated defendants\u2019 motion for reconsideration. Settled case on favorable terms for $7.5\n million. (C.D. Cal. 2021)\nx Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Rockwell Medical, Inc. Based on the\n strength of the complaint, at a pre-motion conference for defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, District\n Senior Judge Allyn R. Ross stated that\u201c based on what I have reviewed, it is virtually inconceivable to\n me that the consolidated amended complaint could possibly be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion\n or a Rule 9(b) motion\u201d and that any proposed motion to dismiss \u201cwould be a complete waste of time\n and resources of counsel, of the clients \u2019money, and my time.\u201d Defendants declined even to move to\n dismiss the complaint and settled the case $3.7 million\u2014a highly favorable settlement for the class.\n (E.D.N.Y. 2019)\nx Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Franklin Wireless Inc., a maker of\n wireless routers and communications devices. Based on the strength of the complaint, defendants\n declined to move to dismiss. Successfully obtained class certification and settled the matter on terms\n highly favorable for the class for $2.4 million. (S.D. Cal. 2021)\n\nAustin received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale\nJournal of International Law. He has a B.A. from Yale University and an M.Sc. from the London School of\nEconomics. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Austin worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.\n\nAustin is admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, the\nSouthern District of Texas, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Seventh and Ninth\nCircuits, and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh joined the Firm in 1998 and was elevated to Partner in 2007. In 2024 Murielle was\nnamed a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360, and in 2022 she was selected to participate on the\npublication\u2019s Securities Editorial Board. She was named a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the\nNational Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a handful of individuals from each practice area that\nare truly agents of change\u201d and was also honored as a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Trailblazer by the New York Law\nJournal. Murielle was honored in 2019, 2020 and 2021 as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on 5% of eligible attorneys in the New York Metro\narea. Lawdragon named her a Top Plaintiffs\u2019 Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020.\n\nDuring her career at Pomerantz, Murielle has prosecuted highly successful securities class action and\ncorporate governance cases. She was one of the lead attorneys litigating In re Livent Noteholders\u2019\nSecurities Litigation, a securities class action in which she obtained a $36 million judgment against the\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 36\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 39 of 61\n\n\n\n\ncompany\u2019s top officers, a ruling which was upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal. Murielle was also part\nof the team litigating EBC I v. Goldman Sachs, where the Firm obtained a landmark ruling from the New\nYork Court of Appeals, that underwriters may owe fiduciary duties to their issuer clients in the context of\na firm-commitment underwriting of an initial public offering.\n\nMurielle led Firm's high-profile securities class action against Wynn Resorts Ltd., where the Firm served\nas lead counsel. The litigation stemmed from the company\u2019s alleged cover-up of a prolonged pattern of\nsexual misconduct by its founder and former CEO, billionaire casino mogul Stephen Wynn. In January\n2025, Murielle secured final approval of a $70 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors. Wynn\nis widely regarded as the first high-profile executive whose misconduct was exposed by the #MeToo\nmovement. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-cv-479 (D. Nev.)\n\nIn a securities class action against Ormat Technologies, Inc., Murielle achieved a $3.75 million settlement\non behalf of defrauded investors in January 2021. Ormat\u2019s securities are dual-listed on the NYSE and the\nTel Aviv Stock Exchange. Murielle persuaded the district court in exercise supplemental jurisdiction in\norder to apply U.S. securities law to the claims in the case, regardless of where investors purchased their\nsecurities.\n\nMurielle led the Firm\u2019s ground-breaking litigation that arose from the popular Pok\u00e9mon Go game, in which\nPomerantz was lead counsel. Pok\u00e9mon Go is an \u201caugmented reality\u201d game in which players use their\nsmart phones to \u201ccatch\u201d Pok\u00e9mon in real-world surroundings. GPS coordinates provided by defendants\nto gamers included directing the public to private property without the owners\u2019 permission, amounting\nto an alleged mass nuisance. In re Pok\u00e9mon Go Nuisance, No. 3:16-cv-04300 (N.D. Cal.)\n\nMurielle was co-lead counsel in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880 (S.D.\nFla.), a securities fraud class action challenging the defendants\u2019 representations that their lending\nactivities were regulatory-compliant, when in fact the company\u2019s key subsidiary engaged in rampant\nviolations of federal consumer financial protection laws, subjecting it to various government\ninvestigations and enforcement action by the CFPB and FTC. In 2016, the Firm obtained a $24 million\nsettlement on behalf of the class. She was also co-lead counsel in Robb v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 16-cv-00151\n(N.D. Cal.), a securities class action alleging that the defendants misrepresented that their key product\ndelivered \u201chighly accurate\u201d heart rate readings when in fact their technology did not consistently deliver\naccurate readings during exercise and its inaccuracy posed serious health risks to users of Fitbit\u2019s products.\nThe Firm obtained a $33 million settlement on behalf of the investor class in this action.\n\nIn 2018 Murielle, along with then-Senior Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a $3.3 million settlement\nfor the Class in the Firm\u2019s case against Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in\nthe country, for alleged misrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable\nregulations, and enrollment statistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a\nparticularly noteworthy victory because Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had\ndismissed two prior lawsuits against Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges,\nInc., No. 2:13-cv-07466 (C.D. Cal.).\n\nMurielle serves as a member and on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the non-profit\norganization Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children (\u201cCASA\u201d) of Monmouth County. She also\nserved on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on and\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 37\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 40 of 61\n\n\n\n\ndiscusses specific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and\nexpands economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. In the past, Murielle\nserved as a member of the editorial board for Class Action Reports, a Solicitor for the Legal Aid Associates\nCampaign, and has been involved in political asylum work with the Association of the Bar of the City of\nNew York.\n\nMurielle serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMurielle graduated cum laude from New York Law School in 1996, where she was the recipient of the\nIrving Mariash Scholarship. During law school, Murielle interned with the Kings County District Attorney\nand worked within the mergers and acquisitions group of Sullivan & Cromwell.\n\nMurielle is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern District of New\nYork; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits\n\nTamar A. Weinrib\n\nTamar A. Weinrib joined Pomerantz in 2008. She was Of Counsel to the Firm from 2014 through 2018 and\nwas elevated to Partner in 2019. In 2020, The Legal 500 honored her as a Next Generation Partner. Tamar\nwas named a 2018 Rising Star under 40 years of age by Law360, a prestigious honor awarded to a select\nfew \u201ctop litigators and dealmakers practicing at a level usually seen from veteran attorneys.\u201d Tamar has\nbeen recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a 2021 \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney;\u201d she was honored\nas a New York Metro Rising Star every year from 2014 to 2019.\n\nIn 2019, Tamar and Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class\nin Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\nPlaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking\ngiant\u2019s use of so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. This case turned on the duty of integrity owed by\nBarclays to its clients. In November 2016, Tamar and Jeremy achieved precedent-setting victories for\ninvestors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that direct evidence of price impact is not always\nnecessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the presumption of reliance, and that defendants\nseeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than\nmerely meeting a burden of production. In 2018, Tamar successfully opposed Defendants\u2019 petition to the\nSupreme Court for a writ of certiorari.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York stated:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nTamar headed the litigation of In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz\nachieved a settlement of $8,500,000 for the class. She successfully argued before the Second Circuit in In\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 38\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 41 of 61\n\n\n\n\nre China North East Petroleum Securities Litigation, to reverse the district court\u2019s dismissal of the\ndefendants on scienter grounds.\n\nAmong other securities fraud class actions that Tamar led to successful settlements are KB Partners I, L.P.\nv. Pain Therapeutics, Inc. ($8,500,000); New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. ($3,150,000);\nand Whiteley v. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. ($4,000,000).\n\nBefore coming to Pomerantz, Tamar had over three years of experience as a litigation associate in the\nNew York office of Clifford Chance US LLP, where she focused on complex commercial litigation. Tamar\nhas successfully tried pro bono cases, including two criminal appeals and a housing dispute filed with the\nHuman Rights Commission.\n\nTamar graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2004 and while there, won awards for\nsuccessfully competing in and coaching Moot Court competitions.\n\nTamar is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth\nCircuits.\n\nMichael J. Wernke\n\nMichael J. Wernke joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in 2014 and was elevated to Partner in 2015. He was\nnamed a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the National Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a\nhandful of individuals from each practice area that are truly agents of change.\u201d\n\nMichael, along with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, led the litigation in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler\nAutomobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, achieved a\n$110 million settlement for the class. This high-profile securities class action alleges that Fiat Chrysler\nconcealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software\ndesigned to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat\nChrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors\nwith as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics\nin class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nMichael led the securities class action Zwick Partners, LP v. Quorum Health Corp., et al., No. 3:16-cv-2475,\nachieving a settlement of $18 million for the class in June 2020. The settlement represented between\n12.7% and 42.9% of estimated recoverable damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented to\ninvestors the poor prospects of hospitals that the parent company spun off into a stand-alone company.\nIn defeating defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the complaint, Michael successfully argued that company\nfrom which Quorum was spun off was a \u201cmaker\u201d of the false statements even though all the alleged false\nstatements concerned only Quorum\u2019s financials and the class involved only purchasers of Quorum\u2019s\ncommon stock. This was a tremendous victory for plaintiffs, as cases alleging false statements of goodwill\nnotoriously struggle to survive motions to dismiss.\n\nAlong with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, Michael leads the Firm\u2019s individual action against\npharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together,\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 39\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 42 of 61\n\n\n\n\n\u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former employees and officers, relating to alleged\nanticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva is a dual-listed company; the Firm\nrepresents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased Teva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock\nExchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global investors when the district court\nagreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims. Clal Insurance Company Ltd. v.\nTeva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn December 2018, Michael, along with Pomerantz Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, secured a $31\nmillion partial settlement with three defendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust\nLitigation, a closely watched multi-district litigation, which concerns the LIBOR rigging scandal.\n\nIn October 2018, Michael secured a $15 million settlement in In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities\nLitigation, No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), a securities class action that alleges that, following an\naccounting fraud by prior management, Symbol\u2019s management misled investors about the state of its\ninternal controls and the Company\u2019s ability to forecast revenues.\n\nHe was Lead Counsel in Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., in which he achieved a $23.5 million\npartial settlement with certain defendants, securing the settlement despite an ongoing investigation by\nthe Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholder derivative actions. He played a leading role in\nIn re Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved a\nsettlement of $26 million in cash and 1,000,000 shares of Lumber Liquidators common stock for the Class.\nMichael also secured a $7 million settlement (over 30% of the likely recoverable damages) in the securities\nclass action Todd v. STAAR Surgical Company, et al., No. 14-cv-05263-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal.), which alleged\nthat STAAR concealed from investors violations of FDA regulations that threatened the approval of\nSTAAR\u2019s long awaited new product.\n\nIn the securities class action In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-01836-RSM (W.D.\nWash.), Michael secured a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed the district court\u2019s\ndismissal of the complaint. The Ninth Circuit held that the CEO\u2019s public statements that the company\u2019s\nflagship product had been approved by the FDA were misleading despite the fact that the company\u2019s\npreviously filed registration statement stated that that the product did not, at that time, require FDA\napproval.\n\nDuring the nine years prior to coming to Pomerantz, Michael was a litigator with Cahill Gordon & Reindel\nLLP, with his primary focus in the securities defense arena, where he represented multinational financial\ninstitutions and corporations, playing key roles in two of only a handful of securities class actions to go to\njury verdict since the passage of the PSLRA.\n\nIn 2020 and 2021, Michael was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d\nIn 2014 and 2015, he was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae New York Metro Rising Star.\n\nMichael received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2004. He also holds a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A.\nin Political Science from Ohio State University, where he graduated summa cum laude.\n\nHe serves on the Firm\u2019s Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 40\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 43 of 61\n\n\n\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Court for the Southern District of\nNew York; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Senior Counsel\n\nStanley M. Grossman\n\nStanley M. Grossman, Senior Counsel, is a former Managing Partner of Pomerantz. Widely recognized as\na leader in the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, he was honored in 2020 with a Lifetime Achievement award by\nthe New York Law Journal. Martindale Hubbell awarded Stan its 2021 AV Preeminent Rating\u00ae, \u201cgiven to\nattorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise,\ncommunication skills, and ethical standards by their peers.\u201d Stan was selected by Super Lawyers\u00ae as an\noutstanding attorney in the United States for the years 2006 through 2020 and was featured in the New\nYork Law Journal article Top Litigators in Securities Field\u2014A Who\u2019s Who of City\u2019s Leading Courtroom\nCombatants. Lawdragon named Stan a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020, and in 2021,\nhe was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. In 2013, Brooklyn Law School honored Stan as an\nAlumnus of the Year.\n\nStan has primarily represented plaintiffs in securities and antitrust class actions, including many of those\nlisted in the Firm biography. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970); Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d\n137 (2d Cir. 1971); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987); and In re Salomon Bros.\nTreasury Litig., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993). In 2008 he appeared before the United States Supreme Court to\nargue that scheme liability is actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). See StoneRidge\nInv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (2008). Other cases where he was the Lead or Co-Lead\nCounsel include: In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, No. 91 Civ. 5471 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ($100 million\ncash recovery); In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV-89-7135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n($100 million settlement); and In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. C98-4886 (N.D. Cal.\n2000) (over $80 million settlement for the class).\n\nIn 1992, Senior Judge Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York appointed Stan to the Executive\nCommittee of counsel charged with allocating to claimants hundreds of millions of dollars obtained in\nsettlements with Drexel Burnham & Co. and Michael Milken.\n\nMany courts have acknowledged the high quality of legal representation provided to investors by Stan. In\nGartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., No. 79 Civ. 3123 (S.D.N.Y.), where Stan was lead trial\ncounsel for plaintiff, Judge Pollack noted at the completion of the trial:\n\n [I] can fairly say, having remained abreast of the law on the factual and legal matters that\n have been presented, that I know of no case that has been better presented so as to give\n the Court an opportunity to reach a determination, for which the court thanks you.\n\nStan was also the lead trial attorney in Rauch v. Bilzerian (N.J. Super. Ct.) (directors owed the same duty\nof loyalty to preferred shareholders as common shareholders in a corporate takeover), where the court\ndescribed the Pomerantz team as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel.\u201d He headed the six week trial on\nliability in Walsh v. Northrop Grumman (E.D.N.Y.) (a securities and ERISA class action arising from\nNorthrop\u2019s takeover of Grumman), after which a substantial settlement was reached.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 41\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 44 of 61\n\n\n\n\nStan frequently speaks at law schools and professional organizations. In 2010, he was a panelist on\nSecurities Law: Primary Liability for Secondary Actors, sponsored by the Federal Bar Council, and he\npresented Silence Is Golden\u2014Until It Is Deadly: The Fiduciary\u2019s Duty to Disclose, at the Institute of\nAmerican and Talmudic Law. In 2009, Stan was a panelist on a Practicing Law Institute \u201cHot Topic Briefing\u201d\nentitled StoneRidge\u2014Is There Scheme Liability or Not?\n\nStan served on former New York State Comptroller Carl McCall\u2019s Advisory Committee for the NYSE Task\nForce on corporate governance. He is a former president of NASCAT. During his tenure at NASCAT, he\nrepresented the organization in meetings with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission\nand before members of Congress and of the Executive Branch concerning legislation that became the\nPSLRA.\n\nStan served for three years on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Committee on Ethics, as well as on the\nAssociation\u2019s Judiciary Committee. He is actively involved in civic affairs. He headed a task force on behalf\nof the Association, which, after a wide-ranging investigation, made recommendations for the future of\nthe City University of New York. He was formerly on the board of the Appleseed Foundation, a national\npublic advocacy group.\n\nStan is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Central District of California, Eastern District of Wisconsin, District of Arizona,\nDistrict of Colorado; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Ninth and Eleventh\nCircuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMarc I. Gross\n\nMarc I. Gross is Senior Counsel at Pomerantz LLP, where he has litigated securities fraud class actions for\nover four decades, serving as its Managing Partner from 2009 to 2016. His major lawsuits include SAC\nCapital (Steven Cohen\u2014insider trading); Chesapeake Energy (Aubrey McClendon\u2014insider bail out);\nCitibank (analyst Jack Grubman\u2014false AT&T stock recommendation); and Charter Communications (Paul\nAllen\u2014accounting fraud). He also litigated market efficiency issues in the firm\u2019s landmark $3 billion\nrecovery in Petrobras.\n\nMarc has also served as President of the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (\u201cILEP\u201d), which has\norganized symposiums each year where leading academics have presented papers on securities law and\nconsumer protection issues. These papers have been cited in over 200 cases, including several in the\nUnited States Supreme Court. http://www.ilep.org.\n\nMarc has addressed numerous forums in the United States on shareholder-related issues, including ILEP;\nLoyola-Chicago School of Law\u2019s Institute for Investor Protection Conference; the National Conference on\nPublic Employee Retirement Systems\u2019 (\u201cNCPERS\u201d) Legislative Conferences; PLI conferences on Current\nTrends in Securities Law; a panel entitled Enhancing Consistency and Predictability in Applying Fraud-on-\nthe-Market Theory, sponsored by the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies, as well as securities law\nstudents at NYU and Georgetown Law schools.\n\nAmong other articles, Marc authored Cooking Books? The Valuation Treadmill, 50 Sec. Reg. L. Jrl. 363\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 42\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 45 of 61\n\n\n\n\n(2022); Reputation and Securities Litigation, 47 Sec. Reg. l Jrl. 99 (2019) Back to Basic(s): Common Sense\nTrumps Econometrics, N.Y.L.J. (Jan. 8, 2018) (with Jeremy Lieberman); and Class Certification in a Post-\nHalliburton II World, 46 Loyola-Chicago L.J. 485 (2015).\n\nMarc was honored in 2022 by T\u2019ruah, the Rabbinic Call to Human Rights, for his pro bono work in support\nof the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida in their battle for recognition by Wendy\u2019s Restaurants,\nand recently joined the Board of Mainchance, a homeless drop-in shelter operating in Manhattan.\n\nMarc is a graduate of NYU Law \u201976 and Columbia College \u201973.\n\nPatrick V. Dahlstrom\n\nPatrick Dahlstrom joined Pomerantz as an associate in 1991 and was elevated to Partner in January 1996.\nHe served as Co-Managing Partner with Jeremy Lieberman in 2017 and 2018 and is now Senior Counsel.\nPatrick heads the Firm\u2019s Chicago office. He was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney\u201d from 2018\u20132021 in both Securities Litigation and Appellate matters. In 2021, Patrick\nwas inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.\n\nPatrick, a member of the Firm\u2019s Institutional Investor Practice and New Case Groups, has extensive\nexperience litigating cases under the PSLRA. He led In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,\nNo. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, recovered a $225 million settlement for\nthe Class\u2014the second-highest ever for a case involving back-dating options, and one of the largest\nrecoveries ever from an individual officer-defendant, the company\u2019s founder and former CEO. In\nComverse, the Firm obtained an important clarification of how courts calculate the \u201clargest financial\ninterest\u201d in connection with the selection of a Lead Plaintiff, in a manner consistent with Dura\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005). Judge Garaufis, in approving the settlement, lauded\nPomerantz: \u201cThe court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s\nacumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough, clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has\nnot taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts at any stage of the litigation.\u201d\n\nIn DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Patrick obtained the first class\ncertification in a federal securities case involving fraud by analysts.\n\nPatrick\u2019s extensive experience in litigation under the PSLRA has made him an expert not only at making\ncompelling arguments on behalf of Pomerantz\u2019s clients for Lead Plaintiff status, but also in discerning\nweaknesses of competing candidates. In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation and Comverse\nare the most recent examples of his success in getting our clients appointed sole Lead Plaintiff despite\ncompeting motions by numerous impressive institutional clients.\n\nPatrick was a member of the trial team in In re ICN/Viratek Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which,\nafter trial, settled for $14.5 million. Judge Wood praised the trial team: \u201c[P]laintiffs counsel did a superb\njob here on behalf of the class . . . This was a very hard fought case. You had very able, superb opponents,\nand they put you to your task . . . The trial work was beautifully done and I believe very efficiently done.\u201d\n\nPatrick\u2019s speaking engagements include interviews by NBC and the CBC regarding securities class actions,\nand among others, a presentation at the November 2009 State Association of County Retirement Systems\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 43\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 46 of 61\n\n\n\n\nFall Conference as the featured speaker at the Board Chair/Vice Chair Session entitled: \u201cCleaning Up After\nthe 100 Year Storm. How trustees can protect assets and recover losses following the burst of the housing\nand financial bubbles.\u201d\n\nPatrick is a 1987 graduate of the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C.,\nwhere he was a Dean\u2019s Fellow, Editor in Chief of the Administrative Law Journal, a member of the Moot\nCourt Board representing Washington College of Law in the New York County Bar Association\u2019s Antitrust\nMoot Court Competition, and a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services/Public Interest\nLaw Clinic. Upon graduating, Patrick served as the Pro Se Staff Attorney for the United States District Court\nfor the Eastern District of New York and was a law clerk to the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States\nMagistrate Judge.\n\nPatrick is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Indiana, Eastern District\nof Wisconsin, District of Colorado, and Western District of Pennsylvania; the United States Courts of\nAppeals for the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits; and the United States Supreme\nCourt.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nSamuel J. Adams\n\nSamuel J. Adams became an Associate at Pomerantz in January 2012 and was elevated to Of Counsel to\nthe Firm in 2021. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cRising Star\u201d every year from 2015 through\n2021.\n\nSam focuses his practice on corporate governance litigation and has served as a member of the litigation\nteam in numerous actions that concluded in successful resolutions for stockholders. He was an integral\nmember of the litigation team that secured a $5.6 million settlement on behalf of a class of shareholders\nof Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. following an ignored merger offer. In re Physicians Formula Holdings,\nInc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.). Sam was also instrumental in achieving a settlement\nin Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. Ct.) which provided for a 25% price increase for\nmembers of the class cashed out in the going-private transaction and established that fee-shifting bylaws\nadopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to stockholders affected by the transaction.\nAdditionally, he was on the team of Pomerantz attorneys who obtained the elimination of stand-still\nprovisions that allowed third parties to bid for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a\nthird-party bidder and approximately $94 million (57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf\nshareholders. In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7328-VCN (Del. Ch.).\n\nSam is a 2009 graduate of the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. While in law school,\nhe was a member of the National Health Law Moot Court Team. He also participated in the Louis D.\nBrandeis American Inn of Court.\n\nSam is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, and\nEastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Fifth Circuit.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 44\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 47 of 61\n\n\n\n\nAri Y. Basser\n\nAri Y. Basser joined Pomerantz as an associate in April 2019 and was elevated to Of Counsel in January\n2022. He focuses his practice on strategic consumer litigation by representing consumers in unfair\ncompetition, fraud, false advertising, and auto defect actions that recover monetary and injunctive relief\non behalf of class members while also advocating for important consumer rights. Ari has successfully\nprosecuted claims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies\nAct, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Ari was an associate at major litigation law firms in Los Angeles. Ari also worked\nas a Law Clerk in the Economic Crimes Unit of the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Ari\nhas litigated antitrust violations, product defect matters, and a variety of fraud and misrepresentation\ncases brought under state and federal consumer protection statutes involving unfair competition and\nfalse advertising. He has also been deputized in private attorneys general enforcement actions to recover\ncivil penalties from corporations, on behalf of the State of California, for violations of the Labor Code.\n\nAri is a contributing author to the Competition Law Journal, the official publication of the Antitrust, UCL,\nand Privacy Section of the State Bar of California, where he has examined trends in antitrust litigation and\nthe regulatory authority of the Federal Trade Commission.\n\nAri received dual degrees in Economics and Psychology from the University of California, San Diego in\n2004. He earned his Juris Doctor in 2010 from Santa Clara University School of Law.\n\nSamantha Daniels\n\nSamantha brings years of commercial litigation experience to the Pomerantz team, joining the Firm as Of\nCounsel in 2024. Her practice involves representing aggrieved shareholders in securities litigation to\nrecover losses across a number of industries, including pharma, technology, and entertainment.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Samantha was an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, primarily in the\nfirm\u2019s renowned appellate practice, representing highly visible clients in a range of issues from securities\nlitigation, consumer deception, and labor and employment, to constitutional crises. Her former matters\ninclude resolving first impression questions of employment status for gig workers for Uber and Postmates,\nsecuring victory for Apple against allegations of consumer fraud regarding FaceTime, and helping win NML\nshareholders 2.1 billion in due Argentine bonds.\n\nSamantha earned her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School where she published her\nstudent comment on consumer protection. Before that, Samantha studied at Cornell University in Ithaca,\nNew York, earning degrees in Political Science and History.\n\nJonathan D. Park\n\nJonathan D. Park joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in April 2022. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was\nassociated with a prominent plaintiff-side litigation firm, where he represented clients in securities and\ninvestment litigation. He is regularly recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 45\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 48 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJonathan focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is currently pursuing claims against Twitter\nconcerning its cybersecurity practices and user metrics. Jonathan was a key member of the litigation\nteams that obtained settlements in Poirier v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) and Lako v. loanDepot, Inc.\n(C.D. Cal.). Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was a member of the litigation team that obtained $19 million\nfor the class in In re Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, and he represented investors in\nIn re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, which arose from the \u201cLondon Whale\u201d scandal and was\nsettled for $150 million. He has also represented investors in opt-out securities actions against\npharmaceutical manufacturers and other companies.\n\nJonathan also has experience representing investors in breach of contract actions. He was the primary\nassociate representing institutional investors injured by the early redemption of bonds issued by CoBank,\nACB and AgriBank, FCB. In the litigation against CoBank, the plaintiffs secured a summary judgment ruling\non liability, and in the litigation against AgriBank, the plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, permitting\nthe claims to proceed though the plaintiffs were beneficial owners and not record holders of the bonds\nat issue. Both cases were resolved on confidential terms.\n\nAt the New York City Bar Association, Jonathan has served on the Task Force on Puerto Rico, the New\nLawyers Council, and the International Human Rights Committee. He also served on the board of his non-\nprofit running club, the Dashing Whippets Running Team.\n\nJonathan earned his J.D. in 2013 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the school\u2019s\nMoot Court Board as the Editor of the Jessup International Law Competition Team. During law school, he\nwas a Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights, received the Archibald R. Murray Public Service\nAward, and interned with a refugee law project in Cairo, Egypt. He received a B.A. in 2006 from Vassar\nCollege, where he majored in Africana Studies.\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell joined Pomerantz as an associate in August 2021 and was elevated to Of Counsel in\nAugust 2024. Brian focuses his practice on securities and financial services litigation.\n\nBrian leads some of the Firm\u2019s most important securities class actions, winning decisions that expand\ninvestor rights. Among these is a case against Ginkgo Bioworks (\u201cGinkgo\u201d), a synthetic biology company\nthat merged with a special purpose acquisition company (\u201cSPAC\u201d). The case alleges that Ginkgo made\nfalse and misleading statements about its revenue, customers and value before the merger. Brian recently\nreached a settlement agreement with Ginkgo defendants for $17.75 million, representing favorable\nrecovery for the class of investors.\n\nIn March 2024, Brian survived a motion to dismiss another de-SPAC case against Grab Holdings, Inc.,\nknown as the Uber of Southeast Asia, giving the oral argument that sustained Section 11 of the Securities\nAct and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act claims. Brian also played an integral role in the\nlitigation and settlement of three Pomerantz cases that recently reached final approval of settlement:\ntelecommunications giant Sprint Corporation ($3.75 million), biopharmaceutical company Orphazyme A/S\n($2.5 million), and energy and oil company Berry Corporation ($2.5 million).\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 46\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 49 of 61\n\n\n\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Brian was an associate at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &\nSprengel LLP, where he specialized in antitrust and commodity futures litigation. Brian has successfully\nlitigated complex class actions involving securities, as well as manipulation of futures and options\ncontracts. Brian also previously worked at the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a contractor\nfocusing on options trading regulation. Following law school, Brian was a legal fellow at the chambers of\nJudge Marvin E. Aspen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\n\nBrian is passionate about finance and securities law, having previously interned for the Chicago Board\nOptions Exchange and for Susquehanna International Group. Brian has served as a Vice Chair of the\nChicago Bar Association Securities Law Committee. Brian was recently recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae\nRising Star for 2024.\n\nBrian earned his Juris Doctor from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. During his time there,\nhe had the opportunity to work at the Center on Wrongful Convictions, where he argued in court on behalf\nof a client serving a life sentence and was later exonerated. Brian also served as Executive Articles Editor\nfor the Journal of International Human Rights Law and as a teaching assistant for the Northwestern Center\non Negotiation and Mediation.\n\nA graduate of Stanford University, Brian majored in Political Science and minored in Economics. During\nhis senior year, he was Editor-in-Chief of The Stanford Review, where he had previously been a Features\nEditor and a staff writer.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in Illinois and California, the United States District Courts for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois, the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Ninth Circuit.\n\nLesley Portnoy\n\nLesley Portnoy joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in January 2020, bringing to the Firm more than a decade\nof experience representing investors and consumers in recovering losses caused by corporate fraud and\nwrongdoing. Lesley is based in Los Angeles.\n\nLesley has assisted in the recovery of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors, including the\nvictims of the Bernard M. Madoff bankruptcy. Courts throughout the United States have appointed him\nas Lead Counsel to represent investors in securities fraud class actions. Lesley has been recognized as a\nSuper Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star every year from 2017 through 2021.\n\nAs Co-Lead Counsel with Pomerantz in In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., a high-profile class action litigation\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc., Lesley helped achieve an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case\ninvolved the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were\ncompromised.\n\nOther securities fraud cases that Lesley successfully litigated include Parmelee v. Santander Consumer\nUSA Holdings, Inc.; In re Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc. Sec. Litig.; In re ITT Educational Services, Inc.\nSec. Litig.; In re Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Sec. Litig.; Elkin v. Walter Investment Management Corp.; In re\nCytRx Corporation Sec. Litig.; Carter v. United Development Funding IV; and In re Akorn, Inc. Sec. Litig.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 47\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 50 of 61\n\n\n\n\nLesley received his B.A. in 2004 from the University of Pennsylvania. In 2009, he simultaneously received\nhis JD magna cum laude from New York Law School and his Masters of Business Administration from City\nUniversity of New York. At New York Law School, Lesley was on the Dean\u2019s List\u2014High Honors and an\nArticles Editor for the New York Law School Law Review.\n\nLesley is admitted to practice in New York and California; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California and the\nNorthern District of Texas; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers is Of Counsel to the Firm.\n\nIn 2021, Jennifer was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d. She was\nalso named a 2020 Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae, Law360, and the New York Law Journal, all separate\nand highly competitive awards that honor attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments transcend\ntheir age. After a rigorous nomination and vetting process, Jennifer was honored in 2019 and 2020 as a\nmember of the National Black Lawyers Top 100, an elite network of the top 100 African American\nattorneys from each state.\n\nJennifer played an integral role on the team litigating In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, in the Southern\nDistrict of New York, a securities class action arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras. The Firm, as sole Lead\nCounsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement on behalf of investors in Petrobras securities. Among\nJennifer\u2019 contributions to the team\u2019s success were: managing the entire third-party discovery in the\nUnited States, which resulted in the discovery of key documents and witnesses; deposing several\nunderwriter bank witnesses; drafting portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 amended complaints that withstood motions\nto dismiss the claims and Plaintiffs\u2019 successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 appeal in the Second Circuit,\nwhich resulted in precedential rulings, including the Court rejecting the heightened ascertainability\nrequirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts; and second\nchaired argument in the Second Circuit that successfully led to the Court upholding the award of sanctions\nagainst a professional objector challenging the integrity of the settlement.\n\nJennifer played a leading role in In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, an action in the District\nof New Jersey alleging a multi-year fraud arising from underlying retail banking misconduct by one of\nCanada\u2019s largest banks that was revealed by investigative news reports. Jennifer undertook significant\nwork drafting the briefing to oppose Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the claims, which the Court denied.\nShe oversaw the discovery in the action, which included, among other things, heading the complicated\nprocess of obtaining documents in Canada and being a principal drafter of the motion to partially lift the\nPSLRA stay in order to obtain discovery. Jennifer successfully presented oral argument which led to the\nCourt approval of a $13.25 million class-wide settlement.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the Toronto-Dominion Bank settlement, stated, \u201cI\ncommend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and thoughtful\nsubmissions during the motion practice aspect of this case. I paused on it because it was a hard case. I\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 48\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 51 of 61\n\n\n\n\npaused on it because the lawyering was so good. So, I appreciate from both sides your efforts.\u201d He added,\n\u201cIt\u2019s clear to me that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\nthe settlement.\u201d Singling out Pomerantz\u2019s role as lead counsel, the judge also said, \u201cThis settlement\nappears to have been obtained through the hard work of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their\nefforts and not piggybacking on any other work that resulted in this settlement.\u201d\n\nJennifer was a key member of the team litigating individual securities actions against BP p.l.c. in the\nNorthern District of Texas on behalf of institutional investors in BP p.l.c. to recover losses in BP\u2019s common\nstock (which trades on the London Stock Exchange), arising from BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. The actions were\nresolved in 2021 in a confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients.\n\nJennifer was a lead litigator in Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc. Jennifer was also a key member of the\nlitigation teams of other nationwide securities class action cases, including: In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.\nSec. Litig., an action in the Southern District of New York, for which Jennifer was one of the principal\ndrafters of the amended complaint\u2014the strength of which led the Court to deny permission to the\ndefendants to file a formal motion to dismiss it\u2014which secured a court-approved $15 million class-wide\nsettlement; In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, an action in the Northern District of\nCalifornia, which successfully secured settlements from the bankrupt company and its jailed CEO worth\nover $3.25 million for the Class that were approved by the Court as well as the bankruptcy court; Perez v.\nHigher One Holdings, Inc., an action in the District of Connecticut, for which Jennifer was one of the\nprincipal drafters of the successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and which secured a\ncourt-approved $7.5 million class-wide settlement; Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc.; Chun v. Fluor Corp.;\nand Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jennifer was an associate with a prominent law firm in New York where her\npractice focused on complex commercial litigation, including securities law and accountants\u2019 liability. An\nadvocate of pro bono representation, Jennifer earned the Empire State Counsel honorary designation\nfrom the New York State Bar Association and received an award from New York Lawyers for the Public\nInterest for her pro bono work.\n\nJennifer received her B.A. from Harvard University (with honors), where she was on the Dean\u2019s List, a Ron\nBrown Scholar, and a recipient of the Harvard College Scholarship. She received her J.D. from University\nof Virginia School of Law where she was a participant in the Lile Moot Court Competition and was\nrecognized for her pro bono service.\n\nShe is a member of the Securities Litigation and Public Service Committees of the Federal Bar Council, and\nthe New York City Bar Association.\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.\n\nNicolas Tatin\n\nFrench lawyer Nicolas Tatin joined Pomerantz in April 2017 as Of Counsel. He heads the Firm\u2019s Paris office\nand serves as its Director-Business Development Consultant for France, Benelux, Monaco and Switzerland.\nNicolas advises institutional investors in the European Union on how best to evaluate losses to their\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 49\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 52 of 61\n\n\n\n\ninvestment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct, and how best to maximize their potential\nrecoveries in U.S. and international securities litigations.\n\nNicolas was previously a financial lawyer at ERAFP, France\u2019s \u20ac24bn pension and retirement fund for civil\nservants, where he provided legal advice on the selection of management companies and the\nimplementation of mandates entrusted to them by ERAFP.\n\nNicolas began his career at Natixis Asset Management, before joining BNP Paribas Investment Partners,\nwhere he developed expertise in the legal structuring of investment funds and acquired a global and cross-\nfunctional approach to the asset management industry.\n\nNicolas graduated in international law and received an MBA from IAE Paris, the Sorbonne Graduate\nBusiness School.\n\nChristopher Tourek\n\nChristopher Tourek is Of Counsel in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office and focuses his practice on securities\nlitigation. He has a proven track record of successfully litigating cases involving securities fraud, antitrust\nviolations, and consumer protection violations in both state and federal courts. His expertise has earned\nhim recognition as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star in Mass Torts Litigation from 2016-2021 and in Securities\nLitigation from 2022-2026.\n\nChristopher is a member of the team pursuing claims in In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse\nLitigation (S.D. Fla.). Christopher also represents investors in securities actions against home robotics\nmanufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other companies. In addition to bringing standard\nsecurities litigation claims before the court, Christopher has also litigated innovative securities class action\nclaims, including a novel pump-and-dump scheme involving emojis and Twitter in In re Bed Bath & Beyond\nCorporation Securities Litigation (D.D.C.) that succeeded at the motion to dismiss stage before settling.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Christopher was an Associate at a prominent complex litigation firm and\nspecialized in consumer protection, antitrust, and securities litigation.\n\nChristopher graduated cum laude in 2013 from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he obtained\nhis pro bono notation, honors in legal research, and was a member of the Federal Civil Rights Clinic, in\nwhich he first chaired the case of Powers v. Coleman in the United States District Court for the Central\nDistrict of Illinois. He earned his bachelor\u2019s degree in Government & Law, with a minor in Anthropology &\nSociology, from Lafayette College in 2010.\n\nChristopher is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Courts for the District of\nColumbia, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 50\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 53 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Associates\n\nGenc Arifi\n\nGenc Arifi focuses his practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office, Genc\nwas an associate at a prominent Chicago law firm, where he represented an expansive range of businesses\nin employment law matters as well as complex commercial litigation in both state and federal courts.\n\nGenc\u2019s experience includes handling complex civil matters, such as cases arising from the Racketeer\nInfluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), shareholder derivative lawsuits, and employment law\nmatters. He has also advised technology start-up clients, as well as established financial institutions, on\nrisk assessment and litigation strategies.\n\nGenc earned his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law and his B.S. from Western Illinois\nUniversity, summa cum laude. He demonstrated strong academic credentials throughout law school; most\nnotably when he achieved the highest grade in Business Organizations, which earned him the CALI\nExcellence for the Future Award. Genc was a recipient of the Dean\u2019s Certificate of Service awarded to law\nstudents who provided 100 hours of community service. Genc participated in a criminal appeals clinic and\nsuccessfully reduced an indigent client's prison sentence.\n\nGenc is co-author of \u201cValuation,\u201d Chapter 6 in \u201cDisputes Involving Closely Held Companies 2020 Edition.\u201d\nPublished by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Feb. 2020, it is the essential guide for\nIllinois attorneys who represent closely held corporations, partnerships, or LLCs.\n\nGenc currently serves as the Secretary and board member of the Albanian-American Community of\nIllinois, a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to preserve and promote Albanian culture, history, and\ntradition through civic engagement and educational initiatives.\n\nGenc is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Court for the Northern District of\nIllinois.\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brandon was an associate at a law firm in New York that specializes in the\ndefense of insurance claims. Brandon\u2019s practice focused on the defense of transportation, premises, and\nconstruction liability matters.\n\nBrandon earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the Moot\nCourt Board and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at Fordham Law, Brandon\nparticipated in the Securities Litigation and Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. During his second summer of law\nschool, Brandon was a summer associate at a major plaintiff\u2019s securities firm.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 51\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 54 of 61\n\n\n\n\nBrandon earned his B.S. from the University of Delaware where he double majored in Sport Management\nand Marketing.\n\nBrandon is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York.\n\nJessica N. Dell\n\nJessica Dell focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nShe has worked on dozens of cases at Pomerantz, including the Firm\u2019s securities fraud lawsuits arising\nfrom BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. Jessica has expertise in managing discovery and a nose for investigating\ncomplex fraud across many sectors, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and data security. True\nto her roots in public interest law, she has also worked in complex pro bono class action litigation at\nPomerantz.\n\nJessica graduated from CUNY School of Law in 2005. She was the recipient of an Everett fellowship for her\nwork at Human Rights Watch. She also interned at the Urban Justice Center and National Advocates for\nPregnant Women. While in the CUNY clinical program, she represented survivors of domestic violence\nfacing deportation and successfully petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act. She also\nsuccessfully petitioned for the release of survivors incarcerated as drug mules in Central America.\nAfter Hurricane Katrina, Jessica traveled to Louisiana to aid emergency efforts to reunite families and\nrestore legal process for persons lost in the prison system weeks after the flood.\n\nJessica is a member of the New York City and State Bar Associations and the National Lawyers Guild.\n\nZachary Denver\n\nZachary Denver focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Zachary worked at prominent New York firms where he litigated a variety of\ncomplex commercial matters, specializing in financial markets, securities, and bankruptcy.\n\nZachary graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013 and was a staff editor at the NYU\nJournal of Law and Liberty and a board member for the Suspension Representation Project. He earned a\ndouble bachelor\u2019s degree from the University of Massachusetts in Political Science and Communications.\nAfter undergrad, Zachary served as a Teach for America corps member in New York City and earned a\nmaster\u2019s degree in classroom teaching from PACE University.\n\nZachary also serves as a board member for the Legal Alliance of Pheonjong, a non-profit organization that\nprovides legal services to Tibetan asylum seekers in New York City, and he has served as lead counsel on\nseveral applications including two successful trials in immigration court.\n\nZachary is admitted to practice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 52\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 55 of 61\n\n\n\n\nDean P. Ferrogari\n\nDean P. Ferrogari focuses his practice on securities litigation. He was recognized in the 2024, 2025 and\n2026 editions of the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\u00ae in America publication for his work in securities\nlitigation. He was also recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star (2024-2025).\n\nDean earned his Juris Doctor in 2020 from Brooklyn Law School, where he served as an Associate\nManaging Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review. While in law school, Dean was initiated into the\nInternational Legal Honor Society of Phi Delta Phi and was an extern for the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers\nProject. He was recognized by the New York State Unified Court System\u2019s Office for Justice Initiatives for\nhis distinguished service in assisting disadvantaged civil litigants in obtaining due process in consumer\ncredit actions. Dean also authored the publication \u201cThe Dark Web: A Symbol of Freedom Not Cybercrime,\u201d\nNew York County Lawyers Association CLE Institute, Security in a Cyber World: Whistle Blowers, Cyber\nThreats, Domestic Terrorism, Financial Fraud, Policy by Twitter . . . and the Evolving Role of the Attorney\nand Firm, Oct. 4, 2019, at 321.\n\nDean earned his B.A. from the University of Maryland, where he majored in Economics and was awarded\nthe President\u2019s Transfer Scholarship.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.\n\nEmily C. Finestone\n\nEmily C. Finestone focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Emily was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in New York where she\nsuccessfully litigated matters pertaining to sports and entertainment law, copyright infringement, and\nemployment law. Emily previously worked at a prominent complex litigation firm specializing in consumer\nprotection, antitrust, whistleblower, and securities litigation. She also gained appellate experience as a\ntemporary law clerk and Staff Attorney at the Supreme Court of Virginia.\n\nIn 2022 \u2013 2024, Emily was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nEmily graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2015 and was a member of the Review of Banking\n& Financial Law. She received her B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2012, where she double majored\nin English and Spanish, and minored in Government.\n\nEmily is admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the United\nStates District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, District of\nConnecticut, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 53\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 56 of 61\n\n\n\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Adam was a litigation associate at a full service Chicago law firm, where he\nlitigated commercial and construction cases in state and federal courts.\n\nAdam earned his J.D., cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. During his time\nthere, he served as a Staff Editor for the Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Adam also\nparticipated in the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, where he represented indigent taxpayers to resolve tax\ndisputes with the Internal Revenue Service.\n\nAdam received his Bachelor of Engineering with Honors Class One (equivalent to summa cum laude) and\nthe University Medal from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Adam majored in Civil\nEngineering and worked as a geotechnical engineer before law school.\n\nAdam speaks Mandarin and went to high school in Beijing, China.\n\nAdam is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois.\n\nJames M. LoPiano\n\nJames M. LoPiano focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is part of the Firm\u2019s case origination\nteam, identifying and investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nJames has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2021.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, James served as a Fellow at Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., a non-profit\nlaw firm run by faculty of Fordham University School of Law.\n\nJames earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he was awarded the\nArchibald R. Murray Public Service Award, cum laude, and merit-based scholarship. While in law school,\nJames served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Stephen A. Bucaria of the Nassau County Supreme\nCourt, Commercial Division, of the State of New York. He also served as Senior Notes and Articles Editor\nof the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, and authored the publication\n\u201cPublic Fora Purpose: Analyzing Viewpoint Discrimination on the President\u2019s Twitter Account,\u201d Note, 28\nFordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 511 (2018). In addition, James completed legal internships at the\nAuthors Guild and Fordham University School of Law\u2019s Intellectual Property and Information Law Clinic,\nwhere he counseled clients and worked on matters related to Freedom of Information Act litigation,\ntrademarks, and copyrights.\n\nJames earned his B.A. from Stony Brook University, where he double majored in English and Cinema and\nCultural Studies, completed the English Honors Program, was inducted into the Stony Brook University\nchapter of the International English Honors Society, and was awarded the university\u2019s Thomas Rogers\nAward for best analytical paper in an English course by an undergraduate.\n\nJames is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 54\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 57 of 61\n\n\n\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Diego was a litigation associate at a large international law firm, where he\nlitigated cases in state and federal courts involving mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance,\nmultidistrict litigation, products liability, and commercial matters. He also served as a litigation associate\nat a boutique law firm where he was involved in disputes concerning art, investment instruments,\nintellectual property, fiduciary duties, and other commercial matters.\n\nDiego is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois College of Law. He began his\ncareer as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Theresa Lazar Springmann, United States District Court for\nthe Northern District of Indiana, and the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe, United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Tenth Circuit.\n\nDiego is admitted to practice in Illinois.\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Thomas was an associate at a large New York law firm, where his practice\nfocused on commercial and securities litigation, and regulatory investigations. In 2020 and 2021, Thomas\nwas honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\nThomas earned his J.D. in 2017 from the Georgetown University Law Center. While in law school, Thomas\nserved as a Notes Editor for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and authored the publication \u201cA Man\nof Genius Makes No Mistakes: Judicial Civility and the Ethics of the Opinion,\u201d Note, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics\n1257 (2016). Thomas earned his B.A. from Lafayette College in 2014, where he double majored in English\nand Philosophy.\n\nThomas is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nEastern and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.\n\nJared Rabinowitz\n\nJared Rabinowitz focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jared was a judicial law clerk for Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County\nSupreme Court Commercial Division.\n\nJared earned his J.D. in 2021 from New York Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the New\nYork Law School Law Review and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at New York Law\nSchool, Jared participated in the Securities Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of securities claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. Prior to law school,\nJared worked as an institutional equity trader at a New York financial services firm.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 55\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 58 of 61\n\n\n\n\nJared earned his B.S. from Hofstra University where he majored in Legal Studies in Business.\n\nJared is admitted to practice in New York and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York.\n\nAnkita Sangwan\n\nAnkita Sangwan focuses her practice on corporate governance matters.\n\nShe graduated in 2022 from the LL.M. program at Columbia Law School as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.\nPrior to attending Columbia Law School, Ankita worked for four years in the Commercial Litigation Team\nof a prominent law firm in Bombay, India, at which she focused her practice on complex commercial and\ncivil disputes. Ankita assisted in arguments before various courts in India, including the Supreme Court.\n\nIn 2017, Ankita graduated with Honors from the B.A. LL.B. program at Jindal Global Law School, India. She\nwas a member of the university\u2019s Moot Court Society, which finished as semi-finalists at the World Rounds\nof the International Investment Moot Court Competition, held in Frankfurt, Germany (2016). Ankita\u2019s\nmoot court experience was recognized by her university; she was awarded the \u201cOutstanding Contribution\nto Moot Court\u201d prize upon graduation.\n\nAnkita is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nVilli Shteyn\n\nVilli Shteyn focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nVilli worked on individual securities lawsuits concerning BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which\nproceeded in In re BP p.l.c. Secs Litig., No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.) and were resolved in 2021 in a\nconfidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients, including public and private pension\nfunds, money management firms, partnerships, and investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K.,\nFrance, the Netherlands, and Australia. He also worked on a successful 2021 settlement for investors in a\ncase against Chinese company ChinaCache.\n\nVilli pursued claims against Deutsche Bank for its lending activities to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein\nand was involved in the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Arconic, arising from the deadliest U.K. fire in\nmore than a century. He also represented investors in a case against AT&T for widespread fraud relating\nto their rollout of DirecTVNow, and against Frutarom for fraud related to widespread bribery in Russia\nand Ukraine. He represented Safra Bank in a class action against Samarco Minera\u00e7\u00e3o S.A., in connection\nwith the Fundao dam-burst disaster, which is widely regarded as the worst environmental disaster in\nBrazil\u2019s history. He represented investors against Recro Pharma in relation to their non-opioid pain-relief\nproduct IV Meloxicam, and against online education companies 2U and K12. Villi also worked on a\nconsumer class action against Apple, Inc. in relation to alleged slowdowns of the iPhone product.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Villi was employed by a boutique patent firm, where he worked on patent\nvalidity issues in the wake of the landmark Alice decision and helped construct international patent\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 56\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 59 of 61\n\n\n\n\nmaintenance tools for clients and assisted in pursuing injunctive relief for a patent-holder client against a\nlarge tech company.\n\nVilli has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star from 2021 through 2023.\n\nVilli graduated from The University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 2017). In 2014, he graduated summa cum\nlaude from Baruch College with a Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs.\n\nVilli is admitted to practice in New York, and the United States District Courts for the Southern District of\nNew York and the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\nCircuit.\n\nStephanie Weaver\n\nStephanie Weaver focuses her practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Stephanie was\nan associate at a boutique securities litigation firm, focused on securities litigation, antitrust and\nbankruptcy matters.\n\nStephanie graduated from St. John\u2019s University School of Law cum laude in 2021. While in law school, she\nserved as Managing Director of the Moot Court Honor Society and won the Best Brief Award at the 2020\nElaine Jackson Stack Moot Court Competition. She was also a member of the school\u2019s New York\nInternational Law Review. She was also honored as a New York State Court of Appeals Fellow in 2019. She\nearned her bachelor\u2019s degree summa cum laude from St. John\u2019s University in 2018.\n\nStephanie is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nGuy Yedwab\n\nGuy Yedwab focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nGuy graduated from Rutgers Law School summa cum laude in 2023, while also receiving a Master\u2019s Degree\nin Public Affairs and Policy from the Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.\nWhile in law school, he won awards with the National Appellate Advocacy Team and was an editor at the\nJournal of Law and Public Policy, in which he published a note on constitutional law. He was honored with\nthe Marsha Wenk Fellowship at the A.C.L.U. of New Jersey, and the Eagleton Institute\u2019s Henry J. Raimondo\nLegislative Fellowship.\n\nGuy serves as a board member for the League of Independent Theater, a 501(c)(6) trade association for\nsmall-sized cultural institutions in New York City. As such, he consults with policymakers on fostering small\nbusiness in the city.\n\nGuy is admitted to practice in New York State's First Appellate Department.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 57\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 60 of 61\n\n\n\n\n Staff Attorneys\n\nJay Douglas Dean\n\nJay Dean focuses on class action securities litigation. He has been a commercial litigator for more than 30\nyears.\n\nJay has been practicing with Pomerantz since 2008, including as an associate from 2009\u20132014, interrupted\nby a year of private practice in 2014\u20132015. More recently, he was part of the Pomerantz teams\nprosecuting the successful Petrobras and Yahoo actions. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he served as an\nAssistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, most\nrecently in its Pensions Division. While at Pomerantz, in the Corporation Counsel\u2019s office and previously\nin large New York City firms, Jay has taken leading roles in trials, motions and appeals.\n\nJay graduated in 1988 from Yale Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Journal of\nInternational Law.\n\nJay is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Jay has also earned\nthe right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.\n\nTimor Lahav\n\nTimor Lahav focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nTimor participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras,\narising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel,\nachieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings. Timor also\nparticipated in the firm\u2019s landmark litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., for the massive security breach that\ncompromised 1.5 billion users' personal information.\n\nTimor received his LL.B. from Tel Aviv University School of Law in Israel, following which he clerked at one\nof Israel\u2019s largest law firms. He was an associate at a law firm in Jerusalem, where, among other\nresponsibilities, he drafted motions and appeals, including to the Israeli Supreme Court, on various civil\nmatters.\n\nHe received his LL.M. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. There, Timor received the\nUriel Caroline Bauer Scholarship, awarded to exceptional Israeli law graduates.\n\nTimor brings to Pomerantz several years\u2019 experience as an attorney in New York, including examining local\nSOX anti-corruption compliance policies in correlation with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and analysis\nof transactions in connection with DOJ litigation and SEC enforcement actions.\n\nTimor was a Captain in the Israeli Defense Forces. He is a native Hebrew speaker and is fluent in Russian.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in New York and Israel.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 58\n\fCase No. 1:25-cv-02770-PAB-CYC Document 18-5 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado\n pg 61 of 61\n\n\n\n\nLaura M. Perrone\n\nLaura M. Perrone focuses on class action securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Laura worked on securities class action cases at Labaton Sucharow. Preceding\nthat experience, she represented plaintiffs at her own securities law firm, the Law Offices of Laura M.\nPerrone, PLLC.\n\nAt Pomerantz, Laura participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil\ncompany, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as\nsole Lead Counsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal\nrulings.\n\nLaura has also represented bondholders against Citigroup for its disastrous investments in residential\nmortgage-backed securities, shareholders against Barclays PLC for misrepresentations about its dark pool\ntrading system known as Barclays LX, and shareholders against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for\nmisrepresentations about its recalls and its diesel emissions defeat devices.\n\nLaura graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was on the editorial staff of\nCardozo\u2019s Arts and Entertainment Law Journal and was the recipient of the Jacob Burns Merit Scholarship.\n\nLaura is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nAllison Tierney\n\nAllison Tierney focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nAllison brings 10 years of expertise in large-scale securities class action litigation to Pomerantz. She\nparticipated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising\nfrom a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved\na historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Allison worked on securities class action cases at several top New York law\nfirms, representing institutional investors. She has represented plaintiffs in disputes related to antitrust\nviolations, corporate financial malfeasance, and residential mortgage-backed securities fraud.\n\nAllison earned her law degree from Hofstra University School of Law, where she served as notes and\ncomments editor for the Cyberlaw Journal. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Boston University,\nwhere she graduated magna cum laude.\n\nAllison is conversant in Spanish and is studying to become fluent.\n\nAllison is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 59\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T10:42:02.463135-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"039012285969","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5 - Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:14.999183-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:15.137900-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-03.006","pacer_sequence_number":63,"description":"DECLARATION of J. Alexander Hood II regarding MOTION for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel 17 by Movant Chandruakanthan Sathasivam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Damages Analysis, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Press Release, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Certification, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Movant Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Firm Resume)(Hood, Joseph) (Entered: 11/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445816761/","id":445816761,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71268619/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/460526031/","id":460526031,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71268619/15/lee-v-quantum-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-02T00:24:13.524636-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:13.625108-08:00","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":"15","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":"2025-12-02T00:24:13.423927-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-02T00:24:13.457255-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-03.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MEMORANDUM regarding 13 MOTION for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Hunsu Son. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung, by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/03/2025. Text Only Entry (pabsec, ) (Entered: 11/03/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71268619&page_size=40"}