{"cached_at":"2026-10-21T10:42:14.849239+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69475190","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","id":69475190,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/733/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2024-12-17T13:09:40.949453-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-08T10:44:03.533347-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Denise L. Cote","referred_to_str":"","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":"2024-12-17","date_terminated":"2026-03-19","date_last_filing":"2026-03-25","case_name_short":"","case_name":"IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation","docket_number":"1:24-cv-09715","docket_number_core":"2409715","docket_number_raw":"1:24-cv-09715","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"DLC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"633671","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Both","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":"2024-12-17T13:09:40.945272-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385725/","id":15385725,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287526/","attorney_id":10287526,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287527/","attorney_id":10287527,"date_action":"2025-03-13","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.578606-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.578613-07:00","name":"Otis D. Lucas, Jr.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385724/","id":15385724,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287525/","attorney_id":10287525,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.319492-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.319499-07:00","name":"Sonam Dhondup","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385723/","id":15385723,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287524/","attorney_id":10287524,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.017546-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:22.017554-07:00","name":"Robert Shane Reeder","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385722/","id":15385722,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287523/","attorney_id":10287523,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287523/","attorney_id":10287523,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.947517-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.947525-07:00","name":"Dr. Andrew Saw","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385721/","id":15385721,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10001029/","attorney_id":10001029,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.934902-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.934909-07:00","name":"Justin Mac","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385720/","id":15385720,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287522/","attorney_id":10287522,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287522/","attorney_id":10287522,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.896403-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.896410-07:00","name":"Jesse Cole","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385719/","id":15385719,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287521/","attorney_id":10287521,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.723188-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.723195-07:00","name":"Emil Dezia","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385718/","id":15385718,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287520/","attorney_id":10287520,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287520/","attorney_id":10287520,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Movant","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":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.706780-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.706788-07:00","name":"Mohammad Ali Ikram","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15385717/","id":15385717,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287518/","attorney_id":10287518,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287518/","attorney_id":10287518,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287519/","attorney_id":10287519,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287519/","attorney_id":10287519,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10409813/","attorney_id":10409813,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Lead Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.529921-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T06:58:21.529930-07:00","name":"Dr. Martin Dietrich","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14886351/","id":14886351,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10359659/","attorney_id":10359659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10359660/","attorney_id":10359660,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10359661/","attorney_id":10359661,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10359662/","attorney_id":10359662,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.770602-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.770610-08:00","name":"Riccardo Perfetti","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14886350/","id":14886350,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287531/","attorney_id":10287531,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287531/","attorney_id":10287531,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10409814/","attorney_id":10409814,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287532/","attorney_id":10287532,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287533/","attorney_id":10287533,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.753904-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.753912-08:00","name":"Shoshana Shendelman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14886349/","id":14886349,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10891031/","attorney_id":10891031,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287528/","attorney_id":10287528,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287529/","attorney_id":10287529,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10287530/","attorney_id":10287530,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.733053-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.733061-08:00","name":"Applied Therapeutics, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14886348/","id":14886348,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10001029/","attorney_id":10001029,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","docket_id":69475190,"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":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.649528-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-18T09:42:33.649538-08:00","name":"Adrian Alexandru","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458570564/","id":458570564,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473577680/","id":473577680,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/143/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.745159-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.753045-07:00","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":"143","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039306064","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.726599-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.731316-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-25","time_filed":"21:20:41","entry_number":143,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":554,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458570562/","id":458570562,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473577678/","id":473577678,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/144/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.543718-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T08:00:04.884477-07:00","sha1":"3e9874afd72ab9e9930130f9a4388957cda4efd6","page_count":1,"file_size":412810,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.144.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.144.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 144 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION,\n )\n ______________________________________ )\n USA / Plaintiff(s) )\n )\n v. ) 24 Civ. 9715\n Case No.: _________________________\n )\n )\n ______________________________________ )\n Defendant(s) )\n )\n )\n\n\n NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT\n\n conference 3/19/26\n Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ________________ held on __________________\nhas been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.\n\n Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting\nthe transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.\n\n The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court\nany NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also\nbe served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically\navailable to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.\n\n This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security\n numbers; dates of birth; minors\u2019 names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information\n may proceed by motion.\n\n I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-\nentitled matter.\n\n\n_________________________ _________________________\nCourt Reporter/Transcriber Date\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:35.659795-07:00","document_number":"144","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039306069","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.520669-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-25T20:09:45.526597-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-25","time_filed":"21:21:54","entry_number":144,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":556,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458187400/","id":458187400,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473184754/","id":473184754,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.233965-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.257184-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.211853-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.211871-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Denise L. Cote: Fairness Hearing held on 3/19/2026. (Court Reporter George Malinowski) (jwh)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457905785/","id":457905785,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472896735/","id":472896735,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/142/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-19T16:11:41.038478-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-08T10:44:04.353061-07:00","sha1":"7c33de0f340afa5686cac7f2471dad2a00b47bbd","page_count":12,"file_size":383638,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.142.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.142.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page1of12\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORI\n\nCase No, 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\n\nSECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION\n\nFINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2of12\n\nThis matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval\nPursuant to Fed, R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), Certifying Class for Settlement Purposes, and Approving\nForm of Notice and Directing Class Notice to the Class (\u201cNotice Order\u201d) dated November 20,\n2025 (ECF No. 127), and Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,\nApproval of Plan of Allocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses dated\nFebruary 12, 2026 (the \u201cFinal Approval Motion,\u201d ECF No. 133). Due and adequate notice having\nbeen given to the Class as required in said Notice Order, and the Court having considered all papers\nfiled and proceedings had herein and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good\ncause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:\n\n1. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Amended Stipulation\nof Settlement dated November 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation,\u201d ECF No. 126), and all capitalized terms\nused herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise set forth\nherein.\n\n2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over all\nparties to the Litigation, including all Members of the Class.\n\n3, Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby\naffirms its determination in the Notice Order and finally certifies, for purposes of settlement only,\na Class defined as: all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded\ncommon stock of Applied on a U.S. based exchange between January 3, 2024 and December 2,\n2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current\nand former officers, directors, and employees of Applied (the \u201cExcluded Persons\u201d); (iii) any person\nor entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024 Private Placement (the \u201cPrivate\n\nPlacement Investors\u201d); (iv) members of Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or Private Placement\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 _ Filed 03/19/26 Page 3of12\n\nInvestors\u2019 immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any entity\nin which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement Investors have or had a\ncontrolling interest.\n\n4, Also excluded from the Class are those Persons identified in Exhibit 1 attached\nhereto who would otherwise be a Member of the Class but who have validly and timely excluded\nthemselves therefrom.\n\n5. The Court finds that: (a) the Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of\nall Class Members in the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common\nto the Class which predominate over any individual question; (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiff are\ntypical of the claims of the Class; (d) Lead Plaintiff and his counsel have fairly and adequately\nrepresented and protected the Members of the Class; and (e) a class action is superior to other\navailable methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering (i) the\ninterests of the Members of the Class individually controlling the prosecution with separate\nactions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced\nby Members of the Class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of\nthese claims in this particular forum; and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the\nmanagement of the class action,\n\n6. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby\naffirms its determination in the Notice Order and, for the purposes of the Settlement only, finally\nappoints Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich as Class Representative and Lead Counsel Wolf Popper\nLLP as Class Counsel.\n\n7. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby fully and finally\n\napproves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including, without limitation,\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4of12\n\nthe amount of the Settlement, the Releases provided for therein, and the dismissal with prejudice\n\nof the claims asserted against Defendants in the Litigation) and finds that:\n\n(a)\n\n(b)\n\n(c)\n\n(d)\n\n(e)\n\n(f)\n\n(g)\n\nsaid Stipulation and the Settlement contained therein, are, in all respects,\nfair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interest of the Class;\n\nLead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Class;\n\nThe Settlement was negotiated at arm\u2019s-length with the assistance of an\nexperienced mediator, and there was no collusion in connection with the\nStipulation;\n\nthe Stipulation was the product of informed, arm\u2019s-length negotiations\namong competent, able counsel,\n\nthe relief provided for the Class is adequate, having taken into account (1)\nthe costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any\nproposed method of distributing relief to the Class, including the method\nof processing Class Members\u2019 Claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed\naward of attorneys\u2019 fees, including the timing of payment; and (iv) any\nagreement required to be identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n23(\u20ac)(2);\n\nthe proposed Plan of Allocation treats Class Members equitably relative to\neach other; and\n\nthe record is sufficiently developed and complete to have enabled Lead\nPlaintiff and Defendants to have adequately evaluated and considered their\npositions.\n\n8. Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of\n\nall the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except\n\nas to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto) who have\n\nvalidly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Court hereby dismisses the Litigation\n\nand all claims asserted therein with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs,\n\nexcept as and to the extent provided in the Stipulation and herein.\n\n9. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, Lead Plaintiff shall,\n\nand each of the Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, shall be\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page5of12\n\ndeemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever waived,\nreleased, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice all Released Claims (including\nUnknown Claims) against the Released Defendant Parties, whether or not such Class Member\nexecutes and delivers the Proof of Claim and Release form or shares in the Net Settlement Fund.\nClaims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the Court in the Litigation are not\nreleased, Nothing contained herein shall release or bar any Releasing Plaintiff Party or Released\nDefendant Parties from bringing any action or claim to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or this\nFinal Judgment.\n\n10. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, all Class Members and\nanyone claiming through or on behalf of any of them, will be forever barred and enjoined from\nasserting, commencing, instituting, prosecuting, continuing to prosecute or maintaining any action\nor other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal, or administrative forum,\nasserting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Defendant Parties.\n\n11. Upon the Effective Date, as provided in the Stipulation and to the fullest extent\npermitted by law, all Persons shall be permanently enjoined, barred, and restrained from bringing,\ncommencing, prosecuting, or asserting any claims, actions, or causes of action for contribution,\nindemnity, or otherwise against any of the Released Defendant Parties seeking as damages or\notherwise the recovery of all or any part of any liability, judgment, or settlement which they pay,\nare obligated to pay, agree to pay, or that are paid on their behalf to the Class or any Class Member\narising out of, relating to or concerning any acts, facts, statements, or omissions that were or could\nhave been alleged in the Litigation, whether arising under state, federal, or foreign law as claims,\ncross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or otherwise, in the Court or any federal, state or\n\nforeign court, or in any arbitration proceeding, administrative agency proceeding, tribunal, or any\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6of12\n\nother forum. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Bar Order shall bar or otherwise affect any\nclaim for insurance coverage, indemnity, or advancement between Released Defendant Parties.\n\n12. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, each of the Released\nDefendant Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully,\nfinally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims\n(including Unknown Claims) against the Lead Plaintiff, each and all of the Class Members, and\nLead Counsel. Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the Court in the\nLitigation are not released.\n\n13. The Notice Program, including the Postcard Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class\nAction (the \u201cPostcard Notice\u201d), Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the\n\u201cSummary Notice\u201d), and Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class,\nand Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of\nAttorneys\u2019 Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the \u201cLongform Notice\u201d) given to the\nClass was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including the individual notice to\nall Members of the Class who could be identified through reasonable effort. Said Notices provided\nthe best notice practicable under the circumstances of those proceedings and of the matters set\nforth therein, including the proposed Settlement set forth in the Stipulation, to all Persons \u00e9ntitled\nto such notice, and said Notices fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n23 and the requirements of due process. No Class Member is relieved from the terms of the\nSettlement, including the releases provided for therein, based upon the contention or proof that\nsuch Class Member failed to receive actual or adequate notice. A full opportunity has been offered\nto the Class Members to object to the proposed Settlement and to participate in the hearing thereon,\n\nand no objections to the Settlement, the Final Approval Motion, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of12\n\nand Expense Application were filed by Class Members. The Court further finds that the notice\nprovisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. $1715, were fully discharged and that the\nstatutory waiting period has elapsed. Thus, the Court hereby determines that all Members of the\nClass are bound by this Judgment.\n\n14. Notice of Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application was directed to Class\nMembers through the Notice Program in a reasonable manner and complies with Rule 23(h)(1) of\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as\namended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7),\nconstituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient\nnotice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.\n\n15. Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\nProcedure, this Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed\nthrough the Notice Program to all persons who are Class Members who could be identified with\nreasonable effort, advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their tight to object thereto, and\na full and fair opportunity was accorded to all persons and entities who are Class Members to be\nheard with respect to the Plan of Allocation.\n\n16. Neither this Judgment, the Stipulation nor the Settlement contained therein, nor any\nact performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the\nSettlement: (a) is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, ot evidence of, the\nvalidity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Released Defendant Parties\not their respective Related Parties, or (b) is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an\nadmission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Released Defendant Parties or\n\ntheir respective Related Parties in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court,\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8of12\n\nadministrative agency, or other tribunal. The Released Defendant Parties and/or their respective\nRelated Parties may file the Stipulation and/or this Judgment from this Litigation in any other\naction that may be brought against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on\nprinciples of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or\nreduction, or any theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.\n\n17. The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their financial obligations under the\nStipulation by paying or causing to be paid to the Settlement Fund (1) $15,000,000 in cash, in\naccordance with 2.6 of the Stipulation; and (2) $17,000 in cash Warrant Proceeds in lieu of the\nWarrants, in accordance with 4 2.8 of the Stipulation, representing the Black Scholes Value (as\nthat term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No. 126, Ex. C, and the calculation\nof such Black Scholes Value being agreed upon by the Settling Parties) as a result of the\nFundamental Transaction (as that term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No.\n126, Ex. C) that occurred after the Stipulation was executed.\n\n18. Lead Counsel and any person acting at the direction of Lead Counsel shall have no\nliability for any action taken in connection with the Warrants or the Black Scholes Value payment\nexcept for willful misconduct.\n\n19, Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby retains\ncontinuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of this Settlement and any award or distribution\nof the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund;\n(c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, and interest in the\nLitigation; and (d) all parties herein for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering\n\nthe Stipulation.\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 Filed 03/19/26 Page9of12\n\n20. The Court finds and concludes that during the course of the Litigation, the Settling\nParties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of\nCivil Procedure 11 in connection with the institution, prosecution, defense, and settlement of the\nLitigation.\n\n21. The terms of the Stipulation and of this Judgment shall be forever binding on\nDefendants, Lead Plaintiff, and all other Class Members (regardless of whether or not any\nindividual Class Member submits a Proof of Claim and Release form or seeks or obtains a\ndistribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as their respective successors and assigns.\n\n22. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the\nterms of the Stipulation, or the Effective Date does not occur, or in the event that the Settlement\nFund, or any portion thereof, is returned to the Defendants or their insurers, then this Judgment\nshall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation\nand shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection\nherewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation,\nand the Settling Parties shall revert to their respective positions in the Litigation as of August 19,\n2025, as provided in the Stipulation.\n\n23. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable\nextensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation. The Settling Parties are\nhereby authorized to agree to and adopt such amendments or modifications of the Stipulation or\nany exhibits attached thereto to effectuate the Settlement that: (a) are not materially inconsistent\nwith this Judgment; and (b) do not materially limit the rights of Class Members in connection with\n\nthe Settlement.\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 _ Filed 03/19/26 Page 10 of 12\n\n24. This Litigation and all Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice. The parties\nare to bear their own costs, except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Settling Parties or as\notherwise provided in the Stipulation or Judgment.\n\n25. The Court hereby grants Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application and awards\nLead Counsel a Fee and Expense Award of attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or\n$3 million plus 20% of the Warrant Proceeds received by the Settlement Fund, plus expenses in\nthe amount of $42,313.15, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same period\nand at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the\namount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the \u201cpercentage-of-recovery\u201d\nmethod.\n\n26. The awarded attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses and interest earned thereon, shall be paid\nto Lead Counsel immediately upon execution of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with\nPrejudice and subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, and in particular,\n{ 8.2 thereof, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein.\n\n27. In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the Court has\nconsidered and found that:\n\n(a) the Settlement has created a fund consisting of $15,000,000 in cash and $17,000 in\ncash Warrant Proceeds, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid Proof\nof Claim and Release forms will benefit from the Settlement created by Lead Counsel;\n\n(b) at least 60,382 copies of the Postcard Notice were disseminated to potential Class\nMembers indicating that Lead Counsel would move for attorneys\u2019 fees in an amount not to exceed\n20% of the Settlement Amount and for expenses in an amount not to exceed $50,000, plus interest\n\non both amounts, and no objections to the fees or expenses were filed by Class Members;\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 _ Filed 03/19/26 Page 11 of 12\n\n(c) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation and achieved the Settlement with diligent\nadvocacy;\n\n(d) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation entirely on a contingent basis;\n\n(e) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees; and\n\n(f) the attorney\u2019s fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable.\n\n28. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the\nclaims of Authorized Claimants which is set forth in the Notice provides a fair and reasonable\nbasis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized\nClaimants, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity.\n\n29. This Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice,\nis, in all respects, fair and reasonable and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation.\n\n30. The Court directs immediate entry of this Judgment by the Clerk of Court.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDATED: jes 14, APRs bec. (x,\n\nThe Ese ist dye\n\nUnited States District Judge\n\n-10-\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document142 _ Filed 03/19/26 Page 12 of 12\n\nExhibit 1\nPersons Who Validly and Timely Excluded Themselves from the Class\nName City, State, Country\n\nRaymond M. Coggins New York, NY, USA\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:39.559541-07:00","document_number":"142","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039270646","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-19T16:11:40.948018-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-08T10:44:04.044558-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-19","time_filed":"17:06:41","entry_number":142,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-19.002","pacer_sequence_number":548,"description":" FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated November 20, 2025 (the \"Stipulati on,\" ECF No. 126), and all capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise set forth herein. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over all pa rties to the Litigation, including all Members of the Class, as further set forth herein. Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Court hereby dismisses the Litigation and all claims asserted therei n with prejudice. The Settling Patties are to bear their own costs, except as and to the extent provided in the Stipulation and herein. The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their financial obligations under the Stipulation by paying or causing to be paid to the Settlement Fund (1) $15,000,000 in cash, in accordance with Para. 2.6 of the Stipulation; and (2) $17,000 in cash Warrant Proceeds in lieu of the Warrants, in accordance with 12.8 of the Stipulation, representing the Black Scholes Value (asthat term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No. 126, Ex. C, and the calculation of such Black Scholes Value being agreed upon by the Settling Parties) as a result of the Fundamental Transaction (as tha t term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No. 126, Ex. C) that occurred after the Stipulation was executed. Lead Counsel and any person acting at the direction of Lead Counsel shall have no liability for any action taken in c onnection with the Warrants or the Black Scholes Value payment except for willful misconduct, as further set forth herein. This Litigation and all Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice. The parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Settling Parties or as otherwise provided in the Stipulation or Judgment. The Court hereby grants Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application and awards Lead Counsel a Fee and Expense Award of attorne ys' fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or $3 million plus 20% of the Warrant Proceeds received by the Settlement Fund, plus expenses in the amount of $42,313.15, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the s ame period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the \"percentage-of-recovery\" method, as further set forth herein. the Settlement has created a fund consisting of $15,000,000 in cash and $17,000 in cash Warrant Proceeds, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim and Release forms will benefit from the Settlem ent created by Lead Counsel; The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants which is set forth in the Notice provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the pro ceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity. This Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and reasonable and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. The Court directs immediate entry of this Judgment by the Clerk of Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/19/2026) (vfr)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457834398/","id":457834398,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472824189/","id":472824189,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-19T10:11:15.951051-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T10:11:15.958943-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Fairness Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-19T10:11:15.933592-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T10:11:15.933611-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-19","time_filed":"11:35:53","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457515281/","id":457515281,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472500672/","id":472500672,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/138/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:53.634797-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.845928-07:00","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":"138","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039253822","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:53.599199-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.796581-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"15:57:48","entry_number":138,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":538,"description":"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Robert Craig Finkel on behalf of Dr. Martin Dietrich. New Address: Wolf Popper LLP, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, United States 10022, 212-759-4600..(Finkel, Robert) (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457515182/","id":457515182,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472500573/","id":472500573,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/139/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:36.387791-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.935107-07:00","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":"139","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039254055","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:36.353654-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.904117-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"16:08:04","entry_number":139,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":540,"description":"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Joshua Wolf Ruthizer on behalf of Dr. Martin Dietrich. New Address: Wolf Popper LLP, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, United States 10022, 212-759-4600..(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457515160/","id":457515160,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472500551/","id":472500551,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/140/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:31.023546-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.999094-07:00","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":"140","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039254120","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T14:12:30.988027-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.968433-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"16:13:30","entry_number":140,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.003","pacer_sequence_number":542,"description":"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Emer Caitriona Burke on behalf of Dr. Martin Dietrich. New Address: Wolf Popper LLP, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, United States 10022, 212-759-4600..(Burke, Emer) (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457514873/","id":457514873,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472500265/","id":472500265,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/141/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-17T14:11:35.020349-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.174449-07:00","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":"141","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039254562","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T14:11:34.986202-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:05.085881-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"16:46:45","entry_number":141,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.004","pacer_sequence_number":544,"description":"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Samuel Coffin on behalf of Dr. Martin Dietrich. New Address: Wolf Popper LLP, 570 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, United States 10022, 212-759-4600..(Coffin, Samuel) (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456987976/","id":456987976,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471961977/","id":471961977,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/137/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-12T14:12:32.655936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T13:03:41.618773-07:00","sha1":"f1aecd7b9a23f9f17e3024d53c1acf62e6dc96d0","page_count":9,"file_size":214847,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\nSECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION\n\n\n\n\nREPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF\n ALLOCATION AND AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND LITIGATION\n EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n WOLF POPPER LLP\n Robert C. Finkel\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Emer Burke\n Samuel Coffin\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, New York 10022\n (212) 759-4600\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich and the Class\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 9\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Lead Plaintiff, Dr. Martin Dietrich, respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum of Law\n\n(\u201cReply\u201d) in further support of his Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Plan of\n\nAllocation, and Requests for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (ECF Nos. 133-135, the \u201cFinal\n\nApproval Motion\u201d). 1\n\n FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n\n A. Background on the Settlement\n\n On February 12, 2026, Lead Plaintiff moved for final approval of the proposed Settlement\n\nof this securities class action. If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims against\n\nDefendants in exchange for a cash payment of $15,000,000, and the $17,000 in Warrant Proceeds\n\npaid upon the acquisition of Applied by third-party private company Cycle Pharmaceuticals\n\n(\u201cCycle\u201d) (discussed further infra at 2-3).\n\n The Settlement (as set forth in the Stipulation) is a product of a diligent litigation\n\nculminating in good-faith and arm\u2019s-length negotiations between highly experienced counsel,\n\nfacilitated by a well-respected mediator, and made under distressed financial circumstances. As\n\ndescribed in Lead Plaintiff\u2019s opening brief, the Settlement represents a highly favorable result for\n\nthe Class, recovering between 4% and 6.9% of maximum provable aggregate damages, depending\n\non the damages model used. These percentages are well-within the range of percentages of\n\nmaximum recoveries that courts typically approve in securities fraud class actions, and the\n\nSettlement amounts to an excellent recovery given the attendant risks and distinct challenges of\n\ncontinued litigation against a Company in such financial distress. ECF No. 134 at 10-12.\n\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms are defined in the Stipulation of Settlement\ndated November 20, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d), previously filed at ECF No. 126. Unless otherwise\nnoted, internal citations and quotation marks are omitted.\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 9\n\n\n\n\n B. The Impact of Cycle Pharmaceuticals\u2019 Acquisition of Applied on the\n Warrants\n\n After the execution of the Stipulation, Applied was acquired on February 3, 2026, by third-\n\nparty private company Cycle for $0.088 per share, plus the payment of a contingent value right\n\n(\u201cCVR\u201d) depending on approval and commercialization of products under development by\n\nApplied (the \u201cMerger\u201d). See ECF No. 134 at 6.\n\n As part of the Settlement, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel negotiated, for the benefit of\n\nthe Class, Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied common stock at a price of\n\n$0.48 per share (the closing price of Applied common stock on August 19, 2025, the date of\n\nsettlement in principle). Lead Counsel negotiated the Warrants to provide the Class with upside\n\nif Applied\u2019s financial condition improved and its stock price increased. The Warrant Agreement\n\nnegotiated between the parties anticipated that, in the event Applied was acquired by a private\n\ncompany and ceased to have publicly traded stock, then the Warrants would be converted to cash\n\npursuant to a Black Scholes Value formula.\n\n The Warrant Agreement, which is an exhibit to the Stipulation, provided specific outcomes\n\nin the event of a Fundamental Transaction (as that term is defined in the Warrant Agreement). One\n\nsuch Fundamental Transaction was a \u201cChange of Control,\u201d which was defined as \u201cany transaction\n\nor series of transactions that, directly or indirectly, results in [Applied] not having [common stock]\n\nregistered under the 1934 Act and listed on an Eligible Market.\u201d ECF No. 126, Ex. C \u00b6 3(d). The\n\nMerger meets the terms of a Change of Control.\n\n Pursuant to the terms of the Warrant Agreement, \u201cin the event of a Change of Control\u2026\u201d\n\n the Holder [Lead Plaintiff/the Class] shall surrender this Warrant and shall be\n entitled to receive from the Company or any Successor Entity, as of the date of\n consummation of such Change of Control, the same type or form of consideration\n (and in the same proportion), at the Black Scholes Value of the unexercised portion\n of this Warrant, that is being offered and paid to the holders of Common Stock of\n the Company in connection with the Change of Control, whether that consideration\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 9\n\n\n\n\n be in the form of cash, stock or any combination thereof, or whether the holders of\n Common Stock are given the choice to receive from among alternative forms of\n consideration in connection with the Change of Control.\n\nId. The Warrant Agreement also sets forth the formula and inputs to calculate the Black Scholes\n\nValue. Id.\n\n The Stipulation defines \u201cWarrant Proceeds\u201d to include \u201cany cash issued or paid in\n\nconnection with a Fundamental Transaction\u2026.\u201d ECF No. 126 \u00b6 1.67. The Stipulation also\n\nrequires Applied to pay \u201cWarrant Proceeds to the Escrow Account\u2026within thirty (30) calendar\n\ndays after \u2026 the effective date of a Fundamental Transaction\u2026\u201d Id. \u00b6 2.8.\n\n In sum, pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, as a result of the Merger, the Warrants must\n\nbe surrendered in exchange for the Black Scholes Value of the Warrants. And, pursuant to the\n\nStipulation, the Black Scholes Value is Warrant Proceeds, and those Warrant Proceeds were\n\nrequired to be paid to the Escrow Account 30 days after the closing of the Merger.\n\n After the closing of the Merger, Lead Counsel conferred with counsel to Applied\n\nconcerning the Change of Control and Black Scholes Value provisions of the Warrant Agreement.\n\nAs a result of those conversations, Cycle has transferred into the Settlement Fund the amount of\n\n$17,000, which represents the Black Scholes Value of the Warrant based on the calculation set\n\nforth in the Warrant Agreement.\n\n C. Updates on the Notice Program\n\n As detailed in the Final Approval Motion papers and the accompanying declaration from\n\nDawn C. Cody of Angeion Group LLC (\u201cAngeion\u201d) (ECF No. 135-1, \u201cCody Decl.\u201d), the\n\nSettlement Notice Program was implemented pursuant to the Court\u2019s Preliminary Approval Order\n\ndated November 19, 2026 (ECF No. 127). See ECF No. 134 at 7, 17; ECF No. 135-1 \u00b6\u00b6 5-32.\n\nLead Plaintiff now provides the Court with updates regarding the implementation of the notice\n\nplan, as reflected in the Supplemental Declaration of Dawn M. Cody Regarding: (I) Mailing and\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 9\n\n\n\n\nEmailing of Notice; (II) Report on Requests for Exclusion; and (III) Claims Received To Date,\n\ndated March 12, 2026 (\u201cSuppl. Cody Decl.\u201d), and attached to this Reply as Exhibit 1.\n\n In total, Angeion disseminated 60,382 copies of the Postcard Notice, including 39,864\n\nCourt-approved Postcard Notices and 20,518 link emails to potential Class Members and their\n\nnominees. See Suppl. Cody Decl. \u00b6 3. The Postcard Notice informed Class Members of a\n\nsummary of the terms of the proposed Settlement and that Lead Counsel would apply for an award\n\nof attorneys\u2019 fees in an amount not to exceed 20% of the Settlement Amount ($3,000,000), plus\n\nlitigation expenses not to exceed $50,000. See Cody Decl. Ex. A. The Postcard Notice also\n\napprised Class Members of: (1) their right to exclude themselves from the Class; (2) their right to\n\nobject to the terms of the Settlement or any of Lead Counsel\u2019s Requests; (3) the February 26, 2026\n\ndeadline for filing objections; (4) the February 26, 2026 deadline for submitting requests for\n\nexclusions; and (5) the April 8, 2026 deadline for submitting Claim Forms. Finally, the Postcard\n\nNotice also advised Class Members how to obtain more information about the Settlement,\n\nincluding directing Class Members to the Settlement Website, where they could obtain copies of\n\nthe Longform Notice and other important documents, identifying a toll-free number and a unique\n\nemail address where Class Members could contact the Claims Administrator, and providing Lead\n\nCounsel\u2019s contact information. See Cody Decl. Ex. A.\n\n A toll-free telephone number and an interactive voice response system is active and will\n\nremain active until the conclusion of the administration process. As of March 11, 2026, 69 callers\n\nhave called this number. See Suppl. Cody Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 8-12.\n\n The Settlement Website is also active and will remain active until the conclusion of the\n\nadministration process. The Settlement Website was visited 3,196 times through March 11, 2026.\n\nThe Settlement Website contains downloadable copies of relevant documents, including the\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n\nLongform Notice, the Claim Form, and Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Final Approval Motion. See Suppl. Cody\n\nDecl. \u00b6\u00b6 16-21. This Reply will also be posted to the Settlement Website.\n\n The Claims Administrator also continues to maintain a settlement specific email address -\n\ninfo@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com \u2013 through which Class Members can send inquiries.\n\nThrough March 11, 2026, Angeion has received 138 emails at this email address, and each email\n\nreceived a response. See Suppl. Cody Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 13-15.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI. The Positive Reaction of the Class Supports Approval of the Settlement, the Plan of\n Allocation, and the Fee and Expense Application\n\n Lead Plaintiff advises the Court that in response to the 60,382 Postcard Notices distributed\n\nto potential Class Members, no Class Member objected to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan\n\nof Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application. Only one Class Member made a request for\n\nexclusion from the Class. See Suppl. Cody Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 25-26.\n\n This positive response from the Class provides additional support for the final approval of\n\nthe Settlement and the Plan of Allocation. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396\n\nF.3d 96, 119 (2d Cir. 2005) (\u201c[T]he favorable reaction of the overwhelming majority of class\n\nmembers to the Settlement is perhaps the most significant factor in our Grinnell inquiry\u201d); Maley\n\nv. Del Global Techs. Corp., 186 F. Supp. 2d 358, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\u201cIt is well-settled that the\n\nreaction of the class to the settlement is perhaps the most significant factor to be weighed in\n\nconsidering its adequacy. ... In fact, the lack of objections may well evidence the fairness of the\n\n[s]ettlement.\u201d); see also Marroquin Alas v. Champlain Valley Specialty of N.Y., Inc., No. 5:15-\n\nCV-00441-MAD-TWD, 2016 WL 3406111, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016) (\u201cIn the present\n\nmatter, no objections had been filed to the settlement agreement up until the time of the hearing\n\non June 9, 2016, and no Class Members appeared at the hearing. As such, the second Grinnell\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 9\n\n\n\n\nfactor weighs in favor of final approval.\u201d); Kochilas v. Nat\u2019l Merch. Servs., No. 1:14-CV-00311,\n\n2015 WL 5821631, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2015) (noting that there were no objections and\n\nrequests for exclusions received and holding that \u201c[t]his overwhelmingly favorable response\n\nrecommends final approval.\u201d); In re Luxottica Grp. S.p.A. Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 306, 311\n\n(E.D.N.Y. 2006) (A \u201c[l]ack of objection is strong evidence of the settlement\u2019s fairness.\u201d).\n\n The positive reaction of the Class as noted above also provides support to the\n\nreasonableness of the Fee and Expense Application. See Vaccaro v. New Source Energy Partners\n\nL.P., No. 15 CV 8954 (KMW), 2017 WL 6398636, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017) (\u201cThe fact that\n\nno class members have explicitly objected to these attorneys\u2019 fees supports their award.\u201d); see also\n\nMaley, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 374 (the lack of any objection to the fee request supported its approval).\n\n In this case, Lead Counsel requests an award of attorneys\u2019 fees equal to 20% of the\n\nSettlement Fund, or $3 million plus 20% of the Warrant Proceeds, expenses in the amount of\n\n$46,313.15, and interest on these amounts at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund. In the\n\nFinal Approval Motion, Lead Counsel cited several examples of securities class action settlements\n\nwhere a similar or greater percentage of the relevant settlement fund was awarded at a similar\n\nprocedural posture to this matter \u2013 while motions to dismiss were pending. See ECF No. 134 at\n\n20. In addition to those cases, other courts in this Circuit have approved similar requests for\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees in cases where settlements were reached while motions to dismiss were pending.\n\nSee, e.g., In re Camelot Information Systems Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1: 12-cv-00086-PGG, ECF No.\n\n75 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2015) (approving attorneys\u2019 fees of 30% of $11.8 million settlement fund\n\nreached while motions to dismiss were pending); In re EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. Sec.\n\nLitig., 2007 WL 2230177, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2007) (approving attorneys\u2019 fees of 18% of a\n\n$7.725 million settlement fund reached while motions to dismiss were pending); In re Merrill\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 9\n\n\n\n\nLynch & Co. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 246 F.R.D. 156, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (approving\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees of 24% of a $125 million settlement fund reached while motions to dismiss were\n\npending while noting that the fact that the settlement \u201coccurred relatively early in litigation\u201d did\n\nnot cut against the award of that percentage); Maley, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 368 (approving attorneys\u2019\n\nfees of 33.33% of $11.5 million settlement fund reached while motions to dismiss were pending,\n\nwhile noting that \u201cCourts in this and nearby Districts have recently awarded 33 1/3% in securities\n\nclass actions where there has been a significant monetary recovery early on in the litigation.\u201d).\n\n As noted in the opening papers, while this Court awarded attorneys\u2019 fees of 15% in In re\n\nBumble, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-624 (DLC), ECF 93 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2023), Lead Counsel\n\nrespectfully submits that this action had a higher degree of complexity than Bumble. See, e.g., ECF\n\nNo. 134 at 21; ECF No. 135, \u00b6 138. In sum, this action alleges claims under the Securities\n\nExchange Act of 1934, for which scienter and loss causation are affirmative elements, and\n\nconcerns complex issues of falsity related to the FDA new drug approval process. Bumble alleged\n\nstrict liability and negligence-based claims under the Securities Act of 1933, and scienter and loss\n\ncausation were not affirmative elements. Lead Counsel respectfully submits that the complexity\n\nof this action warrants an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in the amount requested of 20%, which is also\n\nless than the maximum amount of attorneys\u2019 fees of 24% that Lead Plaintiff negotiated with Lead\n\nCounsel, given the stage of the litigation when the Settlement was reached. ECF No. 135 \u00b6 121;\n\nECF No. 135-2 \u00b6\u00b6 12-13.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons stated herein and in the Final Approval Motion (ECF Nos. 133-35), Lead\n\nPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his Final Approval Motion and Fee and Expense\n\nApplication. A proposed Final Judgment is attached to this Reply as Exhibit 2. A redline\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 9\n\n\n\n\ncomparison showing changes from the proposed Final Judgment to the proposed Final Judgment\n\nfiled with the Stipulation (ECF No. 126 Ex. B) is attached as Exhibit 3.\n\nDated: March 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n WOLF POPPER LLP\n\n By: /s/ Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n jruthizer@wolfpopper.com\n Robert C. Finkel\n rfinkel@wolfpopper.com\n Emer Burke\n eburke@wolfpopper.com\n Samuel Coffin\n scoffin@wolfpopper.com\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, New York 10022\n (212) 759-4600\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin\n Dietrich and the Class\n\n\n WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION\n\n Pursuant to Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), the undersigned hereby\n\ncertifies that this memorandum of law contains 2,308 words, excluding the caption, any index,\n\ntable of contents, table of authorities, signature blocks, or any required certificates. I utilized the\n\nword count of the word-processing program used to prepare the document in order to obtain that\n\nword count.\n\n By: /s/ Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:41.996063-07:00","document_number":"137","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039226800","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749029/","id":479749029,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/137/1/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:40.270125-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:37:51.234807-07:00","sha1":"ee530fce91822036d778f3fab81d3fbd17a0edd4","page_count":22,"file_size":4913041,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 22\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 22\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nSECURITIES LITIGATION\nCLASS ACTION\n\nSUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAWN M. CODY\nREGARDING: (1) MAILING AND EMAILING OF NOTICE; (IJ) REPORT ON\nREQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION; AND (Il) CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n\nI, Dawn M. Cody, hereby declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746:\n\n1. I am a Project Manager at Angeion Group LLC (\u201cAngeion\u201d). Angeion\u2019s business\naddress is 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s\nNovember 20, 2025 Order Granting Preliminary Approval Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1),\nCertifying Class for Settlement Purposes, and Approving Form of Notice and Directing Class\nNotice to the Class (ECF No. 127) (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), Angeion was appointed\nas the Claims Administrator in connection with the Settlement in the above-captioned Action.\"\nECF No. 127 4 7.\n\n2. I submit this declaration as a supplement to my earlier submitted declaration, the\nDeclaration of Dawn M. Cody Regarding: (I) Mailing and Emailing of Notice; (II) Publication of\nthe Summary Notice; and (IIT) Report on Requests for Exclusion Received to Date, dated February\n11, 2026 (the \u201cInitial Mailing Declaration,\u2019 ECF No. 135-1). I am over 21 years of age and am\nnot a party to this Action. [am familiar with the facts set forth herein based on personal knowledge,\nas well as information provided to me by my colleagues in the ordinary course of business at\n\nAngeion.\n\n' Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement,\ndated November 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation,\u201d ECF No. 126).\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 22\n\nUPDATE ON DISSEMINATION OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE\n\n3. As more fully stated in my Initial Mailing Declaration, as of February 10, 2026, a\ntotal of 60,382 notifications had been disseminated to potential Class Members and their nominees,\nincluding 39,864 Postcard Notices sent via First-Class Mail and 20,518 links to the Postcard Notice\nand Claim Form sent via email.\n\n4. From February 11, 2026, through March 11, 2026, Angeion has not received any\nadditional requests to mail or email the Postcard Notice to potential Class Members or for copies\nof the Postcard Notice or links to the Postcard Notice and Claim Form.\n\n5. In addition, as stated in the Initial Mailing Declaration, as of February 10, 2026, a\ntotal of 6 Postcard Notices were returned by the USPS as undeliverable without a forwarding\naddress, and Angeion was able to remail Postcard Notices to 5 of those potential Class Members\nfor whom updated addresses were obtained through address verification searches.\n\n6. From February 11, 2026, through March 11, 2026, no additional Postcard Notices\nwere returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable without a forwarding address\nand Angeion has not remailed any Postcard Notices.\n\n7. In total, through March 11, 2026, 6 Postcard Notices were returned by the USPS as\nundeliverable without a forwarding address, and Angeion was able to locate a potential address\nfor, and remail, 5 of those Postcard Notices.\n\nUPDATE ON TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS\n\n8. Angeion continues to maintain the toll-free telephone number established on\nDecember 19, 2025 (833-703-4229) and Interactive Voice Response (\u201cIVR\u201d) system to\naccommodate any inquiries from potential Class Members with question about the Action and the\n\nSettlement.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 22\n\n9. As stated in the Initial Mailing Declaration, as of February 10, 2026, 54 calls were\nmade to the case specific toll-free phone number, and 15 calls were handled by live operators.\n\n10. From February 11, 2026, through March 11, 2026, 15 calls were made to the case\nspecific toll-free phone number, and 10 calls were handled by live operators\n\n11. In total, through March 11, 2026, 69 calls have been made to the case specific toll-\nfree phone number, and 25 calls have been handled by live operators. All calls not handled by live\noperators did not require further assistance beyond the IVR .\n\n12. Angeion continues to maintain the telephone number and will continue to update\nthe IVR system as necessary throughout the administration of the Settlement.\n\n13. + Angeion also continues to maintain the email address\n\nInfo@APLT SecuritiesSettlement.com, established on December 19, 2026, for the Settlement. As\n\ndiscussed in the Initial Mailing Declaration, as of February 10, 2026, Angeion had received 112\nemails to the settlement specific email address.\n\n14. From February 11, 2026, through March 11, 2026, Angeion received 26 emails to\nthe settlement email address.\n\n15. In total, through March 11, 2026, Angeion received 138 emails at the settlement\nemail address, including broker requests for copies of the Notice and questions regarding the\nclaims process, each of which has received a response. Angeion will continue to monitor the\nsettlement email address throughout the administration of the Settlement and will respond\n\npromptly to any email messages received.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 22\n\nUPDATE ON SETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n\n16. As reported in the Initial Mailing Declaration, Angeion designed, implemented, and\n\ncurrently maintains a case-specific website, www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com which became\n\noperational on December 19, 2025.\n\n17. At the request of Lead Counsel, shortly after their filing with the Court on February\n12, 2026, Angeion posted downloadable copies of the following documents on the website: (a)\nNotice of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Plan\nof Allocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses (ECF No. 133); (b)\nMemorandum of Law in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action\nSettlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation\nExpenses (ECF No. 134); and (c) Declaration of Joshua W. Ruthizer in Support of Lead Plaintiff\u2019 s\nMotion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation, and an\nAward of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses, and all exhibits thereto (ECF No. 135).\n\n18. Also, at the request of Lead Counsel, on March 6, 2026, Angeion posted a\ndownloadable copy of Lead Counsel\u2019s March 5, 2026 letter to the Court advising the Court that\nthere had been one request for exclusion received in connection with the Settlement (ECF No.\n136).\n\n19. As stated in the Initial Mailing Declaration, as of February 10, 2026, the Settlement\nWebsite was visited 2,335 times. From February 11, 2026, through March 11, 2026, the Settlement\nWebsite was visited 861 times.\n\n20. In total, through March 11, 2026, the Settlement Website was visited 3,196 times.\n\n21. Angeion will continue to update the website with relevant information and Court\n\nDocuments throughout the administration of the Settlement.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 22\n\nUPDATE ON REQUESTS FOR\nCOPIES OF LONGFORM NOTICE AND CLAIM FORM\n\n22. As previously stated in my Initial Mailing Declaration of February 10, 2026,\nAngeion had received 2 requests for copies of the Longform Notice and Claim Form by phone.\n\n23. From February 11, 2026 through March 11, 2026, Angeion has received 3\nadditional requests for copies of the Longform Notice and Claim Form by phone. In total, Angeion\nreceived 5 requests for copies of the Longform Notice and Claim Form by phone.\n\n24. \u2014Angeion mailed or emailed copies of the Longform Notice or Claim Form in\nresponse to each of these requests, and will continue to respond to such requests throughout the\nadministration of the Settlement\n\nUPDATE ON REPORT OF REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS\n\n25. The Postcard Notice and Longform Notice informed potential Class Members that\nrequests for exclusion from the Class were to be mailed and addressed to Applied Therapeutics\nSecurities Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA\n19103, such that they are received no later than February 26, 2026. That deadline has passed.\n\n26. Angeion has been monitoring all mail received for the Settlement. As of March 11,\n2026, Angeion has received one (1) Request for Exclusion. On February 18, 2026, this request was\n\nsent by email to info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, an email account Angeion created to\n\ncommunicate with Class Members concerning the administration of the Settlement. The Claims\nAdministrator responded to this email with instructions from the Longform Notice on how to\nrequest exclusion, including the requirement that requests for exclusion be sent by mail. On\nFebruary 20, 2026, the request was received by USPS Express Mail. A redacted copy of the request\n\nis attached hereto as Exhibit 1.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 22\n\n27. Class Members seeking to object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of\nAllocation and/or Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application were required to submit their\nobjection in writing by mail or delivered such that it was received by the Court and Lead Counsel\nno later than February 26, 2026. Despite these instructions, Class Members sometimes send\nobjections to the Claims Administrator instead. As of March 11, 2026, Angeion has not received\nany objections, and is not aware of any objections being filed with the Court.\n\nUPDATE ON CLAIMS PROCESS\n\n28. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, Claims are to be submitted no later\nthan April 8, 2026. ECF No. 127, { 14. As of March 11, 2026, Angeion has received 259 Claims\nfrom potential Class Members.\n\n29. Based on our experience administering class action settlements in similar cases of\nthis nature, we anticipate the vast majority of Claims to be submitted on or around the claim filing\ndeadline. During the claims administration process, Angeion will review and process all Claims\nreceived, will provide Claimants with an opportunity to cure any deficiency or request judicial\nreview of the denial of their Claims, if applicable, and, with Court approval, will ultimately mail\nor wire Authorized Claimants their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund, as calculated under\nthe Plan of Allocation.\n\nESTIMATE OF ADMINISTRATION FEES\n\n30. As of March 11, 2026, the cost to provide notice and administration services has\ntotaled $29,858.24. Angeion estimates that if the number of Claims filed in this case is similar to\nthe number of Claims filed on other securities class actions, then it will be able to complete notice\n\nand administration services for the Settlement through two distributions of the Net Settlement Fund\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 22\n\nto Authorized Claimants within the $200,000 in Notice and Administration Costs that were\nauthorized by the Court\u2019s Preliminary Approval Order. ECF No. 127 4 27.\n\n31. Angeion respectfully requests that, if the Court includes a cap on Notice and\nAdministration Expenses in its Final Judgment or other Order, that the Court also include a\nprovision to allow Angeion and Lead Counsel to request the payment of additional Notice and\nAdministration Expenses in the event that Notice and Administration Expenses exceed the cap\nincluded by the Court.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted this 12th day of March 2026.\n\n(Abe Cy\n\nDawn M. Cody 7\n\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 22\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\nRequest for Exclusion\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 10 of 22\n\nFebruary 19, 2026\n\nApplied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\nc/o Claims Administrator\n\n1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\\\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n\nREQUEST FOR EXCLUSION\nApplied Therapeutics Securities Litigation,\nNo. 1:24-ev-09715-DLC\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n\nPurpose:\nRequest exclusion from the Class in the Applied Therapeutics Settlement\n\nPERSONAL INFORMATION:\n\nRaymond M. soa\n\nNew York, NY\na\na\nACTION:\n\nApplied Therapeutics Securities Litigation,\nNo. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n\nCourt-Ordered Legal Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action\n\nThe Parties to the securities class listed above have reached a proposed Settlement, under the\nterms and conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated November 20,\n2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d). This notice advises potential Class Members of information about the\nproposed Settlement. Capitalized terms used in this notice that are not otherwise defined are\ndefined in the Stipulation. Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and the Class, that Applied\nTherapeutics, Inc (\u201cApplied\u201d) and two of its former officers and directors (\u201cDefendants\u201d) made\nmaterially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 concerning, among other things, the\nviability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and Drug\nAdministration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat, and that these alleged misrepresentations allegedly\ncaused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the\nJanuary 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024 \u201cClass Period.\u201d Defendants deny any wrongdoing,\nand the Court has not determined that Defendants did anything wrong.\n\nAPPLIED THERAPEUTICS (APLT) COMMON STOCK TRANSACTIONS 2024:\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1\n\nEXTRADE\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001\n\nFiled 03/12/26\n\nPage 11 of 22\n\nE*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\n\nP.O. BOX 484\n\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n\n(800)-387-2331\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 200 6.1098 Principal $1,221.96\n221,\nTransaction Type: Bought a aeons\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 4,000 6,12 Principal $24,480.00\n4,480.00\nTransaction Type: Bought ee eaeoue\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 19,200 6.17 Principal $118,464.00\nTransaction Type: Bought Net Amount $118,464.00\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 106 6.14 Principal $650.84\nt t 650.84\nTransaction Type: Bought =a $\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 3,100 6.11 Principal $18,941.00\nt Amount 18,941.00\nTransaction Type: Bought Ne oun $\nTrade Date Settiement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 400 6.155 Principal $2,462.00\n2,462.00\nTransaction Type: Bought = $2,462\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 4,900 6.16 Principal $30,184.00\nNet Amount $30,184.00\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 12 of 22\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 794 6.15 Principal $4,883.10\nNet Amount $4,883.10\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDOCUMENTATION OF APPLIED THERAPEUTICS (APLT) COMMON STOCK\nTRANSACTIONS 2024:\n\nIncluded\nSTATEMENT THAT PERSON WISHES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS:\n\n| (Raymond M. Coggins) would hereby submit this official statement of notice to Exclude\nMyself from the Case.\n\nSIGNATURE:\n\nymond M. Coggins\n\nNew York, NY\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 13 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 200 6.1098 Principal $1,221.96\nNet Amount $1,221.96\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol! / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\nlof 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 14 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 4,000 6.12 Principal $24,480.00\nNet Amount $24,480.00\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\n1 of 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 15 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 19,200 6.17 Principal $118,464.00\nNet Amount $118,464.00\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\n1 of 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 16 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 106 6.14 Principal $650.84\nNet Amount $650.84\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\nlof2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 17 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 3,100 6.11 Principal $18,941.00\n\n. Net Amount $18,941.00\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / US03828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\n1 of 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 18 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 400 6.155 Principal $2,462.00\n\nNet Amount 2,462.00\nTransaction Type: Bought \u00b0 $\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\n\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\nUnsolicited trade\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\nlof2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 19 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 4,900 6.16 Principal $30,184.00\nNet Amount $30,184.00\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\n\nUnsolicited trade\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\n1 of 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document137-1 Filed 03/12/26 Page 20 of 22\n\nEXTRADE\u2019\n\nfrom Morgan Stanley\n\nRAYMOND COGGINS TOD\n\nNEW YORK NY 10001 E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley\n\nP.O. BOX 484\nJERSEY CITY, NJ 07303-0484\n(800)-387-2331\n\nThis transaction is confirmed in accordance with the information provided on the Conditions and Disclosures page.\n\nTrade Date Settlement Date Quantity Price Settlement Amount\n08/13/2024 08/14/2024 794 6.15 Principal $4,883.10\nNet Amount $4,883.10\n\nTransaction Type: Bought\n\nDescription: APPLIED THERAPEUTICS INC\n\nSymbol / CUSIP / ISIN: APLT / 03828A101 / USO3828A1016\nUnsolicited trade\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC acted as agent.\n\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. The transaction(s) may have been executed with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, an\naffiliate, which may receive compensation for any such services. E*TRADE is a business of Morgan Stanley.\n\n1 of 2\n\fGothl va! ewdene Wu\n\nOZ yg | PAIgG uly =\nAPNG cwIQy a\n\nPals sailenaC saypedeguy ray\n\n\fPage 22 of 22\n\nFiled 03/12/26\n\u201cponsosos S}YBy [Ty 'EZOZ 49qOINO LODjNOS [EISOd \u201cSN O ACLdy \u201ce[esed Jo} JOU s] eHeyovd giuy \u2018Av] fexopo) jo UORRIOIA Bog ADU Sens]\n\nCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-1\n\n\u201cByuowdys gssoidxy [eyy Ayoug Bujpues ul osn 405 Ajojo8 popjAoud 4] pia ,eojnl0g (s1G0g \u201cS'N Sy} JO Apodoud ey} 8] BuHexoed of\n\n SSLIVLS GALINN\n\n\u201cDIAUAS TWLSOd ee |\n\n4\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\naaunne*\n\n=\n\u2018\n\n|e\n\n2/LEX2/L Zt -do\n202 49909190 Selda\n\n-\n\n\u201cGayiInday Sf\n\na\n\n6\n\nCc\n\nIMT\n\n\u20ac2 O2%6 GOS LEB? SHLE OLS6\n\n# \u00a9ONIMOVYL SdSN\n\nMil\n\nSOUP]!\n\no11S9l\n\nat\n4SN Tvh\n\nby0e-\u20ac016! Yd VIHdTSOWIIHd\nLS HOU 0S91\nOlee 31S\n\nS3ILIUNDAS SOLLNAdWYSHL OaMdd\u00a5\n\n[1003]\n\nEOLWULSININGY SPY\nGeer E02 (\u00a38\n\ns\n\ndiHS\n\nWd 00:80 92/02/20 :AVO AW3AIN3G G37NdsHos\n\n20 904\n\n' 20 Ove 410\n\nezee-ocs\nWM .0001 AN HOA\n\n(Lez)\n\nSNIDDSO09 W GNOWAYH\n\nOA\n\n@SS3YdX3 TVA ALIMOd\n\n~\n\n900000LOC0LSd\n\ndNHOld/INGO'Sdsn\n\n*8POd HH ayy ueos\n\u2018dnyaIg obeyoed aeuj o|NPOYOS OF\n\nLHDSISM ANV @ SiVd 3NO\n\nadO 1aANS\ndLVd LV 1s\n\nS$SidddX3\n\n_| ALINOIYd\n\nTIV IW\n\n86-8c008zZ96SE &\naayinoay adv,\n3dO7SAN SLE diVd SDVLSOd sn\nsede IV At e164 Sey ea\n\nTWAS OL ATWald SS3ud \\\n\nThis package Is made from post-consumer waste, Please recycle ~ again,\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:47.982967-07:00","document_number":"137","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127039226801","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Declaration of Dawn M. Cody","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749030/","id":479749030,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/137/2/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:40.297144-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:42:00.913971-07:00","sha1":"c5af20bf723b51d38f9aa3920d1bbfd4f5553572","page_count":13,"file_size":202403,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\nSECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION\n\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n This matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), Certifying Class for Settlement Purposes, and Approving\n\nForm of Notice and Directing Class Notice to the Class (\u201cNotice Order\u201d) dated November 20,\n\n2025 (ECF No. 127), and Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,\n\nApproval of Plan of Allocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses dated\n\nFebruary 12, 2026 (the \u201cFinal Approval Motion,\u201d ECF No. 133). Due and adequate notice having\n\nbeen given to the Class as required in said Notice Order, and the Court having considered all papers\n\nfiled and proceedings had herein and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good\n\ncause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:\n\n 1. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Amended Stipulation\n\nof Settlement dated November 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation,\u201d ECF No. 126), and all capitalized terms\n\nused herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise set forth\n\nherein.\n\n 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over all\n\nparties to the Litigation, including all Members of the Class.\n\n 3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby\n\naffirms its determination in the Notice Order and finally certifies, for purposes of settlement only,\n\na Class defined as: all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded\n\ncommon stock of Applied on a U.S. based exchange between January 3, 2024 and December 2,\n\n2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current\n\nand former officers, directors, and employees of Applied (the \u201cExcluded Persons\u201d); (iii) any person\n\nor entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024 Private Placement (the \u201cPrivate\n\nPlacement Investors\u201d); (iv) members of Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or Private Placement\n\n\n\n\n -1 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\nInvestors\u2019 immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any entity\n\nin which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement Investors have or had a\n\ncontrolling interest.\n\n 4. Also excluded from the Class are those Persons identified in Exhibit 1 attached\n\nhereto who would otherwise be a Member of the Class but who have validly and timely excluded\n\nthemselves therefrom.\n\n 5. The Court finds that: (a) the Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of\n\nall Class Members in the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common\n\nto the Class which predominate over any individual question; (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiff are\n\ntypical of the claims of the Class; (d) Lead Plaintiff and his counsel have fairly and adequately\n\nrepresented and protected the Members of the Class; and (e) a class action is superior to other\n\navailable methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering (i) the\n\ninterests of the Members of the Class individually controlling the prosecution with separate\n\nactions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced\n\nby Members of the Class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of\n\nthese claims in this particular forum; and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the\n\nmanagement of the class action.\n\n 6. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby\n\naffirms its determination in the Notice Order and, for the purposes of the Settlement only, finally\n\nappoints Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich as Class Representative and Lead Counsel Wolf Popper\n\nLLP as Class Counsel.\n\n 7. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby fully and finally\n\napproves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including, without limitation,\n\n\n\n\n -2 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\nthe amount of the Settlement, the Releases provided for therein, and the dismissal with prejudice\n\nof the claims asserted against Defendants in the Litigation) and finds that:\n\n (a) said Stipulation and the Settlement contained therein, are, in all respects,\n fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interest of the Class;\n\n (b) Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Class;\n\n (c) The Settlement was negotiated at arm\u2019s-length with the assistance of an\n experienced mediator, and there was no collusion in connection with the\n Stipulation;\n\n (d) the Stipulation was the product of informed, arm\u2019s-length negotiations\n among competent, able counsel;\n\n (e) the relief provided for the Class is adequate, having taken into account (i)\n the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any\n proposed method of distributing relief to the Class, including the method\n of processing Class Members\u2019 Claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed\n award of attorneys\u2019 fees, including the timing of payment; and (iv) any\n agreement required to be identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n 23(e)(2);\n\n (f) the proposed Plan of Allocation treats Class Members equitably relative to\n each other; and\n\n (g) the record is sufficiently developed and complete to have enabled Lead\n Plaintiff and Defendants to have adequately evaluated and considered their\n positions.\n\n 8. Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of\n\nall the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except\n\nas to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto) who have\n\nvalidly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Court hereby dismisses the Litigation\n\nand all claims asserted therein with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs,\n\nexcept as and to the extent provided in the Stipulation and herein.\n\n 9. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, Lead Plaintiff shall,\n\nand each of the Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, shall be\n\n\n\n -3 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\ndeemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever waived,\n\nreleased, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice all Released Claims (including\n\nUnknown Claims) against the Released Defendant Parties, whether or not such Class Member\n\nexecutes and delivers the Proof of Claim and Release form or shares in the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nClaims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the Court in the Litigation are not\n\nreleased. Nothing contained herein shall release or bar any Releasing Plaintiff Party or Released\n\nDefendant Parties from bringing any action or claim to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or this\n\nFinal Judgment.\n\n 10. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, all Class Members and\n\nanyone claiming through or on behalf of any of them, will be forever barred and enjoined from\n\nasserting, commencing, instituting, prosecuting, continuing to prosecute or maintaining any action\n\nor other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal, or administrative forum,\n\nasserting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Defendant Parties.\n\n 11. Upon the Effective Date, as provided in the Stipulation and to the fullest extent\n\npermitted by law, all Persons shall be permanently enjoined, barred, and restrained from bringing,\n\ncommencing, prosecuting, or asserting any claims, actions, or causes of action for contribution,\n\nindemnity, or otherwise against any of the Released Defendant Parties seeking as damages or\n\notherwise the recovery of all or any part of any liability, judgment, or settlement which they pay,\n\nare obligated to pay, agree to pay, or that are paid on their behalf to the Class or any Class Member\n\narising out of, relating to or concerning any acts, facts, statements, or omissions that were or could\n\nhave been alleged in the Litigation, whether arising under state, federal, or foreign law as claims,\n\ncross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or otherwise, in the Court or any federal, state or\n\nforeign court, or in any arbitration proceeding, administrative agency proceeding, tribunal, or any\n\n\n\n\n -4 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\nother forum. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Bar Order shall bar or otherwise affect any\n\nclaim for insurance coverage, indemnity, or advancement between Released Defendant Parties.\n\n 12. Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, each of the Released\n\nDefendant Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully,\n\nfinally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims\n\n(including Unknown Claims) against the Lead Plaintiff, each and all of the Class Members, and\n\nLead Counsel. Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the Court in the\n\nLitigation are not released.\n\n 13. The Notice Program, including the Postcard Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class\n\nAction (the \u201cPostcard Notice\u201d), Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the\n\n\u201cSummary Notice\u201d), and Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class,\n\nand Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of\n\nAttorneys\u2019 Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the \u201cLongform Notice\u201d) given to the\n\nClass was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including the individual notice to\n\nall Members of the Class who could be identified through reasonable effort. Said Notices provided\n\nthe best notice practicable under the circumstances of those proceedings and of the matters set\n\nforth therein, including the proposed Settlement set forth in the Stipulation, to all Persons entitled\n\nto such notice, and said Notices fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n23 and the requirements of due process. No Class Member is relieved from the terms of the\n\nSettlement, including the releases provided for therein, based upon the contention or proof that\n\nsuch Class Member failed to receive actual or adequate notice. A full opportunity has been offered\n\nto the Class Members to object to the proposed Settlement and to participate in the hearing thereon,\n\nand no objections to the Settlement, the Final Approval Motion, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee\n\n\n\n\n -5 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\nand Expense Application were filed by Class Members. The Court further finds that the notice\n\nprovisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a71715, were fully discharged and that the\n\nstatutory waiting period has elapsed. Thus, the Court hereby determines that all Members of the\n\nClass are bound by this Judgment.\n\n 14. Notice of Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application was directed to Class\n\nMembers through the Notice Program in a reasonable manner and complies with Rule 23(h)(1) of\n\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as\n\namended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7),\n\nconstituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient\n\nnotice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.\n\n 15. Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\nProcedure, this Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed\n\nthrough the Notice Program to all persons who are Class Members who could be identified with\n\nreasonable effort, advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and\n\na full and fair opportunity was accorded to all persons and entities who are Class Members to be\n\nheard with respect to the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 16. Neither this Judgment, the Stipulation nor the Settlement contained therein, nor any\n\nact performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the\n\nSettlement: (a) is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the\n\nvalidity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Released Defendant Parties\n\nor their respective Related Parties, or (b) is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an\n\nadmission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Released Defendant Parties or\n\ntheir respective Related Parties in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court,\n\n\n\n\n -6 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\nadministrative agency, or other tribunal. The Released Defendant Parties and/or their respective\n\nRelated Parties may file the Stipulation and/or this Judgment from this Litigation in any other\n\naction that may be brought against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on\n\nprinciples of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or\n\nreduction, or any theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.\n\n 17. The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their financial obligations under the\n\nStipulation by paying or causing to be paid to the Settlement Fund (1) $15,000,000 in cash, in\n\naccordance with \u00b6 2.6 of the Stipulation; and (2) $17,000 in cash Warrant Proceeds in lieu of the\n\nWarrants, in accordance with \u00b6 2.8 of the Stipulation, representing the Black Scholes Value (as\n\nthat term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No. 126, Ex. C, and the calculation\n\nof such Black Scholes Value being agreed upon by the Settling Parties) as a result of the\n\nFundamental Transaction (as that term is defined in Section 3(d) of the Warrants, see ECF No.\n\n126, Ex. C) that occurred after the Stipulation was executed.\n\n 18. Lead Counsel and any person acting at the direction of Lead Counsel shall have no\n\nliability for any action taken in connection with the Warrants or the Black Scholes Value payment\n\nexcept for willful misconduct.\n\n 19. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby retains\n\ncontinuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of this Settlement and any award or distribution\n\nof the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund;\n\n(c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, and interest in the\n\nLitigation; and (d) all parties herein for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering\n\nthe Stipulation.\n\n\n\n\n -7 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\n 20. The Court finds and concludes that during the course of the Litigation, the Settling\n\nParties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of\n\nCivil Procedure 11 in connection with the institution, prosecution, defense, and settlement of the\n\nLitigation.\n\n 21. The terms of the Stipulation and of this Judgment shall be forever binding on\n\nDefendants, Lead Plaintiff, and all other Class Members (regardless of whether or not any\n\nindividual Class Member submits a Proof of Claim and Release form or seeks or obtains a\n\ndistribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as their respective successors and assigns.\n\n 22. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the\n\nterms of the Stipulation, or the Effective Date does not occur, or in the event that the Settlement\n\nFund, or any portion thereof, is returned to the Defendants or their insurers, then this Judgment\n\nshall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation\n\nand shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection\n\nherewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation,\n\nand the Settling Parties shall revert to their respective positions in the Litigation as of August 19,\n\n2025, as provided in the Stipulation.\n\n 23. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable\n\nextensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation. The Settling Parties are\n\nhereby authorized to agree to and adopt such amendments or modifications of the Stipulation or\n\nany exhibits attached thereto to effectuate the Settlement that: (a) are not materially inconsistent\n\nwith this Judgment; and (b) do not materially limit the rights of Class Members in connection with\n\nthe Settlement.\n\n\n\n\n -8 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\n 24. This Litigation and all Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice. The parties\n\nare to bear their own costs, except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Settling Parties or as\n\notherwise provided in the Stipulation or Judgment.\n\n 25. The Court hereby grants Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application and awards\n\nLead Counsel a Fee and Expense Award of attorneys\u2019 fees of ______% of the Settlement Fund, or\n\n$______________ plus ______% of the Warrant Proceeds received by the Settlement Fund, plus\n\nexpenses in the amount of $______________, together with the interest earned on both amounts\n\nfor the same period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The\n\nCourt finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the\n\n\u201cpercentage-of-recovery\u201d method.\n\n 26. The awarded attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses and interest earned thereon, shall be paid\n\nto Lead Counsel immediately upon execution of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with\n\nPrejudice and subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, and in particular,\n\n\u00b6 8.2 thereof, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein.\n\n 27. In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the Court has\n\nconsidered and found that:\n\n (a) the Settlement has created a fund consisting of $15,000,000 in cash and $17,000 in\n\ncash Warrant Proceeds, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid Proof\n\nof Claim and Release forms will benefit from the Settlement created by Lead Counsel;\n\n (b) at least 60,382 copies of the Postcard Notice were disseminated to potential Class\n\nMembers indicating that Lead Counsel would move for attorneys\u2019 fees in an amount not to exceed\n\n20% of the Settlement Amount and for expenses in an amount not to exceed $50,000, plus interest\n\non both amounts, and no objections to the fees or expenses were filed by Class Members;\n\n\n\n\n -9 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\n (c) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation and achieved the Settlement with skill,\n\nperseverance, and diligent advocacy;\n\n (d) Lead Counsel expended substantial time and effort pursuing the Litigation on\n\nbehalf of the Class;\n\n (e) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation entirely on a contingent basis;\n\n (f) the Litigation involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of\n\nsettlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;\n\n (g) had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would remain a significant\n\nrisk that the Class may have recovered less or nothing from Defendants;\n\n (h) Lead Counsel represented that they have devoted 1,949 hours through February 12,\n\n2026, with a lodestar value of $1,310,582, to achieve the Settlement;\n\n (i) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees; and\n\n (j) the attorney\u2019s fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable.\n\n 28. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the\n\nclaims of Authorized Claimants which is set forth in the Notice provides a fair and reasonable\n\nbasis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized\n\nClaimants, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity.\n\n 29. This Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice,\n\nis, in all respects, fair and reasonable and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 30. The Court directs immediate entry of this Judgment by the Clerk of the Court.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDATED: __________________ ___________________________________________________\n The Honorable Denise Cote\n United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n -10 -\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 137-2 Filed 03/12/26 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1\n\n Persons Who Validly and Timely Excluded Themselves from the Class\n\nName City, State, Country\n\nRaymond M. Coggins New York, NY, USA\n\n\n\n\n -1 -\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:48.245235-07:00","document_number":"137","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127039226802","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - Proposed Final Judgment","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749031/","id":479749031,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/137/3/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:40.311885-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:37:38.803895-07:00","sha1":"bf6865711c0e826af4ff32382bcbb86d23438724","page_count":13,"file_size":217075,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.137.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:51.570930-07:00","document_number":"137","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127039226803","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Proposed Final Judgment (Redline)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-12T14:12:32.616036-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.686571-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-12","time_filed":"16:01:41","entry_number":137,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":534,"description":"REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 133 MOTION to Approve Class Action Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses . MOTION for Attorney Fees . . Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Declaration of Dawn M. Cody, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Final Judgment, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Proposed Final Judgment (Redline)).(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 03/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456049654/","id":456049654,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471006403/","id":471006403,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/136/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-03-05T15:09:39.711543-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T02:43:01.726632-07:00","sha1":"45d908cb304979db614bb7765723e4d35557d1c1","page_count":2,"file_size":231587,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.136.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.136.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:52.741693-07:00","document_number":"136","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039183472","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-05T15:09:39.684970-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.597383-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-05","time_filed":"16:51:47","entry_number":136,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":532,"description":"LETTER addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Joshua Ruthizer dated 3/5/2026 re: List of Persons Requesting Exclusion from the Settlement Class. Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich..(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 03/05/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453755922/","id":453755922,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468654010/","id":468654010,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/133/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:21.239925-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.413894-07:00","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":"133","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063088","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Approve AND Attorney Fees","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:21.213738-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.319723-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-12","time_filed":"18:22:55","entry_number":133,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":519,"description":"MOTION to Approve Class Action Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ., MOTION for Attorney Fees . Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich..(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 02/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453755910/","id":453755910,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468653998/","id":468653998,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/134/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:19.119387-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:56:41.249058-07:00","sha1":"1a8ceb2f87faf1d5b95510a8b37fd36e2e1d6b80","page_count":34,"file_size":527460,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.134.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.134.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 34\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\nSECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION\n\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR\n FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLAN OF\n ALLOCATION AND AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND LITIGATION\n EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n WOLF POPPER LLP\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Robert C. Finkel\n Emer Burke\n Samuel Coffin\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, New York 10022\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich and the Class\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 34\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii\n\nINTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1\n\nOVERVIEW OF THE ACTION .................................................................................................... 2\n\nTERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................. 6\n\nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTICE PROGRAM ................................................................. 7\n\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8\n\nI. The Court Should Grant Final Approval of the Settlement .................................................. 8\n\n A. Rule 23(e)(2)(A): Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel Have Adequately Represented\n the Class .................................................................................................................. 9\n\n B. Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm\u2019s Length ..................... 9\n\n C. Rule 23(e)(2)(C): Relief Provided to the Class is Adequate and Reasonable in\n Light of the Risks, Costs, Delays, and Complexity of the Litigation ................... 10\n\n 1. Rule 23(e)(C)(i) and Grinnell Factors 1, 4, 5, and 6: The Costs, Risks, and\n Delay of Trial and Appeal; the Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration\n of the Litigation; and the Risks of Establishing Liability, Damages, and\n Maintaining the Class Through Trial ........................................................ 12\n\n 2. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii): The Proposed Method for Distributing Relief Is\n Effective .................................................................................................... 13\n\n 3. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii): The Anticipated Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses Are\n Reasonable ................................................................................................ 14\n\n 4. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv): Any Agreement Required to be Identified Under\n Rule 23(e)(3) ............................................................................................. 14\n\n D. Rule 23(e)(2)(D): The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably Relative to\n One Another .......................................................................................................... 14\n\n E. Grinnell Factor 2: The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement ........................... 15\n\n F. Grinnell Factor 3: The Stage of the Proceedings .................................................. 15\n\n G. Grinnell Factor 7: The Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment . 15\n\n H. Grinnell Factors 8 and 9: The Reasonableness of the Settlement in Light of the\n Best Possible Recovery and the Attendant Risks of Litigation ............................ 16\n\n i\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 34\n\n\n\n\nII. The Class Should be Finally Certified ................................................................................ 17\n\nIII. The Plan of Allocation Is Fair and Reasonable and Should Be Finally Approved ............. 17\n\nIV. The Fee and Expense Application Should Be Granted ....................................................... 19\n\n A. The Legal Standard for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees .......................................... 19\n\n B. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fee is Reasonable Under the Percentage of the Fund\n Method .................................................................................................................. 20\n\n C. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fee is Reasonable Under the Lodestar \u201cCross-Check\u201d\n Method .................................................................................................................. 21\n\n D. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fees are Reasonable Under the Goldberger factors .. 23\n\n 1. The Time and Labor Expended by Counsel ............................................. 23\n\n 2. The Magnitude and Complexities of the Litigation .................................. 24\n\n 3. The Risks of the Litigation ....................................................................... 24\n\n 4. The Quality of Representation .................................................................. 25\n\n 5. The Requested Fee in Relation to the Settlement ..................................... 26\n\n 6. Public Policy Considerations .................................................................... 26\n\n E. The Application for the Reimbursement of Litigation Costs and Expenses is\n Reasonable and Should be Approved ................................................................... 27\n\n F. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 28\n\nWORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................ 28\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 34\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases\nArbuthnot v. Pierson,\n 607 F. App\u2019x 73 (2d Cir. 2015)................................................................................................ 10\nBateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner,\n 472 U.S. 299 (1985) ................................................................................................................. 19\nBoeing Co. v. Van Gemert,\n 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ................................................................................................................. 19\nChristine Asia Co. v. Jack Yun Ma,\n No. 15-MD-2631 (CM) (SDA), 2019 WL 5257534 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)................. 12, 14\nCity of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,\n 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974) ....................................................................................................... 9\nCordes & Co. Fin. Servs. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,\n 502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................... 9\nD\u2019Amato v. Deutsche Bank,\n 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 10\nGoldberger v. Integrated Res.,\n 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................... 19, 20, 24\nHicks v. Stanley,\n No. 01 Civ. 10071(RJH), 2005 WL 2757792 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2005) ................................. 26\nIn re \u201cAgent Orange\u201d Prod. Liab. Litig.,\n 597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) .......................................................................................... 17\nIn re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig.,\n 80 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ........................................................................................ 10\nIn re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.,\n 909 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ...................................................................................... 15\nIn re Bisys Sec. Litig.,\n No. 04 Civ. 3840(JSR), 2007 WL 2049726 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2007) ................................... 25\nIn re Bumble, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 22-cv-624 (DLC), ECF 93 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2023) ........................................................ 21\nIn re China Sunergy Sec. Litig.,\n No. 07 Civ. 7895(DAB), 2011 WL 1899715 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011) ................................. 27\nIn re Colgate-Palmolive Co. ERISA Litig.,\n 36 F. Supp. 3d 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................................................ 20\nIn re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 06\u2013CV\u20131825 (NGG)(RER), 2010 WL 2653354 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) ........ 21, 24, 25\n iii\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 34\n\n\n\n\nIn re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig.,\n No. 13md2476 (DLC), 2016 WL 2731524 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 2016) ................................... 18\nIn re Facebook, Inc. IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig.,\n MDL No. 12-2389, 2015 WL 6971424 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2015) ........................................... 16\nIn re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 02-CV-3400 CM PED, 2010 WL 4537550 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010) .................. 16, 25, 26\nIn re Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 12\u2013Civ\u20138557 (CM). 2014 WL 7323417 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2014) ................................ 22\nIn re Lloyd's Am. Trust Fund Litig.,\n 96 Civ. 1262 (RWS), 2002 WL 31663577 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002) .............................. 21, 22\nIn re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Sec. Litig.,\n 249 F.R.D. 124 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2008) ............................................................................... 18\nIn re MetLife Demutualization Litig.,\n 689 F. Supp. 2d 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................................................ 8, 27\nIn re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig.,\n 187 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................................................................................. 21\nIn re PPDAI Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 18-CV-6716 (TAM), 2022 WL 198491 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2022) ............................. 14, 20\nIn re Prudential Sec. Inc. Ltd. P\u2019ships Litig.,\n 85 F. Supp. 410 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................. 24\nIn re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 05 MDL 01695(CM), 2007 WL 4115808 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) ................................ 21\nIn re Warner Communications Sec. Litigation,\n 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 1985), aff\u2019d, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1986) ..................... 25\nIn re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 388 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ...................................................................................... 19\nMartinek v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.,\n Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF), 2022 WL 16960903 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2022) ...................... 25\nMicholle v. Ophthotech Corp.,\n No. 1:17-cv-00210 (VSB) (GWG), ECF 147-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2022) ............................. 22\nMissouri v. Jenkins,\n 491 U.S. 274 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 22\nMonserrate v. Tequipment, Inc.,\n 11 CV 6090 (RML), 2012 WL 5830557 (E.D.N.Y Nov. 16, 2012) ........................................ 21\nOkla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Lexmark Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n No. 17-cv-5543, 2021 WL 76328 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021) ..................................................... 12\n\n iv\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 34\n\n\n\n\nPantelyat v. Bank of Am., N.A.,\n 16-cv-8964 (AJN), 2019 WL 402854 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2019) ....................................... 10, 16\nReichman v. Bonsignore, Brignati & Mazzotta,\n P.C., 818 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1987)............................................................................................ 26\nTeachers\u2019 Ret. Sys. of La. v. A.C.L.N., Ltd.,\n No. 01\u2013CV\u201311814(MP), 2004 WL 1087261 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2004) ................................. 24\nThompson v. Metro Life Ins. Co.,\n 216 F.R.D. 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ................................................................................................. 9\nWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.,\n 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 8, 19\n\nStatutes\nSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78j(b) ................................... 2\nSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78t(a) .................................... 2\n\nOther Authorities\nEdward Flores & Svetlana Starykh, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2024\n Full-Year Review at 26, Figure 23 (NERA Jan. 22, 2025) ...................................................... 11\n\nRules\nFed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ................................................................................................................... 1, 6\nFed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ................................................................................................................... 1, 6\nFed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ......................................................................................................... 8, 9, 14\n\nRegulations\n17 C.F.R. sec. 240.10b-5................................................................................................................. 2\n\n\n\n\n v\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 34\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Dr. Martin Dietrich (\u201cLead Plaintiff\u201d)1 submits this brief in support of his motion for final\n\napproval of the Settlement, approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation, and an award of attorneys\u2019\n\nfees and the reimbursement of litigation costs (\u201cMotion\u201d).\n\n The proposed Settlement, if finally approved, will resolve all claims against Defendants in\n\nexchange for a cash payment of $15,000,000 and Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of\n\nApplied common stock at a price of $0.48 per share, the closing price of Applied common stock\n\non August 19, 2025, the date the Settlement was reached. The Settlement is the product of good-\n\nfaith arm\u2019s-length negotiations between highly experienced counsel, facilitated by a well-respected\n\nmediator, and is a favorable outcome in light of the substantial risks and costs attendant to\n\ncontinued litigation.\n\n Lead Plaintiff submits that there has been no change in circumstances that would change\n\nthe Court\u2019s preliminary approval of the Settlement and certification of the Class for Settlement\n\npurposes. ECF 127. All elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are still met. The Settlement, which\n\nwill provide the Class with a substantial immediate cash benefit, remains fair, reasonable, and\n\nadequate. Also, the Plan of Allocation treats all Class Members equitably, and all Claimants will\n\nparticipate in the Settlement on a pro rata basis, based on a recognized loss formula consistent\n\nwith Plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s damage analysis.\n\n Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel also request a Fee and Expense Award to Lead Counsel\n\nof attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or $3 million plus 20% of any Warrant Proceeds,\n\n\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the\nAmended Stipulation of Settlement dated November 20, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d), previously filed at\nECF 126. Unless otherwise noted, all references to \u201c\u00b6 ___\u201d are to the Stipulation; and internal\ncitations and quotation marks are omitted.\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 34\n\n\n\n\nand reimbursement of litigation expenses of $46,313.15. Lead Counsel\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees\u2019 request\n\nof 20% of the settlement is within the range of fees awarded in this Circuit, and the request for a\n\nreimbursement of expenses should be granted as they were all reasonably incurred.\n\n OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION\n\n A. The Allegations of the Complaint\n\n This is a securities class action on behalf of a \u201cClass\u201d of all investors that purchased or\n\notherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Applied on a U.S.-based during the\n\nJanuary 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024 \u201cClass Period.\u201d The Second Consolidated Amended\n\nClass Action Complaint (\u201cComplaint\u201d or \u201cSAC,\u201d ECF 99) alleges that Defendants made materially\n\nfalse and misleading statements, with scienter, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\n\nExchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 concerning, among other things: the viability of Applied\u2019s\n\nNew Drug Application to the FDA for govorestat to treat Classic Galactosemia, a rare genetic\n\nmetabolic disorder that can be fatal if untreated (\u201cNDA\u201d); Defendants\u2019 interactions with the FDA\n\nconcerning the NDA; the reliability of the data underlying the NDA; and alleged known material\n\ndeficiencies with the NDA.\n\n Specifically, the Complaint alleges that (a) between March and June 2021, as part of\n\nApplied\u2019s ACTION-Galactosemia Kids Study (\u201cPediatric Study\u201d), 19 of the 47 subjects enrolled\n\nat a clinical site received only approximately 80% of the intended dose of govorestat due to a\n\nlabeling error (\u201cDosing Errors\u201d); (b) the Dosing Errors were a violation of the clinical trial protocol\n\nthat Applied agreed to with the FDA regarding the Pediatric Study; (c) Defendants knew (i) about\n\nthe Dosing Errors and that violated the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study, (ii) that\n\ninformation about the Dosing Errors and the associated clinical data (\u201cDosing Errors Clinical\n\nData\u201d) was required by to be included in the NDA, (iii) that the NDA failed to include this\n\ninformation, and instead reported clinical data as if the patients received the correct dose, and (iv)\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 34\n\n\n\n\nas a result, the NDA was materially deficient and failed to comply with FDA regulations. ECF\n\n99, \u00b6\u00b6 65-87.\n\n The Complaint also alleges that (a) on March 27, 2024, one of Applied\u2019s vendors deleted\n\nclinical source data for all 47 patients enrolled in the Pediatric Study (\u201cStudy Data Deletion\u201d),\n\nwhich was discovered by the FDA between April 23 and May 3, 2024 during an inspection of a\n\nclinical test site, (c) the Study Data Deletion was a violation of the clinical trial; (d) on May 3,\n\n2024, the FDA issued a FDA Form 483 to Applied that detailed the Study Data Deletion and two\n\nother objectionable conditions (\u201cForm 483\u201d), which was also discussed with Defendant\n\nShendelman; (e) on May 9, 2023, Applied responded to the Form 483 and informed the FDA that\n\ndeleted source data for 11 subjects could not be recovered; and (f) therefore, by May 9, 2024, the\n\nDefendants knew (i) about the Study Data Deletion, (ii) that the FDA knew Applied had violated\n\nFDA regulations and the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study, and (iii) that the FDA could\n\nnot verify clinical results of the Pediatric Study as part of its NDA review. Id.\n\n The Complaint alleged that the failure to disclose these facts rendered Defendants\u2019\n\nstatements materially false and misleading, and caused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to\n\ntrade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period, until the market learned the truth\n\nthrough, among other things, the November 27, 2024 disclosure of a complete response letter\n\n(\u201cCRL\u201d) from the FDA to Applied rejecting the NDA and the December 3, 2024 publication by\n\nthe FDA of a Warning Letter to Applied that identified the Study Data Deletion and failure to\n\ninclude information about the Dosing Errors and Dosing Errors Clinical Data in the NDA. Lead\n\nPlaintiff alleged that as a result of these and other disclosures, from November 27, 2024 through\n\nDecember 20, 2024, the price of Applied\u2019s common stock plummeted $7.69 per share, or 89.7%,\n\ncausing significant damages to Lead Plaintiff and the Class. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 384-410.\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 34\n\n\n\n\n B. Procedural History of the Litigation\n\n On March 11, 2025, the Court entered an Order appointing Dr. Dietrich as Lead Plaintiff\n\nand Wolf Popper as Lead Counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995\n\n(\u201cPSLRA\u201d). ECF 59. On May 2, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint\n\n(\u201cFAC\u201d). ECF 72. On May 23, 2025, Applied answered the FAC, and Shendelman and Perfetti\n\nmoved to dismiss the FAC. See ECF 78-80, 82-85. Although the motions to dismiss were still\n\npending, on May 27, 2025, the Court issued an Order lifting the PSLRA statutory discovery stay,\n\nrequiring Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, and scheduling a conference to set a pre-trial schedule.\n\nECF 87. The Order stated that \u201c[f]or the sake of clarity, discovery is not stayed with respect to the\n\nindividual defendants.\u201d ECF 87.\n\n On June 12, 2025, the parties appeared for a pre-trial conference, and on June 13, 2025,\n\nthe Court entered a Scheduling Order (ECF 98). On June 13, 2025, the parties exchanged initial\n\ndisclosures. On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff served initial requests for production of documents and\n\ninterrogatories on Defendants, and on August 4, 2025, Defendants each served responses.\n\nDeclaration of Joshua Ruthizer in Support of the Motion, dated February 12, 2026, and filed\n\nherewith (\u201cRuthizer Decl.\u201d), \u00b6 33.\n\n The Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Order (ECF 59) allowed Lead Plaintiff to file a letter\n\n\u201cindicating a desire to further amend its complaint in response to [a motion to dismiss],\u201d and\n\ncautioned that it was \u201cunlikely that Lead Plaintiff will be granted any further opportunities to\n\namend.\u201d Id. On June 6, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a letter to further amend the FAC. On June 9,\n\n2025, the Court denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot. ECF 95.\n\n On June 13, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed the SAC. ECF 99. On June 27, 2025, Applied\n\nanswered the SAC (ECF 106), and Shendelman and Perfetti moved to dismiss the SAC (ECF 100-\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 34\n\n\n\n\n105, 107-108). Lead Plaintiff opposed both motions, which were fully briefed on July 18, 2025.\n\nECF 109-113.\n\n Given the case\u2019s merits and the Company\u2019s financial circumstances, the parties agreed to\n\nengage in private mediation to try and expeditiously resolve the Action. In advance of the\n\nmediation, Applied made a limited initial production of documents totaling 255 pages on August\n\n5, 2025, comprised of certain priority documents Lead Plaintiff requested be produced before the\n\nmediation. These documents contained important information underlying the SAC\u2019s allegations\n\nregarding information that was first revealed to the market by the FDA in the CRL and Warning\n\nLetter. The parties exchanged detailed mediation statements, and a mediation session before Jed\n\nMelnick was held on August 19, 2025. Mr. Melnick, who is affiliated with JAMS, has over twenty\n\nyears of experience mediating complex business disputes, including many securities fraud class\n\nactions. After a full-day mediation, the parties ultimately agreed to the Settlement based on Mr.\n\nMelnick\u2019s proposal.\n\n On November 4, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a stipulation of settlement and a Motion for\n\nPreliminary Approval. ECF 119-122. On November 19, 2025, the Court held a telephone hearing\n\nconcerning the stipulation and the motion. ECF 123. On November 20, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed\n\nan Amended Stipulation of Settlement (the Stipulation), which included certain edits requested by\n\nthe Court at the November 19, 2025 conference. ECF 126. Later that day, the Court issued the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order, which, among other things, (a) preliminarily approved the\n\nSettlement; (b) approved the form, content, and manner of providing notice of the Settlement to\n\nthe Class, and set December 19, 2025 as the \u201cNotice Date\u201d by which Notices would be distributed;\n\n(c) set (i) a Settlement Hearing for March 19, 2026, (ii) deadlines for Class Members to object to\n\nor opt out of the Settlement of February 26, 2026, and (iii) a deadline for Class Members to submit\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 34\n\n\n\n\nProofs of Claim and Release (\u201cClaim Forms\u201d) of April 8, 2026; (d) for settlement purposes,\n\ncertified the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and appointed Dr. Dietrich as Class\n\nRepresentative and Wolf Popper as Class Counsel; (g) appointed Angeion Group LLC (\u201cAngeion)\n\nas Claims Administrator and directed Lead Counsel and Angeion to effectuate the Notice Program.\n\nECF 127, \u00b6\u00b6 1-8, 10-11, 14-19\n\n On December 11, 2025, Applied issued a press release announcing that it had entered into\n\na merger agreement with Cycle Group Holdings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to which Cycle\n\ncommenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock for\n\n$0.088 per share in cash plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that entitles\n\nthe holder to receive potential additional payments (the \u201cAcquisition\u201d). See ECF 132.\n\n On December 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter motion requesting that the Court\n\napprove an addition to the Longform Notice to advise the Class of the Acquisition. The Court\n\ngranted the motion on December 16, 2025. ECF 130-131. Cycle completed the Acquisition on\n\nFebruary 3, 2026, and paid aggregate consideration of approximately $14.3 million. Ruthizer\n\nDecl. \u00b6 52.\n\n TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT\n\n Th Settlement requires the Company to pay or cause to be paid $15,000,000 in cash plus\n\nthe Warrants. \u00b6\u00b6 1.53, 2.2. Once Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administrative Costs, a Court-\n\nawarded Fee and Expense Award, any Warrant Exercise Expenses, any Warrant Registration\n\nExpenses, and any other Court-approved costs or fees are deducted from the Settlement Fund, the\n\nremaining balance plus any Warrant Proceeds (i.e., the Net Settlement Fund), will be distributed\n\nto Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Stipulation and Plan of Allocation. \u00b6 6.3. There will be\n\nno reversion to Defendants of any portion of the Settlement Fund. \u00b6 2.20. In exchange, Lead\n\nPlaintiff and each Class Member will be deemed to have fully released any and all Released\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 13 of 34\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s Claims against Defendants and the other Defendants\u2019 Releasees, and will be forever\n\nbarred and enjoined from prosecuting any and all Released Plaintiff\u2019s Claims against any of the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Releasees. \u00b6 5.1.\n\n Lead Counsel is still evaluating the impact of the Acquisition on the Warrants. However,\n\nbecause the Acquisition consideration is significantly below the strike price for the Warrants of\n\n$0.48 per share, the Warrants are likely to have minimal value.\n\n The Stipulation anticipates that Lead Counsel will file a Fee and Expense Application for\n\nan award of attorneys\u2019 fees and reimbursement of litigation costs expenses (a Fee and Expense\n\nAward), which are not a condition or material term of the Settlement, and are not the subject of\n\nany agreement between the parties. \u00b6 8.1.\n\n IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTICE PROGRAM\n\n On December 19, 2025, Angeion (a) mailed 57 copies of the Postcard Notice to\n\nstockholders of record of Applied common stock and emailed 6 Postcard Notices, (b) published\n\nthe Summary Notice on PR Newswire, and (c) established the Settlement Website\n\n(www.apltsecuritiessettlement.com), which contained, among other things, copies of the\n\nLongform Notice, the Claim Form, the Stipulation, the Motion for Preliminary Approval, and the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order, as well information concerning the deadlines for Class Members to\n\nobject or opt-out of the Settlement or submit Claim Forms. Ruthizer Decl. Ex. 1 (Declaration of\n\nDawn M. Cody Regarding: (I) Mailing and Emailing of Notice; (II) Publication of the Summary\n\nNotice; and (III) Report on Requests for Exclusion Received to Date (\u201cCody Decl.\u201d)) \u00b6\u00b6 6-7, 19-\n\n20, 27.\n\n Also on December 19, 2025, Angeion mailed a \u201cNominee Letter\u201d to 4,155 nominees who\n\nmay have held Applied common stock in street name for beneficial owners, instructed nominees\n\nto (a) provide the name and contact information of potential Class Members to Angeion, who\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 14 of 34\n\n\n\n\nwould then send to those potential Class Members a copy of the Postcard Notice or a link to the\n\nPostcard Notice and Claim Form, or (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice or links for mailing\n\nor emailing by the nominee. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has received from nominees\n\ncontact information for 1,770 potential Class Members and requests for 33,970 copies of the\n\nPostcard Notice and 20,424 copies of links. In total, as of February 10, 2026, 60,382 notifications\n\nhave been made to potential Class Members or their nominees, including 39,864 Postcard Notices\n\nand 20,518 link emails. Id. \u00b6 10, 14-17.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI. The Court Should Grant Final Approval of the Settlement\n\n \u201cThere is a strong judicial policy in favor of settlements, particularly in the class action\n\ncontext.\u201d In re MetLife Demutualization Litig., 689 F. Supp. 2d 297, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); see\n\nalso Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). Federal Rules of\n\nCivil Procedure Rule 23(e)(2) instructs that the court should consider the following factors when\n\ndetermining whether a settlement is \u201cfair, reasonable, and adequate\u201d:\n\n (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the\n class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm\u2019s length; (C) the relief provided for\n the class is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial\n and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to\n the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; (iii) the terms\n of any proposed award of attorney\u2019s fees, including timing of payment; and (iv)\n any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal\n treats class members equitably relative to each other.\n\n The Second Circuit also considers the following \u201cGrinnell Factors,\u201d some of which overlap\n\nwith Rule 23(e)(2):\n\n (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation, (2) the reaction\n of the class to the settlement, (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of\n discovery completed, (4) the risks of establishing liability, (5) the risks of\n establishing damages, (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the\n trial, (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment, (8) the\n range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 15 of 34\n\n\n\n\n recovery, [and] (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible\n recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.\n\nCity of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). For a settlement to be deemed\n\nsubstantively and procedurally fair, reasonable, and adequate, not every factor must be satisfied.\n\n\u201c[R]ather, the court should consider the totality of these factors in light of the particular\n\ncircumstances.\u201d Thompson v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 55, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).\n\n The proposed Settlement readily satisfies Rule 23(e)(2) and the Grinnell factors.\n\nAccordingly, the Settlement should be approved.\n\n A. Rule 23(e)(2)(A): Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel Adequately Represented\n the Class\n\n The determination of adequacy \u201ctypically entails inquiry as to whether: 1) plaintiff\u2019s\n\ninterests are antagonistic to the interest of other members of the class and 2) plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\n\nare qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.\u201d Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs. v. A.G.\n\nEdwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).\n\n Here, Lead Plaintiff\u2019s interests are not antagonistic to the interest of the other members of\n\nthe Class. Further, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Class by\n\ninvestigating potential claims, and thereafter diligently and vigorously prosecuting the Action\n\nsince February 2025. The Preliminary Approval Order also found that \u201cLead Plaintiff and Lead\n\nCounsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class.\u201d ECF 127 \u00b6 3. Accordingly, this\n\nfactor favors approval of the settlement.\n\n B. Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm\u2019s Length\n\n Rule 23(e)(2)(B) requires that a proposed settlement be procedurally adequate i.e.,\n\nnegotiated at arm\u2019s length. The Settlement was negotiated at arm\u2019s length with the assistance of a\n\nmediator, and was the result of a mediator\u2019s proposal, which evinces that the settlement was\n\nnegotiated at an arm\u2019s length. See, e.g., In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F.\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 16 of 34\n\n\n\n\nSupp. 2d 164, 173-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff\u2019d sub nom. D\u2019Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78,\n\n85 (2d Cir. 2001) (a \u201cmediator\u2019s involvement\u201d during negotiations \u201chelps to ensure that the\n\nproceedings were free of collusion and undue pressure\u201d). This factor also favors approval of the\n\nSettlement.\n\n C. Rule 23(e)(2)(C): Relief Provided to the Class is Adequate and Reasonable in\n Light of the Risks, Costs, Delays, and Complexity of the Litigation\n\n In assessing a settlement for approval, courts consider \u201cnot whether the settlement\n\nrepresents the best possible recovery, but how the settlement relates to the strengths and\n\nweaknesses of the case.\u201d City of Providence v. A\u00e9ropostale, Inc., 2014 WL 1883494, at *9\n\n(S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2014), aff\u2019d sub nom. Arbuthnot v. Pierson, 607 F. App\u2019x 73 (2d Cir. 2015). A\n\ncourt need only determine whether the settlement falls within a range of reasonableness that\n\n\u201crecognizes the uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case and the concomitant risks and\n\ncosts necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion.\u201d Pantelyat v. Bank of Am., N.A.,\n\nNo. 16-cv-8964, 2019 WL 402854, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2019).\n\n The $15,000,000 cash recovery represents the following percentages of potential damages,\n\nas calculated by Lead Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert using a traditional \u201cone-day drop\u201d model related\n\nto the alleged corrective disclosures:2\n\n \u2022 approximately 4% of the Class\u2019s best-case maximum estimated aggregate damages\n of $377.5 million based on all of the SAC\u2019s alleged stock price declines in response\n to alleged corrective disclosures that also had statistical significance;\n\n \u2022 approximately 4.3% of the Class\u2019s maximum aggregated damages of $348.8\n million for the November 29, 2024 one-day stock drop (which is also the most\n significant stock drop) in response to the first alleged corrective disclosure on\n November 27, 2024;\n\n\n\n2\n Defendants do not concede the accuracy of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert\u2019s calculation of\npotential damages.\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 17 of 34\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 approximately 6.2% of the Class\u2019s maximum aggregate damages of $241.6 million\n if Defendants\u2019 arguments concerning scienter for statements related to the alleged\n Dosing Errors were accepted, and as a result the Class Period started on May 9,\n 2024, when Applied was informed that the FDA had learned of the Study Data\n Deletion, rather than January 4, 2024; and\n\n \u2022 approximately 6.9% of the Class\u2019s maximum aggregate damages of $217.4 million\n for the November 29, 2024 one-day stock drop, if the Class Period started on May\n 9, 2024.\n\n Notably, the percentages discussed above assume (a) Lead Plaintiff would be able to prove\n\nevery aspect of his claims on liability and his damages model would be accepted by the jury in\n\nfull, (b) Lead Plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s trading model proves accurate, and (c) after a judgment in favor\n\nof Lead Plaintiff and the Class, all damaged Class Members filed claims on all shares purchased\n\nduring the Class Period and all such Claims were approved.\n\n The $15 million risk-free Settlement represents a percentage well within the range of\n\npotential maximum recoveries in a securities fraud class action. A recent report from National\n\nEconomic Research Associates, Inc. (\u201cNERA\u201d) identified the median percentage recovery in\n\nsettlements of class actions during the period January 2016 through December 2025 involving\n\naggregate investor losses between $200 million to $399 million to be 2.7%, less than the\n\npercentage implied by the Settlement Amount here.3 NERA also calculated that the median ratio\n\nof settlement to investor losses for all settlements reached in 2025 was 1.5%, significantly below\n\n4%-6.9% of potential damages represented by the Settlement here. Thus, the Settlement Amount\n\nis well within the range of reasonableness. See, e.g., Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 13 Civ.\n\n7060 (CM) (KHP), 2022 WL 4554858, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022) (noting that the \u201cmedian\n\n\n\n3\n See Ruthizer Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 106-109; Edward Flores & Svetlana Starykh, Recent Trends in Securities\nClass Action Litigation: 2025 Full-Year Review (NERA Jan. 21, 2026), available at\nwww.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2026/PUB_2025_Recent_SCA_Trends_Full-\nYear_0121.pdf.\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 18 of 34\n\n\n\n\nrecovery [in securities class actions was] of 4.2% of damages in 2021\u201d); Okla. Firefighters Pension\n\n& Ret. Sys. v. Lexmark Int\u2019l, Inc., No. 17-cv-5543, 2021 WL 76328, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021)\n\n(noting that \u201cthe range previously approved by judges in this District\u201d was 3% to 11% of estimated\n\ndamages).\n\n 1. Rule 23(e)(C)(i) and Grinnell Factors 1, 4, 5, and 6: The Costs, Risks,\n and Delay of Trial and Appeal; the Complexity, Expense and Likely\n Duration of the Litigation; and the Risks of Establishing Liability,\n Damages, and Maintaining the Class Through Trial\n\n \u201cIn evaluating the settlement of a securities class action, federal courts, including this\n\nCourt, have long recognized that such litigation is notably difficult and notoriously uncertain. As\n\nsuch, settlement is favored where trial of [the] class action would be a long, arduous process\n\nrequiring great expenditures of time and money on behalf of both the parties and the court.\u201d\n\nChristine Asia Co. v. Jack Yun Ma, No. 15-MD-2631 (CM) (SDA), 2019 WL 5257534, at *10\n\n(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019).\n\n In this case, there were risks to proving liability, damages, and maintaining a class through\n\ntrial. See Ruthizer Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 65-74. At the time the Settlement was reached, Shendelman\u2019s and\n\nPerfetti\u2019s motions to dismiss were pending. While Lead Plaintiff believes that he would have been\n\nsuccessful in defeating Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, there was a risk that Defendants\u2019 motions\n\nwould be partially or fully granted. For example, the Court could have been convinced by\n\nDefendants\u2019 arguments that certain of the alleged false statements were inactionable puffery. See\n\nECF 105 at 23-25. Similarly, the Court could have found merit to Defendants\u2019 contention that\n\nShendelman\u2019s or Perfetti\u2019s Class Period stock sales did not evidence motive, and there was\n\ninsufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge to find that Shendelman\u2019s or Perfetti\u2019s\n\nstatements were made with requisite scienter. See ECF 101 at 15-22; ECF 105 at 12-23. Moreover,\n\nif the Court partially denied the motions to dismiss, then the Class Period could have been\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 19 of 34\n\n\n\n\nsignificantly narrowed. Also, if the motions to dismiss were granted, Applied, which answered the\n\nSAC, could have then moved for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, which\n\ncould have ended the Action without any recovery for the Class.\n\n If the motions to dismiss were denied, Defendants likely would have opposed class\n\ncertification and moved for summary judgment. If Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel succeeded in\n\nhaving the Class certified and defeating Defendants\u2019 expected motion for summary judgment,\n\nLead Plaintiff would be required to prove all elements of his claims to prevail at trial, while\n\nDefendants would need to only succeed on one defense to potentially defeat the entire action.\n\nThere was also no guarantee the Class would prevail in full on the issue of damages, and even if\n\nthey did, how the Court\u2019s rulings on any motion for summary judgment and complex expert\n\ntestimony matters\u2014even if solely related to liability matters\u2014would affect damages or how the\n\ncase might be presented to a jury.\n\n Defendants could also appeal, which could extend the lawsuit for years, and risk reversal.\n\nA prolonged litigation would take years and incur additional significant costs that would reduce\n\nthe limited funds available to provide recourse for the Class.\n\n These risks and complexities in prosecuting this action underscore the desirability of this\n\nSettlement, and support approval of the Settlement.\n\n 2. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii): The Proposed Method for Distributing Relief Is\n Effective\n\n As discussed below in Sections III and IV, the distribution of the Notices and Claim Form\n\ncomplied with the Preliminary Approval Order, due process, and all relevant laws, and the method\n\nfor distributing the Settlement Fund \u2013 the proposed Plan of Allocation \u2013 is also effective and fair.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 20 of 34\n\n\n\n\n 3. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii): The Anticipated Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses\n Are Reasonable\n\n Rule 23(e)(2)(iii) instructs court to look to \u201cthe terms of any proposed award of attorney\u2019s\n\nfees, including timing of payment.\u201d The award of attorneys\u2019 fees or reimbursement of expenses\n\nare not a condition or material term of the Settlement, and are not the subject of any agreement\n\nbetween the parties. The Stipulation authorizes payment of attorneys\u2019 fees \u201cimmediately\u201d upon\n\nissuance of the Court\u2019s fee award (\u00b6 8.2), which is a common and unobjectionable provision when\n\nthe settlement agreement (as is the case here) contemplates that the Court retains jurisdiction to\n\nresolve any disputes related to the disposition of settlement funds. See In re PPDAI Grp. Inc. Sec.\n\nLitig., 2022 WL 198491, at *14, n.14 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2022).\n\n As discussed in Section V, below, the Fee and Expense Application is reasonable should\n\nbe granted.\n\n 4. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv): Any Agreement Required to be Identified Under\n Rule 23(e)(3)\n\n The parties have entered into a confidential Supplemental Agreement that allows Applied\n\nto terminate the Settlement if a certain threshold of class members meeting certain criteria request\n\nexclusion from the class. \u00b6 9.3. \u201cThis type of agreement is standard in securities class action\n\nsettlements and has no negative impact on the fairness of the Settlement.\u201d Christine Asia Co., 2019\n\nWL 5257534, at *15.\n\n D. Rule 23(e)(2)(D): The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably Relative to\n One Another\n\n In this case, the Settlement Agreement\u2019s release language (see \u00b6\u00b6 1.43-1.47, 5.1-5.5) treats\n\nall Class Members equitably relative to one another. Subject to Court approval, all Class Members\n\nwill be giving Defendants an identical release. Further, as discussed below (Section IV), the Plan\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 21 of 34\n\n\n\n\nof Allocation treats all Class Members equitably based on the timing of their acquisitions and sales\n\nof Applied common stock. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approval.\n\n E. Grinnell Factor 2: The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement\n\n As set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, requests for exclusion must be received\n\nby, and objections must be filed by, February 26, 2026. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has not\n\nreceived any requests for exclusion or objections. Ruthizer Decl. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.) \u00b6\u00b6 35, 37.\n\nLead Counsel is not aware of any requests for exclusion or objections received to date. Ruthizer\n\nDecl. \u00b6\u00b6 92-94. Lead Counsel will report on any objections or opt outs received in its reply brief.\n\nLead Plaintiff supports the Settlement. Id. Ex. 2 (Declaration of Lead Plaintiff); ECF 121-1.\n\n F. Grinnell Factor 3: The Stage of the Proceedings\n\n While assessing this factor \u201cthe question is whether the parties had adequate information\n\nabout their claims such that their counsel can intelligently evaluate the merits of plaintiff\u2019s claims,\n\nthe strengths of the defenses asserted by defendants, and the value of plaintiffs\u2019 causes of action\n\nfor purposes of settlement.\u2019\u201d In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 909\n\nF. Supp. 2d 259, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). At the time the Settlement was reached, discovery had\n\ncommenced. Although limited, those documents contained important information, and information\n\nunderlying the Complaint\u2019s allegations had also been publicly released by the FDA. The resulting\n\naccumulation of information permitted Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel to knowledgably evaluate\n\nthe merits and circumstances of their case, and the Settlement. Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits\n\nthat the stage of the proceedings is a neutral Grinnell factor.\n\n G. Grinnell Factor 7: The Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater\n Judgment\n\n At the time of the Settlement, there was significant doubt that Defendants would be able to\n\nwithstand a greater judgment. Applied\u2019s post-Class Period SEC filings contained \u201cgoing concern\u201d\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 22 of 34\n\n\n\n\nwarnings, and Applied was projected to have just $8 million in cash on hand by September 30,\n\n2025, which would likely be insufficient to cover its already-existing liabilities. Ruthizer Decl. \u00b6\n\n63. The $15 million Settlement represents 21% of Applied\u2019s $69 million market capitalization on\n\nthe date when the Settlement was reached, and is more than the $14.3 million aggregate\n\nconsideration for the Acquisition. The $15 million Settlement also represented almost the entire\n\namount of funds available under the Company\u2019s relevant insurance policies, which would only\n\ndecrease by continued litigation to the detriment of the Class. Ruthizer Decl. \u00b6 64.\n\n Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this factor favors preliminary approval.\n\n H. Grinnell Factors 8 and 9: The Reasonableness of the Settlement in Light of the\n Best Possible Recovery and the Attendant Risks of Litigation\n\n Considering the best possible recovery, the risk-free Settlement is well within the range of\n\napproval and presents an excellent, prompt, and substantial recovery for the Class. See Pantelyat,\n\n2019 WL 402854, at *7 (in determining a settlement\u2019s range of reasonableness, the court should\n\nconsider \u201cthe uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case and the concomitant risks and\n\ncosts necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion.\u201d). \u201cIn analyzing the size of the\n\nsettlement compared to the best possible recovery and in view of the attendant risks, the issue for\n\nthe Court is not whether the Settlement represents the best possible recovery, but how the\n\nSettlement relates to the strengths and weaknesses of the case.\u201d In re Flag Telecom Holdings Ltd.\n\nSec. Litig., No. 02-CV-3400 CM PED, 2010 WL 4537550, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010).\n\n As discussed herein, there were significant risks to success of the litigation and the\n\nDefendants\u2019 ability to withstand a judgment greater than the Settlement Amount. Lead Plaintiff\n\nrespectfully submits that the Settlement Amount is well within the range of reasonableness. See\n\nIn re Facebook, Inc. IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig., MDL No. 12-2389, 2015 WL 6971424, at *6\n\n(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2015) (citing In re \u201cAgent Orange\u201d Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740, 762\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 23 of 34\n\n\n\n\n(E.D.N.Y. 1984) (\u201cThe fact that the settlement amount may equal but a fraction of potential\n\nrecovery does not render the settlement inadequate. Dollar amounts are judged not in comparison\n\nwith the possible recovery in the best of all possible worlds, but rather in light of the strengths and\n\nweaknesses of plaintiffs\u2019 case.\u201d)).\n\nII. The Class Should be Finally Certified\n\n In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, for settlement purposes, certified the Class\n\nand appointed Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative and Wolf Popper as Class Counsel. Lead\n\nPlaintiff respectfully submits that circumstances have not changed, and requests that the Court\n\nfinally certify the Class for settlement purposes and confirm Lead Plaintiff\u2019s and Lead Counsel\u2019s\n\nappointments.\n\nIII. Notice Satisfied Due Process and Complied with the Preliminary Approval Order\n\n The Court approved Notice Program follows a standard and effective process, including a\n\nPostcard Notice that was sent to potential Class Members, a Summary Notice that was published\n\non a national wire service, and a Settlement Website from where Class Members may obtain the\n\nLongform Notice and the Claim Form. The Claims Administrator distributed the Notices in\n\naccordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. See Ruthizer Decl. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.) \u00b6\u00b6 5-13;\n\nSection B, above. Notice also satisfied the requirements of the Rule 23, due process, and the\n\nPSLRA. Blackberry, 2022 WL 4554858 (in securities action, finding that similar notice plan\n\nconstituted \u201cthe best notice practicable under the circumstances including individual notice to all\n\nmembers who can be identified through reasonable effort.\u201d).\n\nIV. The Plan of Allocation Is Fair and Reasonable and Should Be Finally Approved\n\n The Proposed Plan of Allocation, which is set forth on page 11 of the Longform Notice, is\n\nfair and should be approved. The premise of the Plan of Allocation is that the true value of Applied\n\ncommon shares during the Class Period was $1.69 per share, the closing price on December 3,\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 24 of 34\n\n\n\n\n2024, after the disclosure of the CRL and the Warning Letter. Under the Plan of Allocation, shares\n\nof Applied common stock purchased during the Class Period and held through at least November\n\n29, 2024, will be assigned a Recognized Loss based on several factors, including purchase price,\n\nsale price, and the per share decline in Applied\u2019s common stock on November 29, December 2,\n\nand December 3, 2024.\n\n Class Members must submit a Claim Form, either by mail or online, by the deadline of\n\nApril 8, 2026. Based on the information provided by Claimants, the Claims Administrator will\n\ndetermine their eligibility to participate (i.e., whether they are an Authorized Claimant) and\n\ncalculate each Authorized Claimant\u2019s pro rata share based on the Authorized Claimant\u2019s\n\nRecognizes Loss compared to the total of all Authorized Claimants\u2019 Recognized Losses, and Lead\n\nPlaintiff will be subject to the same formula for distribution of the Settlement as other Class\n\nMembers. Before rejecting a Claim in whole or in part, the Claims Administrator will\n\ncommunicate with the Claimant in writing, to give the Claimant the chance to remedy any curable\n\ndeficiencies in the Claim submitted. \u00b6 6.8. Any claim disputes that cannot be resolved will be\n\npresented to the Court for resolution. Id. No Authorized Claimant will receive a distribution of less\n\nthan $10.00 in cash or ten whole shares of common stock, calculated on an adjusted basis.\n\n Thus, the Plan of Allocation, which adopts a procedure to equitably distribute the Net\n\nSettlement Fund on a pro rata basis, is fair and adequate. In re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Sec.\n\nLitig., 249 F.R.D. 124, 135 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2008) (plan \u201cthat calls for the pro rata distribution\n\nof settlement proceeds on the basis of investment loss is presumptively reasonable\u201d); see also In\n\nre Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 2731524, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 2016)\n\n(approving plan that estimated price inflation caused by the defendants\u2019 conduct and then entitled\n\neach claimant to a recovery \u201cbased on its pro rata share\u201d of the loss).\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 25 of 34\n\n\n\n\nV. The Fee and Expense Application Should Be Granted\n\n Lead Counsel respectfully requests that the Court approve its Fee and Expense Application\n\nfor an award of attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or $3 million plus 20% of any\n\nWarrant Proceeds, and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of $46,313.15, plus interest\n\non these amounts at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund. The requested fee is 4% below\n\nthe maximum percentage fee negotiated between Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel prior to the\n\nfiling of the Action. See ECF 121-1 \u00b6 28.\n\n A. The Legal Standard for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees\n\n \u201cWhen attorneys create a common fund from which members of a class are compensated\n\nfor a common injury, they are entitled to a reasonable fee \u2013 set by the court \u2013 to be taken from the\n\nfund.\u201d In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 388 F. Supp. 2d 319, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). This common\n\nfund doctrine incentivizes plaintiffs and counsel to litigate the case vigorously, deterring securities\n\nmisconduct. As noted by the Supreme Court, private actions \u201cprovide \u2018a most effective weapon\n\nin the enforcement\u2019 of the securities laws and are \u2018a necessary supplement to [SEC] action.\u2019\u201d\n\nBateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 310 (1985). Moreover, the common\n\nfund doctrine prevents unjust enrichment and ensures that class members do not benefit from a\n\nlawsuit without paying for its costs. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980).\n\n In an analysis of the \u201creasonableness\u201d of a fee application, courts may use either the\n\n\u201cpercentage of the fund\u201d method or the \u201clodestar\u201d method. See Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 121-22. In\n\nthe Second Circuit, the trend is toward using the percentage method as it \u201cdirectly aligns the\n\ninterests of the class and its counsel and provides a powerful incentive for the efficient prosecution\n\nand early resolution of litigation.\u201d Id. at 122. However, when using this percentage-of-the-fund\n\nmethod, courts can also look to counsel\u2019s \u201chours as a \u2018cross check\u2019 on the reasonableness of the\n\nrequested percentage,\u201d Goldberger v. Integrated Res., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000), \u201cto ensure\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 26 of 34\n\n\n\n\nthat an otherwise reasonable percentage fee would not lead to a windfall.\u201d In re Colgate-Palmolive\n\nCo. ERISA Litig., 36 F. Supp. 3d 344, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).\n\n Whether the court uses the percentage-of-the-fund method or the lodestar approach, it\n\nshould continue to consider the traditional criteria that reflect a reasonable fee in common fund\n\ncases, including: (i) the time and labor expended by counsel; (ii) the magnitude and complexity of\n\nthe litigation; (iii) the risks of the litigation; (iv) the quality of representation; (v) the requested fee\n\nin relation to the settlement; and (vi) public policy considerations. See Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50.\n\nConsideration of the Goldberger factors demonstrates that the requested fee is fair and reasonable.\n\n B. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fees Are Reasonable Under the Percentage of the\n Fund Method\n\n The 20% fee request is within the range of percentage fees recently awarded in this Circuit\n\nin class action cases that settled for comparable amounts and at similar stages of litigation:\n\n Name of Case Percentage of Stage of Settlement\n common fund Litigation Amount\n In re Tenaris S.A. Sec. Litig., 2024 33.33% Early Discovery, $9,500,000\n WL 1719632 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, After Motion to\n 2024) Dismiss was\n Denied\n In re Northern Dynasty Mins. Ltd.. 33.33% After Motion to $6,375,000\n Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 308242 Dismiss was\n (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024) Denied, Before\n Discovery Began\n Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., 20% Before Motion to $3,600,000\n 2023 WL 2184496 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, Dismiss Briefing\n 2023) was Completed\n In re PPDAI Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 33.33% While Motion to $9,000,000\n 2022 WL 198491 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, Dismiss was\n 2022) Pending\n Okla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. 25% After the Motion $12,000,000\n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 2021 WL 76328 to Dismiss was\n (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021) Denied, While\n Discovery was\n Ongoing\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 27 of 34\n\n\n\n\n This Court\u2019s reasoning in In re Bumble, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-624 (DLC), ECF 93\n\n(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2023), where the Court awarded a 15% fee, supports approval of the requested\n\nfees. Bumble was a Section 11 case where scienter and loss causation were not affirmative\n\nelements. Bumble did not involve complex issues of falsity with respect to FDA new drug approval\n\nprocesses. And Bumble did not involve a pre-litigation fee agreement where the percentage of\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees shifted depending on the stage of litigation when a recovery was obtained. Id. at\n\n10.\n\n Moreover, in Bumble, counsel requested fees of 25% of the Settlement based on over 4,800\n\nhours of work and a lodestar of approximately $2.5 million. This Court concluded that 2,000 hours\n\nwas reasonable and awarded a fee of 15% of the settlement, or $2.7 million. Id. at 8-9, 11, 16.\n\nThe $2.7 million fee represented an effective multiplier of 2.6x the lodestar the Court found\n\nreasonable (2,000 / 4,800 = 41.7%; 41.7% x $2,500,000 = $1,042,500; $2,700,000 / $1,042,500 =\n\n2.6). Here, Lead Counsel has spent fewer hours (1,949) than those deemed reasonable at this stage\n\nof litigation in Bumble on a more complex matter involving sophisticated issues regarding FDA\n\napproval in the biotechnical sector, and is seeking a lower 2.29 fee multiple.\n\n C. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fees Are Reasonable Under the Lodestar \u201cCross-\n Check\u201d Method\n\n The lodestar cross-check method also demonstrates that the fee requested is reasonable.\n\nThe lodestar method requires a two-part analysis: \u201cfirst, to determine the lodestar, the court\n\nmultiplies the number of hours each attorney spent on the case by each attorney\u2019s reasonable\n\nhourly rate; and second, the court adjusts that lodestar figure (by applying a multiplier) to reflect\n\nsuch factors as the risk and contingent nature of the litigation, the result obtained, and the quality\n\nof the attorney\u2019s work.\u201d City of Providence, 2014 WL 1883494, at *13. Courts in this Circuit\n\nroutinely award positive lodestar multipliers between two and more than five. See e.g. In re\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 28 of 34\n\n\n\n\nComverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 2653354, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) (\u201cWhere \u2026\n\ncounsel has litigated a complex case under a contingency fee arrangement, they are entitled to a\n\nfee in excess of the lodestar\u201d); Lopez v. Fashion Nova, 2021 WL 4896288, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.\n\n19, 2021) (noting that lodestars of up to eight times are regularly awarded in the Second Circuit).\n\nMoreover, courts have noted that a multiplier of 2.15 is considered \u201cwell within the range of\n\nmultipliers that have been applied by courts in this Circuit in similar common fund cases.\u201d\n\nBlackberry Ltd., 2022 WL 4554858, at *10.4\n\n In this case, Lead Counsel expended 1,949 hours on the Litigation, with a total lodestar\n\nvalue of $1,310,582.5 The lodestar is calculated using Lead Counsel\u2019s current rates,6 which are\n\ncomparable to the regular rates submitted by comparable firms for lodestar cross-checks in other\n\nsecurities class action fee applications.7 Accordingly, the requested fee of $3 million represents a\n\n\n\n4\n See also Maley v. Del Global Tech. Corp., 186 F. Supp. 2d 358, 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (multiplier\nof 4.65); In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)\n(multiplier of 3.97).\n5\n The 1,949 hour lodestar does not take into account future hours over the next several months that\nwill be spent by Lead Counsel overseeing the Claims administration process. Also, excluded from\nthe lodestar calculation is (i) time specifically spent on issues relating to attorneys\u2019 fees; and (ii)\ntime spent by attorneys who billed less than 5 hours.\n6\n See In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 05 MDL 01695(CM), 2007 WL 4115808, at *9\n(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) (\u201cThe use of current rates to calculate the lodestar figure has been\nrepeatedly endorsed by courts as a means of accounting for the delay in payment inherent in class\nactions and for inflation\u201d).\n7\n To determine appropriate rates, courts look to those that are \u201cnormally charged in the community\nwhere the counsel practices, i.e., the \u2018market rate.\u2019\u201d Blackberry, 2022 WL 4554858 at *10 (citing\nIn re Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Sec. Litig., No. 12\u2013Civ\u20138557 (CM). 2014 WL 7323417, at *38\n(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2014). Per this assessment, courts approve of billing rates that \u201crates are\ncomparable to peer plaintiffs and defense firms litigating matters of similar magnitude and\ncomplexity and similar rates have been approved by courts in this district.\u201d Id. See, e.g.,\nBlackberry, 2022 WL 4554858 at *10 (awarding fees with rates ranging from $500 for associates\nto $1,200 for senior partners); see also Micholle v. Ophthotech Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00210 (VSB)\n(GWG), ECF 147-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2022) (awarding fees with rates ranging from $375-$435\nfor staff attorneys, $375-$620 for associates and $775-$1350 for partners/senior partners).\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 29 of 34\n\n\n\n\n2.29 multiplier of the total lodestar (3,000,000 / 1,310,582 = 2.29), which is \u201cat the lower end of\n\nthe range of multipliers.\u201d In re Lloyd's, 2002 WL 31663577, at *27. A positive multiple aligns\n\ncounsel\u2019s interests with the Class in obtaining the best possible recovery, and incentivizes counsel\n\nto litigate the matter efficiently. Moreover, the positive multiplier is reasonable given the high risk,\n\ncomplex issues, skill of the attorneys, and the contingency nature involved in bringing this\n\nlitigation, as discussed herein. Therefore, the requested fee is also reasonable under the lodestar\n\nmethod.\n\n D. The Requested Attorneys\u2019 Fees are Reasonable Under the Goldberger factors\n\n 1. The Time and Labor Expended by Counsel\n\n Through February 12, 2026, Lead Counsel has spent 1,949 hours litigating this action,\n\nresulting in a lodestar of $1,310,582. These hours demonstrate that Lead Counsel devoted the\n\nnecessary time and effort to aggressively litigate the Action by, among other things, (a)\n\ninvestigating potential claims against Defendants; (b) preparing the FAC and reviewing\n\nShendelman\u2019s and Perfetti\u2019s separate motions to dismiss the FAC and Applied\u2019s answer to the\n\nFAC; (c) preparing the SAC, reviewing Applied\u2019s answer to the SAC, and opposing Shendelman\u2019s\n\nand Perfetti\u2019s separate motions to dismiss the SAC; (d) serving discovery demands, reviewing\n\nDefendants\u2019 responses to those demands, and reviewing strategically-focused discovery in\n\nanticipation of the mediation; (e) consulting with a forensic economist to evaluate damages for the\n\nClass as a result of the Defendants\u2019 alleged violations of the Exchange Act; (f) preparing a detailed\n\nmediation statement and engaging in a mediation session with all Defendants overseen by an\n\nexperienced mediator; (g) negotiating and drafting the Stipulation and Notice documents; (h)\n\npreparing the Preliminary Approval Motion; (i) preparing this Motion; and (j) overseeing the\n\nClaims Administrator\u2019s execution of the Notice Program. Ruthizer Decl. \u00b6 122.\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 30 of 34\n\n\n\n\n 2. The Magnitude and Complexities of the Litigation\n\n As discussed in Section I(C)(1), this litigation had many complexities, including (a) the\n\nneed to prove falsity, scienter, and loss causation, and (b) achieve and maintain class certification.\n\nIn light of the complexities here, the fee requested is reasonable. See City of Providence, 2014\n\nWL 1883494, at *16 (finding that \u201cdifficult, complex, hotly disputed, and expert-intensive issues,\u201d\n\nfavored requested fee).\n\n 3. The Risks of the Litigation\n\n The risks assumed by Lead Counsel is one of the most important Goldberger factors that\n\nthe Court considers in determining the reasonableness of the fees requested. Goldberger, 209 F.3d\n\nat 54; In re Comverse, 2010 WL 2653354, at *5. \u201cLittle about litigation is risk-free, and class\n\nactions confront even more substantial risks than other forms of litigation.\u201d Teachers\u2019 Ret. Sys. of\n\nLa. v. A.C.L.N., Ltd., 2004 WL 1087261, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2004); In re Prudential Sec.\n\nInc. Ltd. P\u2019ships Litig., 985 F. Supp. 410, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (\u201cNumerous courts have\n\nrecognized that the attorney\u2019s contingent fee risk is an important factor in determining the fee\n\naward.\u201d).\n\n Lead Counsel took the case entirely on contingency, expended 1,949 hours without any\n\ncertainty of payment and assumed a serious risk of nonpayment given the risks and complexities\n\ninherent in the litigation and in the Company\u2019s financial position, both of which presented a real\n\npossibility that Counsel could entirely forgo compensation. Counsel was obligated to ensure\n\nsufficient resources were dedicated to the prosecution of the Action, and that funds were available\n\nto compensate staff and to cover the costs that a case of this complexity requires. Also, by focusing\n\nconsiderable time and resources on this fully contingent case, Lead Counsel forewent other\n\nopportunities. Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of the requested fee.\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 31 of 34\n\n\n\n\n 4. The Quality of Representation\n\n The quality of the representation and the standing of Lead Counsel have been recognized\n\nas important factors in determining the reasonableness of a fee. See In re Flag Telecom Holdings,\n\n2010 WL 4537550, at *28; In re Bisys Sec. Litig., No. 04 Civ. 3840(JSR), 2007 WL 2049726, at\n\n*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2007).\n\n Lead Counsel is highly skilled and experienced in litigating complex securities class\n\nactions. For example, in 2022, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of this Court, in awarding attorneys\u2019\n\nfees to Wolf Popper, stated that Wolf Popper \u201cconducted the Litigation and achieved the\n\nSettlement with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy; [and] Lead Counsel are highly\n\nexperienced in class action litigation and securities class action litigation\u2026.\u201d Martinek v. AmTrust\n\nFinancial Services, Inc., Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF), 2022 WL 16960903, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.\n\n16, 2022). See also Ruthizer Decl. Ex. 3 (Firm Resume).\n\n Throughout the litigation, Lead Counsel has exerted a diligent and concentrated effort to\n\nsecure the best recovery for the Class. Suffice to say, had Counsel not been highly skilled the Class\n\nmay not have received such an exceptional outcome, given the risks in the case.\n\n In addition, Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel successfully faced a highly skilled and well-resourced\n\ndefense counsel team three large and prestigious international law firms with significant\n\nexperience litigating high-stakes securities actions: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,\n\nKirkland & Ellis LLP, and McGuireWoods LLP. See In re Warner Commc\u2019ns Sec. Litig., 618 F.\n\nSupp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff\u2019d, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1986) (\u201cThe quality of opposing\n\ncounsel is also important in evaluating the quality of plaintiffs' counsels\u2019 work.\u201d); In re Flag\n\nTelecom Holdings, 2010 WL 4537550, at *28 (same).\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 32 of 34\n\n\n\n\n 5. The Requested Fee in Relation to the Settlement\n\n \u201cWhen determining whether a fee request is reasonable in relation to a settlement amount,\n\n\u2018the court compares the fee application to fees awarded in similar securities class-action\n\nsettlements of comparable value.\u2019\u201d In re Comverse, 2010 WL 2653354, at *3 (citation omitted).\n\nAs discussed in detail in Section V(B) above, the requested fee is within the range of percentage\n\nfees that courts in the Circuit have awarded in comparable cases.\n\n 6. Public Policy Considerations\n\n \u201cPublic policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees in class action\n\nsecurities litigation.\u201d See In re Flag Telecom Holdings, 2010 WL 4537550, at *29 (citation\n\nomitted). Further, Courts have recognized that in order to effectuate the \u201cimportant public policy\n\n[of enforcing the securities laws] [], the courts should award fees which will adequately\n\ncompensate Lead Counsel for the value of their efforts, taking into account the enormous risks\n\nthey undertook.\u201d Id; see also Maley, 186 F. Supp. at 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\u201cIn considering an\n\naward of attorney\u2019s fees, the public policy of vigorously enforcing the federal securities laws must\n\nbe considered.\u201d); Hicks v. Stanley, No. 01 Civ. 10071(RJH), 2005 WL 2757792, at *9 (S.D.N.Y.\n\nOct. 24, 2005) (\u201cTo make certain that the public is represented by talented and experienced trial\n\ncounsel, the remuneration should be both fair and rewarding.\u201d). As previously noted, there were\n\nsubstantial risks associated with the prosecution of the Action. Nonetheless, due to Lead Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nand Lead Counsel\u2019s diligence and resourcefulness, a substantial recovery was secured on behalf\n\nof investors who suffered severe injury. Accordingly, public policy favors granting Counsel\u2019s\n\nrequest.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 33 of 34\n\n\n\n\n E. The Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses is Reasonable and Should be\n Approved\n\n It is well-established that class counsel is entitled to reimbursement of litigation expenses\n\nfrom a common fund. Reichman v. Bonsignore, Brignati & Mazzotta, P.C., 818 F.2d 278, 283 (2d\n\nCir. 1987); In re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Sec. Litig., 249 F.R.D. 124, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).\n\nThus, as long as they were \u201cincidental and necessary to the representation,\u201d reasonable expenses\n\nthat are customarily charged to a client may be recovered. In re China Sunergy Sec. Litig., No. 07\n\nCiv. 7895(DAB), 2011 WL 1899715, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011). Lead Counsel has incurred,\n\nand requests reimbursement of, $46,313.15 in litigation expenses through February 12, 2026.\n\nRuthizer Decl. \u00b6 142.\n\n The Notices informed Class Members that Lead Counsel would request up to $50,000 in\n\nlitigation costs and expenses. Lead Counsel\u2019s requested reimbursement is less than this amount.\n\nThe three largest categories of expenses were mediation fees ($17,150), investigator fees ($9,459),\n\nand expert fees ($9,500). These and other incurred costs and expenses (such as legal research\n\nexpenses) were reasonable and necessary to successfully prosecute the Action. See In re MetLife,\n\n689 F. Supp. 2d at 364 (reimbursing \u201cexpert fees, electronic research charges, long distance\n\ntelephone and facsimile charges, postage and delivery expenses, discovery costs, filing fees,\n\nphotocopying, expenses associated with locating and interviewing dozens of witnesses, and out-\n\nof-town travel expenses\u201d). And, these expenses were incurred with no guarantee of recovery for\n\nthe benefit of Class members.8\n\n\n\n\n8\n These costs and expenses do not include Notice and Administration Expenses, such as the cost\nof providing notice, the fees of the Claims Administrator, and Tax and Tax Expenses Pursuant to\nthe Stipulation. Lead Plaintiff will ask the Court to allow any additional Notice and Administration\nExpenses when it files a motion for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund after the Claims process\nis complete.\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 134 Filed 02/12/26 Page 34 of 34\n\n\n\n\nF. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Motion. A proposed Final Judgment\n\nand Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was submitted as Exhibit B to the Stipulation (ECF 126).\n\nLead Plaintiff will submit an updated proposed Order with its reply brief on or before March 12,\n\n2026, which will include a list of any Class Members who submit requests for exclusion.\n\n\n DATED: February 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n WOLF POPPER LLP\n\n\n By: /s/ Joshua W. Ruthizer\n\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Robert C. Finkel\n Emer Burke\n Samuel Coffin\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, New York 10022\n (212) 759-4600\n jruthizer@wolfpopper.com\n\n Attorneys for Class Representative\n Dr. Martin Dietrich and the Class\n\n WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION\n\n Pursuant to Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), the undersigned hereby\n\ncertifies that this memorandum of law contains 8,709 words, excluding the caption, any index,\n\ntable of contents, table of authorities, signature blocks, or any required certificates. I utilized the\n\nword count of the word-processing program used to prepare the document in order to obtain that\n\nword count.\n\n By: /s/ Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n\n\n\n 28\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:05.130933-07:00","document_number":"134","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063124","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:19.092765-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.453937-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-12","time_filed":"18:25:46","entry_number":134,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-12.002","pacer_sequence_number":522,"description":"MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 133 MOTION to Approve Class Action Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses . MOTION for Attorney Fees . . Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich..(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 02/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453755903/","id":453755903,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468653991/","id":468653991,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/135/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:18.047669-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:45:04.344259-07:00","sha1":"2f0161568a17535ab3ba519f36c85c1593a0052a","page_count":38,"file_size":500275,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 38\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\nIN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\nSECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION\n\n\n\n\nDECLARATION OF JOSHUA W. RUTHIZER IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,\n APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND AN AWARD OF\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n WOLF POPPER LLP\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Robert C. Finkel\n Emer Burke\n Samuel Coffin\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, New York 10022\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich and the Class\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 38\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. History of the Action .......................................................................................................... 2\n\n A. The Commencement of the Action and the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff ........... 2\n\n B. The Amended Complaints and Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss........................... 3\n\n C. Discovery Efforts .................................................................................................... 7\n\n D. The Mediation ......................................................................................................... 8\n\n E. The Stipulation of Settlement and Preliminary Approval..................................... 10\n\nII. The Terms of the Settlement ............................................................................................. 14\n\nIII. The Risks Faced in Prosecuting this Action ..................................................................... 15\n\n A. Applied\u2019s Financial Condition .............................................................................. 15\n\n B. Risks Concerning the Merits of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Claims ...................................... 16\n\nIV. Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Distribution of Notice to the Class in Compliance with the Preliminary\n Approval Order ................................................................................................................. 19\n\n A. Mailing of the Postcard Notice and Publication of the Summary Notice ............. 19\n\n B. The Settlement Website ........................................................................................ 22\n\n C. Requests for Copies of the Longform Notice and Claim Form ............................ 22\n\nV. The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement to Date ........................................................ 23\n\nVI. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate to the Class ....................................... 24\n\n A. The Acquisition and the Warrants ........................................................................ 24\n\n B. The Percentage Recovery of the Settlement Represents an Excellent Result for the\n Class Given the Risks of Continued Litigation..................................................... 25\n\nVII. The Plan of Allocation is Fair and Reasonable ................................................................. 26\n\nVIII. Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application.................................................................. 28\n\n A. Lead Counsel\u2019s Request for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees................................... 28\n\n 1. The Time and Labor Required to Achieve the Settlement ....................... 29\n\n 2. The Quality of the Result Achieved by Lead Counsel ............................. 31\n\n i\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 3. The Skill and Experience of Lead Counsel............................................... 31\n\n 4. The Fully Contingent Nature of the Fee and the Extensive Risks of the\n Litigation ................................................................................................... 31\n\n 5. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to Date .......................................... 32\n\n 6. Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Endorsement of the Fee Application............................... 32\n\nB. Lead Counsel\u2019s Costs and Expenses ..................................................................... 33\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 38\n\n\n\n\n I, Joshua W. Ruthizer, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746 as follows:\n\n 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Wolf Popper LLP (\u201cWolf Popper\u201d), Lead Counsel\n\nto Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich in this Action. I am a member in good\n\nstanding of the New York Bar and admitted to practice in the United States District for the\n\nSouthern District of New York. 1\n\n 2. I submit this Declaration in support of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Final Approval\n\nof Class Action Settlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and\n\nLitigation Expenses (\u201cMotion\u201d).\n\n 3. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based on my active\n\nparticipation in, and supervision of, the Action, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would\n\ntestify competently thereto. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I fully agree with all the factual\n\nstatements contained in the memorandum of law filed herewith, and if called upon as a witness, I\n\ncould and would testify competently to those facts as well.\n\n 4. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of the\n\nDeclaration of Dawn M. Cody Regarding: (I) Mailing and Emailing of Notice; (II) Publication of\n\nthe Summary Notice; and (III) Report on Requests for Exclusion Received to Date, dated February\n\n11, 2026 (\u201cCody Declaration\u201d).\n\n 5. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this Declaration is the Declaration of Dr. Martin Dietrich\n\nin Support of Motion For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Plan of\n\nAllocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses, dated February 12, 2026\n\n(\u201cDietrich Declaration\u201d).\n\n\n1\n Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in\nthe Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated November 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation,\u201d ECF 126).\nUnless otherwise noted, all references to \u201c\u00b6_\u201d are to the Stipulation.\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 38\n\n\n\n\nI. History of the Action\n\n A. The Commencement of the Action and the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff\n\n 6. This Litigation is a class action alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of\n\nthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities\n\nand Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5.\n\n 7. The Litigation was commenced on December 17, 2024, when Alexandru v. Applied\n\nTherapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-09715 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed by another investor. The\n\nAlexandru complaint alleged claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise\n\nacquired Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (\u201cApplied\u201d) securities between January 3, 2024 and December\n\n2, 2024, inclusive. ECF 1.\n\n 8. On December 20, 2024, the Court issued an order setting a deadline of February\n\n18, 2025 pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n4(a)(3)(A), for members of the alleged class to file motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. ECF\n\n9. The Order also scheduled a hearing for March 7, 2025 to consider the filed motions for\n\nappointment as lead plaintiff.\n\n 9. A related action was filed on December 27, 2024 titled Ikram v. Applied\n\nTherapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-09973 (S.D.N.Y.). Ikram ECF 1. On January 7, 2025, the\n\nCourt accepted Ikram as related to Alexandru, and on January 14, 2025 issued an Order binding\n\nIkram to the schedule set in Alexandru. Ikram ECF 11.\n\n 10. On February 18, 2025, Dr. Dietrich and eight other investors filed motions for\n\nappointment as lead plaintiff. ECFs 18-48.\n\n 11. On March 7, 2025, the Court held a pre-trial conference to address the pending\n\nmotions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 11, 2025, the Court issued an Order that\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 38\n\n\n\n\nconsolidated Alexandru and Ikram into the Litigation, appointed Dr. Dietrich as Lead Plaintiff,\n\nand approved Lead Plaintiff\u2019s selection of Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Counsel. ECF 59.\n\n B. The Amended Complaints and Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss\n\n 12. The Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Order also set deadlines for (i) Lead Plaintiff to file\n\nan amended complaint, (ii) the Defendants to answer or file motions to dismiss that amended the\n\ncomplaint, (iii) the parties to file joint or separate proposals for a schedule for further pre-trial\n\nproceedings, including proposed schedules for discovery and briefing on any motion for class\n\ncertification and preferences for the forum and timing of settlement communications, and (iv) the\n\nparties to file a proposed protective order and a proposed order concerning discovery of\n\nelectronically stored information (\u201cESI\u201d). ECF 59.\n\n 13. The Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Order allowed Lead Plaintiff, in the event a motion to\n\ndismiss was filed, to file a letter \u201cindicating a desire to further amend its complaint in response to\n\nthe motion.\u201d The Court\u2019s Order cautioned that it was \u201cunlikely that Lead Plaintiff will be granted\n\nany further opportunities to amend.\u201d Id.\n\n 14. Lead Plaintiff\u2019s First Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the\n\nFederal Securities Laws was filed on May 2, 2025 (the \u201cFAC\u201d). ECF 72.\n\n 15. On May 16, 2025, the parties filed a joint proposal for a schedule of pre-trial\n\nproceedings, in response to the Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Order. ECF 77.\n\n 16. On May 23, 2025, Applied answered the FAC, and the Individual Defendants\n\n(Defendants Shendelman and Perfetti) each separately moved to dismiss the FAC. ECFs 78-86.\n\n 17. On May 27, 2025, even though Shendelman\u2019s and Perfetti\u2019s motions to dismiss\n\nwere still pending, the Court issued an Order lifting the PSLRA discovery stay, stating \u201c[f]or the\n\nsake of clarity, discovery is not stayed with respect to the individual defendants.\u201d ECF 87. The\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 38\n\n\n\n\nOrder set a deadline for the parties to exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, and\n\nscheduled a Court conference to set a pre-trial schedule for the Litigation.\n\n 18. On June 6, 2025, consistent with the Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Scheduling Order,\n\nLead Plaintiff informed the Court that it would amend the FAC in response to the pending motions\n\nto dismiss the FAC. ECF 94.\n\n 19. On June 9, 2025, the Court denied the pending motions to dismiss the FAC as moot\n\nand set a schedule for the Defendants to respond to the expected second amended complaint. ECF\n\n95.\n\n 20. On June 12, 2025, the Court held a Rule 16 pre-trial conference where the Court\n\nand the parties discussed a schedule for pre-trial proceedings. On June 13, 2025, the Court issued\n\na Pretrial Scheduling Order that set a schedule and deadlines for (i) the parties to complete fact\n\nand expert discovery, (ii) Lead Plaintiff to move for class certification, and (iii) the parties to move\n\nfor summary judgment or file a joint pretrial order. ECF 98.\n\n 21. On June 13, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Consolidated Amended Class\n\nAction Complaint (the \u201cComplaint\u201d or \u201cSAC\u201d). ECF 99. The Complaint alleged that Defendants\n\nviolated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC\n\nRule 10b-5. The Complaint\u2019s allegations were brought on behalf of a \u201cClass\u201d of all persons and\n\nentities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Applied on a\n\nU.S. based exchange between January 3, 2024 and December 2, 2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass\n\nPeriod\u201d), and who were damaged thereby. Id. \u00b6 1.\n\n 22. The Complaint alleged that Defendants made materially false and misleading\n\nstatements, with scienter, in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 during the Class Period\n\nconcerning, among other things: the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application to the U.S. Food\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 38\n\n\n\n\nand Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat to treat Classic Galactosemia (\u201cGalactosemia\u201d),\n\na rare genetic metabolic disorder that can be fatal if untreated (the \u201cNDA\u201d); Defendants\u2019\n\ninteractions with the FDA concerning the NDA; the reliability of the data underlying the NDA;\n\nand alleged known material deficiencies with the NDA. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 3-21.\n\n 23. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that (a) between March and June 2021, as part\n\nof Applied\u2019s ACTION-Galactosemia Kids Study (the \u201cPediatric Study\u201d), 19 of the 47 subjects\n\nenrolled at a clinical site\u2014over 40% of the study population\u2014received only approximately 80%\n\nof the intended dose of govorestat due to a labeling error (the \u201cDosing Errors\u201d); (b) the Dosing\n\nErrors were a violation of the clinical trial protocol that Applied agreed to with the FDA for the\n\nconduct of the Pediatric Study; (c) Defendants knew (i) about the Dosing Errors and that they\n\nconstituted a violation of the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study, (ii) that information\n\nabout the Dosing Errors and the clinical data recorded for patients who received the Dosing Errors\n\n(the \u201cDosing Errors Clinical Data\u201d) was required by FDA regulation and guidance to be included\n\nin the NDA, (iii) that the NDA failed to include this information, and instead reported clinical data\n\nas if the patients received the full, correct dose, and (iv) as a result, the NDA was materially\n\ndeficient and failed to comply with FDA regulations. The Complaint alleged that the failure to\n\ndisclose these facts rendered Defendants\u2019 statements materially false and misleading. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 65-\n\n87.\n\n 24. In addition, the Complaint alleged that (a) on March 27, 2024, one of Applied\u2019s\n\nvendors for the Pediatric Study deleted clinical source data for all 47 patients enrolled in the study\n\n(the \u201cStudy Data Deletion\u201d), (b) between April 23 and May 3, 2024, the FDA conducted an\n\ninspection of a clinical test site and discovered the Study Data Deletion, (c) the Study Data\n\nDeletion was a violation of the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study; (d) at the conclusion\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 38\n\n\n\n\nof the inspection, on May 3, 2024, the FDA issued an FDA Form 483 to Applied that detailed the\n\nStudy Data Deletion and two other objectionable conditions (the \u201cForm 483\u201d), and also discussed\n\nthe Form 483 with Defendant Shendelman; (e) on May 9, 2023, Applied responded to the Form\n\n483 and informed the FDA that deleted source data for 11 subjects could not be recovered; and (f)\n\ntherefore, by May 9, 2024, the Defendants knew (i) about the Study Data Deletion, (ii) that the\n\nFDA knew Applied had violated FDA regulations and the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric\n\nStudy, and (iii) that the FDA could not verify clinical results of the Pediatric Study as part of its\n\nNDA review. The Complaint alleged that the failure to disclose these facts rendered Defendants\u2019\n\nstatements materially false and misleading. Id. .\n\n 25. The Complaint also alleges that these alleged misrepresentations and omissions\n\ncaused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class\n\nPeriod, until the market learned the truth through, among other things, the November 27, 2024\n\ndisclosure of a complete response letter (\u201cCRL\u201d) from the FDA to Applied rejecting the NDA and\n\nthe December 3, 2024 publication by the FDA of a Warning Letter from the FDA to Applied that\n\nidentified the Study Data Deletion and failure to include information about the Dosing Errors and\n\nDosing Errors Clinical Data in the NDA. Lead Plaintiff alleged that as a result of these and other\n\ndisclosures, from November 27, 2024 through December 20, 2024, the price of Applied\u2019s common\n\nstock plummeted $7.69 per share, or 89.7%, causing significant damages to Lead Plaintiff and the\n\nClass. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 84-410.\n\n 26. In connection with the preparation of the FAC and the SAC, Lead Counsel, among\n\nother things: (a) reviewed Company SEC filings, press releases, other public statements by\n\nDefendants, publicly available FDA documents, analyst reports and news articles concerning the\n\nDefendants, (b) retained an investigator to gather information and locate potential witnesses, and\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 38\n\n\n\n\n(c) spoke with potential witnesses and consulted with professionals and experts in the\n\npharmaceutical industry.\n\n 27. On June 27, 2025, the Individual Defendants each moved to dismiss the Complaint\n\npursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and Applied separately filed an Answer to the Complaint. Lead Plaintiff\n\nopposed the motions, and the motions were fully briefed as of July 18, 2025. ECFs 100-113. At\n\nthe time of the Settlement, the Court had not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss.\n\n C. Discovery Efforts\n\n 28. On March 31, 2025, Lead Counsel made a Freedom of Information Act (\u201cFOIA\u201d)\n\nRequest to the FDA for documents related to, among other things, the NDA filed by Applied for\n\ngovorestat to treat Galactosemia, communications between Applied and the FDA related to the\n\nNDA, the CRL, and the Form 483.\n\n 29. On April 4, 2025, Lead Counsel received an acknowledgement letter for the FOIA\n\nRequest, in which the FDA stated, among other things, that the FDA was unable to respond within\n\nthe statutory required period and that it may take up to 24 months for the request to be processed.\n\n 30. On or about May 8, 2025, members of Lead Counsel spoke with a representative\n\nof the FDA concerning the FOIA Request.\n\n 31. On May 30, 2025, the parties filed a joint proposed protective order and joint\n\nproposed order concerning discovery of ESI, both in response to the Court\u2019s March 11, 2025 Order.\n\nThe Court entered the proposed protective order and proposed ESI order on June 2, 2025. ECFs\n\n88-89, 91-92.\n\n 32. On June 13, 2025, pursuant to the Court\u2019s March 27, 2025 Order (ECF 87), all\n\nparties served their Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures.\n\n 33. On July 3, 2025, Lead Plaintiff served on all Defendants its Request for Production\n\nof Documents to All Defendants (\u201cRFPs\u201d) and its First Set of Interrogatories Direct to All\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 38\n\n\n\n\nDefendants (\u201cInterrogatories\u201d). The Defendants all served individual responses to the RFPs and\n\nthe Interrogatories on August 4, 2025.\n\n 34. On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff provided Defendants with a list of 13 groups of\n\ndocuments requested in the RFPs that Plaintiff requested Defendants prioritize for production in\n\nadvance of the August 19, 2025 mediation. Counsel to Applied and Lead Plaintiff thereafter met\n\nand conferred concerning these priority document requests and production prior to the mediation.\n\n 35. On August 5, 2025, Applied produced 255 pages of documents, including insurance\n\npolicies relevant to the claims in the Litigation and other documents that contained important\n\ninformation underlying the allegations of the SAC with respect to information that was first\n\nrevealed to the market by the FDA in the CRL and Warning Letter.\n\n D. The Mediation\n\n 36. Given the case\u2019s merits and the Company\u2019s financial circumstances, the parties\n\nagreed to engage in private mediation in an attempt to expeditiously resolve the Action while the\n\nmotions to dismiss were pending.\n\n 37. On July 25, 2025, Applied filed a letter with the Court to inform the Court that the\n\nparties were scheduled to participate in a mediation on August 19, 2025. ECF 144.\n\n 38. On August 19, 2025, the Settling Parties participated in a full-day confidential in-\n\nperson settlement mediation with Jed D. Melnick, Esq. Mr. Melnick, who is affiliated with JAMS,\n\nhas over twenty years of experience mediating complex business disputes, including many\n\nsecurities fraud class actions. Prior to the mediation, the parties submitted and exchanged detailed\n\nmediation statements concerning issues such as the merits of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s claims, damages, and\n\nability to pay.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 39. In connection with the mediation and Lead Plaintiff\u2019s mediation statement, Lead\n\nCounsel consulted with a damages expert concerning potential Class-wide damages related to the\n\nallegations of the Complaint. Lead Counsel\u2019s damages expert estimated that:\n\n a. the Class\u2019s best-case maximum estimated aggregate damages based on all\n\n of the SAC\u2019s alleged stock price declines in response to alleged corrective\n\n disclosures that also had statistical significance was $377.5 million;\n\n b. the Class\u2019s maximum aggregated damages for the November 29, 2024 one-\n\n day stock drop (which is also the most significant stock drop) in response\n\n to the first alleged corrective disclosure on November 27, 2024 was $348.8\n\n million;\n\n c. if Defendants\u2019 arguments concerning scienter for statements related to the\n\n Dosing Errors were accepted (see Section III (B) below), and as a result the\n\n Class Period started on May 9, 2024, when Applied was informed that the\n\n FDA had learned of the Study Data Deletion, rather than January 4, 2024,\n\n then the Class\u2019s maximum aggregate damages were $241.6 million; and\n\n d. If the Class Period started on May 9, 2024, then the Class\u2019s maximum\n\n aggregated damages for the November 29, 2024 one-day stock drop was\n\n $217.4 million.\n\n 40. Notably, the percentages discussed above assume (a) Lead Plaintiff would be able\n\nto prove every aspect of his claims on liability and his damages model would be accepted by the\n\njury in full, (b) Lead Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert correctly estimated the manner in which shares\n\ntraded during the Class Period, i.e., how many shares were purchased during the Class Period,\n\nwithout offsetting sales by the same investor, and held to the end of the Class Period, and (c) after\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 13 of 38\n\n\n\n\na judgment in favor of Lead Plaintiff and the Class, all damaged Class Members filed claims on\n\nall shares purchased during the Class Period and all such Claims were approved.\n\n 41. Following good-faith negotiations, on August 19, 2025, the Settling Parties reached\n\nan agreement-in-principle to resolve the Litigation, subject to the negotiation of a formal\n\nstipulation of settlement and approval by the Court. The agreement was the result of a proposal\n\nby Mr. Melnick.\n\n 42. The agreement-in-principle included payment to the Class of fifteen million dollars\n\n($15,000,000) and the issuance of Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied\n\ncommon stock, with an exercise price of $0.48 per share, the closing price of Applied common\n\nstock on August 19, 2025, with such Warrants to expire on the one-year anniversary of the\n\nEffective Date of the Stipulation. The agreement also provided that in the event Applied is\n\nacquired or merged or otherwise engaged in or was subject to an extraordinary transaction that\n\ncould impact the value of the Warrants prior to the Effective Date, the Warrants would be\n\nconsidered issued and outstanding for purposes of such a transaction.\n\n 43. On August 22, 2025, the next business day after the mediation, the parties filed a\n\njoint letter motion with the Court informing the Court that a settlement had been reached and\n\nasking the Court to stay proceedings to allow the parties to negotiate and finalize the settlement\n\ndocumentation. The Court granted the motion on August 25, 2025. ECFs 115-116.\n\n E. The Stipulation of Settlement and Preliminary Approval\n\n 44. The parties thereafter negotiated the terms of the stipulation of settlement, the\n\nlanguage of the notices to the Class, and the terms of the Warrants.\n\n 45. On November 4, 2025, Lead Counsel filed a copy of a stipulation of settlement and\n\nan Unopposed Motion for (I) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, (II) Certification\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 14 of 38\n\n\n\n\nof the Class for Settlement Purposes, (III) Approval of Notice to the Settlement Class and (IV)\n\nScheduling of a Final Approval Hearing. ECFs 119-122.\n\n 46. On November 14, 2025, Applied filed a declaration with the Court stating that\n\n\u201c[p]ursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (\u201cCAFA\u201d), 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1715(b), Applied, on\n\nbehalf of all Defendants, has mailed [on November 13, 2025] the required notice of the settlement\n\nagreement in the Action [] to all appropriate federal and state officials, including the United States\n\nAttorney General and the Attorneys General of all U.S. states and territories.\u201d ECF 125.\n\n 47. On November 19, 2025, the Court held a telephonic hearing to discuss the proposed\n\nstipulation of settlement and Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion. ECF 123. On November 20, 2025, Lead\n\nPlaintiff filed an Amended Stipulation of Settlement, which made certain edits to the exhibits to\n\nthe Stipulation requested by the Court at the November 19, 2025 conference. ECF 126.\n\n 48. Later that day, the Court issued the Preliminary Approval Order. ECF 127. The\n\nPreliminary Approval Order, among other things,\n\n a. Certified for settlement purposes a \u201cClass\u201d of \u201call Persons and entities who\n\n purchased or otherwise acquired Applied common stock on a U.S. based\n\n exchange between January 3, 2024 and December 2, 2024, inclusive.\n\n Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current and former\n\n officers, directors, and employees of Applied (the \u201cExcluded Persons\u201d); (iii)\n\n any person or entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024\n\n Private Placement (the \u201cPrivate Placement Investors\u201d); (iv) members of\n\n Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or Private Placement Investors\u2019 immediate\n\n families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any\n\n entity in which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 15 of 38\n\n\n\n\n Investors have or had a controlling interest.\u201d Also excluded from the Class\n\n will be any person who would be a member of the Class but who validly\n\n and timely submits a request for exclusion;\n\n b. Appointed Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative and Lead Counsel Wolf\n\n Popper LLP as Class Counsel;\n\n c. Scheduled a Settlement Hearing for March 19, 2026;\n\n d. Appointed Angeion Group LLC as the Claims Administrator;\n\n e. Set the Notice Date as December 19, 2025;\n\n f. Approved the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice Program,\n\n including (a) mailing, or emailing where practicable, a Postcard Notice to\n\n potential Class Members, (b) publishing a Summary Notice on PR\n\n Newswire or a similar wire service, (c) and publication of the Settlement\n\n Website, www.apltsecuritiessettlement.com, where copies of the Longform\n\n Notice, Proof of Claim and Release (\u201cClaim Form\u201d), and other relevant\n\n documents can be downloaded. The Postcard Notice and Summary Notice\n\n both directed Class Members to the Settlement Website;\n\n g. Set a deadline for Class Members to submit a Claim Form of April 8, 2026;\n\n h. Set a deadline for Class Members to object to the Settlement or opt-out of\n\n the Settlement of February 26, 2026, and set forth the manner in which an\n\n objection or request for exclusion must be made.\n\n 49. On December 11, 2025, while Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator were\n\npreparing for dissemination of the Notices by the December 19, 2025 Notice Date, defendant\n\nApplied issued a press release announcing that it had entered into a merger agreement with Cycle\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 16 of 38\n\n\n\n\nGroup Holdings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to which Cycle would commence a tender offer to\n\nacquire all of the outstanding approximately 154.0 million shares of Applied common stock for a\n\nper share price of $0.088 per share plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that\n\nentitles the holder to receive potential additional payments (the \u201cAcquisition\u201d). ECF 132-1. The\n\nCVR provides payments based on the following:\n\n \u2022 Up to $0.10 per CVR in cash payable upon FDA approval of a new drug\n application for any galactosemia indication prior to the eighth anniversary\n of closing.\n\n \u2022 Up to $0.10 per CVR in cash payable upon FDA approval of a new drug\n application for the CMT-SORD indication prior to the eighth anniversary\n of closing.\n\n \u2022 Up to $0.20 per CVR in cash payable upon the first achievement of\n worldwide net sales of any product covered by the CVR by Cycle, its\n affiliates or licensees equal to or exceeding $200 million dollars in any four-\n quarter fiscal period prior to the tenth anniversary of closing.\n\n \u2022 Each CVR holder will also be entitled to receive their pro rata share of any\n cash of Applied in excess of $500,000 at closing (capped at $1.5 million)\n (\u201cClosing Cash Payment\u201d). [Id.]\n\n 50. The Acquisition was unanimously approved by Applied\u2019s Board of Directors. Id.\n\n 51. On December 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter motion requesting that the\n\nCourt approve an addition to the Longform Notice so that the Class could be advised of the\n\nAcquisition. ECF 130. On December 16, 2025 the Court granted the motion. ECF 131.\n\n 52. Applied\u2019s February 3, 2026 Form 8-K filed with the SEC announcing completion\n\nof the Merger announced \u201cthe aggregate consideration paid by [Cycle] in the Offer and the Merger\n\nto acquire the Shares was approximately $14.3 million,\u201d 2 which amounts to a per-share\n\n\n\n\n2\n\nhttps://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000119312526034559/d93556d8\nk.htm.\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 17 of 38\n\n\n\n\nconsideration (likely including a Closing Cash Payment) of $0.09288 per share for each of the\n\napproximately 154.0 million shares outstanding.\n\n 53. On February 3, 2026, Applied filed a notice apprising the Court that Cycle had\n\ncompleted the acquisition of Applied. ECF 132.\n\nII. The Terms of the Settlement\n\n 54. The Settlement requires the Company to pay or cause to be paid $15,000,000 in\n\ncash plus the Warrants. \u00b6\u00b6 1.53, 2.2.\n\n 55. Once Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administrative Costs, a Court-awarded Fee\n\nand Expense Award, any Warrant Exercise Expenses, any Warrant Registration Expenses, and any\n\nother Court-approved costs or fees are deducted from the Settlement Fund, the remaining balance\n\nplus any Warrant Proceeds (i.e., the Net Settlement Fund), whether consisting only of cash or a\n\ncombination of cash and securities, will be distributed to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the\n\nStipulation and Plan of Allocation. \u00b6 6.3.\n\n 56. There will be no reversion to Defendants of any portion of the Settlement Fund. \u00b6\n\n2.20.\n\n 57. In exchange, Lead Plaintiff and each Class Member will be deemed to have fully\n\nand finally released any and all Released Plaintiff\u2019s Claims against Defendants and the other\n\nDefendants\u2019 Releasees, and will be forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting any and all\n\nReleased Plaintiff\u2019s Claims against any of the Defendants\u2019 Releasees. \u00b6 5.1.\n\n 58. The Stipulation anticipates that Lead Counsel will file a Fee and Expense\n\nApplication for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and reimbursement of litigation costs expenses (a Fee\n\nand Expense Award), however such awards are not a condition or material term of the Settlement,\n\nand are not the subject of any agreement between the parties. \u00b6 8.1.\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 18 of 38\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Risks Faced in Prosecuting this Action\n\n A. Applied\u2019s Financial Condition\n\n 59. At the time of the mediation, Applied\u2019s financial condition was precarious.\n\n 60. Applied\u2019s SEC filings after the end of the Class Period contained \u201cgoing concern\u201d\n\nwarnings. In Applied\u2019s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, dated April 15,\n\n2025, Applied\u2019s independent outside auditor stated it had substantial doubt about Applied\u2019s ability\n\nto continue as a going concern for 12 months after the date of filing. 3\n\n 61. In Applied\u2019s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2025 (dated May\n\n14, 2025), Applied\u2019s management and independent outside auditor stated there was a substantial\n\ndoubt regarding Applied\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of 12 months beyond\n\nthe date of filing. 4\n\n 62. In Applied\u2019s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2025 (dated August\n\n13, 2025), Applied\u2019s management and independent outside auditor again stated there was a\n\nsubstantial doubt regarding Applied\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of 12\n\nmonths beyond the date of filing. 5\n\n 63. Further, as of June 30, 2025, Applied had cash and cash equivalents on hand of\n\napproximately $30.4 million (not including liabilities of $20 million), and had a net loss for the\n\n\n\n\n3\n Applied\u2019s 2024 10-K, available at\nwww.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000095017025053840/aplt-\n20241231.htm, at 42, 95, F-1, F-8.\n4\n Applied\u2019s 2025 First Quarter Form 10-Q, available at\nwww.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000095017025070557/aplt-\n20250331.htm, at 9, 34, 45.\n5\n Applied\u2019s 2025 Second Quarter Form 10-Q, available at\nwww.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000095017025108172/aplt-\n20250630.htm, at 9, 35, 46.\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 19 of 38\n\n\n\n\nfirst six months of fiscal 2025 of $43.2 million, implying a burn rate (spending more money than\n\nrevenue) of nearly $22 million per quarter. 6 Therefore, when the Settlement was reached, Applied\n\nwas projected to have just $8 million in cash on hand by September 30, 2025, which would likely\n\nbe insufficient to cover its already-existing liabilities. And as noted above, Applied was ultimately\n\nacquired by a third party for aggregate consideration of approximately $14.3 million.\n\n 64. Moreover, the $15 million Settlement also represented almost the entire amount of\n\nfunds available under the Company\u2019s relevant insurance policies, which would only decrease by\n\ncontinued litigation to the detriment of the Class.\n\n B. Risks Concerning the Merits of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Claims\n\n 65. At the time the Settlement was reached, Perfetti\u2019s and Shendelman\u2019s motions to\n\ndismiss were still pending. While Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that Lead Plaintiff\n\nwould have been successful in defeating Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, there was a risk that\n\nDefendants would be partially or fully successful at the motion to dismiss stage.\n\n 66. For example, the Court could have been convinced by Defendants\u2019 arguments that\n\ncertain of the alleged false statements were inactionable puffery or non-actionable expressions of\n\noptimism regarding the regulatory process. ECF 105 at 23-25 (arguing that statements expressing\n\nconfidence in approval or describing FDA interactions as \u201con track\u201d were immaterial corporate\n\noptimism and not guarantees). Defendants also argued that several challenged statements were\n\naccurate statements of objective fact about the status of the FDA review (including statements\n\nabout \u201cprogress,\u201d the PDUFA date, and the NDA\u2019s late-stage review), and therefore not actionable\n\n\n\n\n6\n Applied\u2019s 2025 Second Quarter Form 10-Q, available at\nwww.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000095017025108172/aplt-\n20250630.htm, at 4.\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 20 of 38\n\n\n\n\nabsent allegations that those facts were false when stated. See ECF 105 at 23\u201324, 26; see also ECF\n\n101 at 13\u201315.\n\n 67. Similarly, the Court could have found merit in Defendants\u2019 scienter arguments.\n\nDefendants argued that Plaintiff failed to plead a strong inference of motive because the alleged\n\nClass Period stock sales were modest in size, represented only small percentages of the individual\n\ndefendants\u2019 total holdings, and, in several instances, were executed to satisfy tax-withholding\n\nobligations upon the vesting of restricted stock units. See ECF 105 at 8\u201311; see also ECF 101 at\n\n16\u201318 (arguing that the SAC fails to allege suspicious timing or unusual trading patterns sufficient\n\nto support motive).\n\n 68. Moreover, the Court could have credited Defendants\u2019 scienter arguments and\n\nconcluded that Plaintiff failed to plead a strong inference of fraudulent intent. Defendants argued\n\nthat the SAC does not allege particularized facts showing that Shendelman or Perfetti knew the\n\nNDA would be rejected, and instead improperly relies on hindsight following the FDA\u2019s\n\nNovember 2024 Complete Response Letter. See ECF 101 at 19\u201322; see also ECF 105 at 12\u201318.\n\n 69. Defendants further argued that the regulatory record undercut any inference of\n\nconscious misbehavior or recklessness. They pointed out that the FDA did not issue a CRL at\n\nearlier stages of review and did not identify the Dosing Errors as a basis for rejection in the Form\n\n483, which, they contended, was inconsistent with Plaintiff\u2019s theory that Defendants knowingly\n\nconcealed an inevitable denial. See ECF 105 at 4\u20136, 12\u201314; see also ECF 101 at 7\u20138, 19\u201320. The\n\nCourt could have agreed that these circumstances weakened Plaintiff\u2019s scienter allegations and\n\nfailed to give rise to a \u201cstrong inference\u201d of fraudulent intent under the PSLRA..\n\n 70. Even if the Court had declined to dismiss the action in its entirety, it could have\n\nsubstantially narrowed the scope of the case. For example, the Court could have concluded that\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 21 of 38\n\n\n\n\nthe allegations concerning the Dosing Errors, events that occurred in 2021, did not plausibly\n\nestablish that Defendants acted with scienter at the time of earlier Class Period statements made in\n\nJanuary through April 2024. In that event, the Court could have limited any viable claim to\n\nstatements made only after Defendants received the Form 483 and responded to it in May 2024,\n\non the theory that the SAC plausibly alleged notice of heightened regulatory scrutiny only as of\n\nthat point. Such a ruling would have eliminated several months from the beginning of the Class\n\nPeriod and excluded numerous challenged statements from the case.\n\n 71. In addition, the Court could have differentiated among the individual defendants\n\nand among specific statements, sustaining claims as to some but dismissing others. For example,\n\nthe Court could have determined that certain pre-Form 483 statements lacked a sufficient nexus to\n\nthe alleged omissions, or that particular statements attributed to one defendant did not give rise to\n\na duty to disclose additional regulatory details. A partial dismissal of that nature would have\n\nmaterially reduced the scope of discovery, narrowed the issues for class certification, and\n\nsignificantly decreased potential damages exposure.\n\n 72. Also, if the motions to dismiss were granted, Applied, which answered the SAC,\n\ncould have then moved for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, which could have\n\nended the Action without any recovery for the Class.\n\n 73. If the motions to dismiss were denied, Defendants likely would have opposed class\n\ncertification and moved for summary judgment. If Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel succeeded in\n\nhaving the Class certified, Defendants likely would have filed a Rule 23(f) petition for review of\n\nthe decision by the Second Circuit. If Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were successful in defeating\n\nDefendants\u2019 expected motion for summary judgment, Lead Plaintiff would be required to prove\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 22 of 38\n\n\n\n\nall elements of his claims to prevail at trial, while Defendants would need to only succeed on one\n\ndefense to potentially defeat the entire action.\n\n 74. There was also no guarantee the Class would prevail in full on the issue of damages,\n\nand even if they did, how the Court\u2019s rulings on any motion for summary judgment and complex\n\nexpert testimony matters\u2014even if solely related to liability matters\u2014would affect damages or how\n\nthe case might be presented to a jury.\n\n 75. Defendants could also file an appeal from any jury verdict, which could further\n\nextend the lawsuit for years, and risk reversal. A prolonged litigation would take years and incur\n\nadditional significant costs that would reduce the limited funds available to provide recourse for\n\nthe Class.\n\nIV. Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Distribution of Notice to the Class in Compliance with the\n Preliminary Approval Order\n\n A. Mailing of the Postcard Notice and Publication of the Summary Notice\n\n 76. The Preliminary Approval Order directed Angeion to, on or before December 19,\n\n2025, \u201cmail by First Class Mail, or email, where practicable\u201d the Postcard Notice to \u201call Class\n\nMembers who can be identified with reasonable effort.\u201d ECF 127, \u00b6 8(b). A copy of the Postcard\n\nNotice is attached to the Cody Declaration (Ex. 1) as Exhibit A.\n\n 77. On December 19, 2025, Angeion caused the Postcard Notice to be sent by First-\n\nClass Mail to these 57 potential Class Members of record who were identified by stockholder\n\ninformation provided by Defendants\u2019 counsel. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6 6.\n\n 78. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that on or before December 19, 2025,\n\nAngeion \u201cshall cause the Summary Notice to be published once over PRNewswire or a comparable\n\nnational wire service with similar reach.\u201d ECF 127, \u00b6 8(c). Angeion caused the Summary Notice\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 23 of 38\n\n\n\n\nto be transmitted once over PRNewswire on December 19, 2025. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6 20 and\n\nExhibit F.\n\n 79. The Preliminary Approval Order also directed Angeion to \u201cuse reasonable efforts\n\nto give notice to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other persons or entities who\n\npurchased Applied common stock during the Class Period (between January 3, 2024 and\n\nDecember 2, 2024, inclusive) as record owners but not as beneficial owners.\u201d ECF 127, \u00b6 10. As\n\nin most class actions of this nature, the vast majority of potential Class Members are beneficial\n\npurchasers whose securities are held in \u201cstreet name\u201d by nominees \u2013 i.e., the securities are\n\npurchased by brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other third-party nominees in the name of\n\nthe nominee, on behalf of the beneficial purchasers. The names and addresses of these beneficial\n\npurchasers are known only to the nominees.\n\n 80. On December 19, 2025, Angeion caused a \u201cNominee Letter\u201d to be mailed to the\n\n4,155 records contained in Angeion\u2019s Broker Database. The Nominee Letter included the same\n\ninstructions provided in the Special Notice to Securities Brokers and Other Nominees section\n\nidentified on page 10 in the Notice. The reverse side of the Postcard Notice, which provides\n\nrecipients with a summary of information concerning the Litigation and the Settlement, the\n\ndeadlines for Class Members to object to or opt-out of the Settlement, the deadline for Class\n\nMembers to submit a Claim Form, and directs recipients to the Settlement Website and Longform\n\nNotice for more information and copies of the Claim Form, was included as part of the Nominee\n\nLetter. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6 10. A copy of the Nominee Letter is attached to Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.)\n\nas Exhibit C.\n\n 81. Angeion also provided a copy of the Longform Notice and Claim Form to the\n\nDepository Trust Company (\u201cDTC\u201d) for posting on its Legal Notice System (\u201cLENS\u201d). Ex. 1\n\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 24 of 38\n\n\n\n\n(Cody Decl.), \u00b6 11. A copy of the Longform Notice and Claim Form are attached to Ex. 1 (Cody\n\nDecl.) as Exhibits D and E, respectively.\n\n 82. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that:\n\n nominees and custodians shall WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of their\n receipt of the Postcard Notice either: (a) provide to the Claims Administrator the\n name, last known address, and email address of each beneficial owner for whom\n they are nominee or custodian; (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice for the\n Claims Administrator sufficient to send to all beneficial owners for whom they are\n nominee or custodian, which will be provided to nominees or custodians free of\n charge, and WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, mail the Postcard\n Notice directly to all such persons or entities, or (c) request the link to the Postcard\n Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form from the Claims Administrator, and\n WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, email the link directly to all\n beneficial owners for whom they are nominee or custodian. [ECF 127, \u00b6 10.]\n\n 83. The Longform Notice also included this requirement, and the Postcard Notice and\n\nSummary Notice contained summaries of this requirement, and directed recipients to the Longform\n\nNotice for more information. See Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), Exs. A, D, F.\n\n 84. Through February 10, 2026, Angeion received 1,770 records of potential Class\n\nMembers from individuals or brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other nominees, and has\n\npromptly mailed or emailed the Postcard Notice to these individuals. Angeion has also received\n\nrequests from nominees for 33,970 Postcard Notices and 20,424 links to the Postcard Notice and\n\nClaim Form, which Angeion fulfilled and those nominees were required to promptly distribute to\n\ntheir customers. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6\u00b6 14-16.\n\n 85. In total, through February 10, 2026, a total of 60,382 notifications have been\n\ndisseminated to potential Class Members and their nominees. This total includes 39,864 Postcard\n\nNotices sent via First-Class Mail and 20,518 links to the Postcard Notice and Claim Form sent via\n\nemail. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl), \u00b6 17.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 25 of 38\n\n\n\n\n B. The Settlement Website\n\n 86. The Preliminary Approval Order directed Angeion to established a case-specific\n\nwebsite, www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and to publish the following documents on this\n\nSettlement Website in forms available for download: the Longform Notice, the Claim Form, the\n\nStipulation, the Complaint, the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order. The Preliminary Approval Order also directed Angeion to publish\n\non the Settlement Website the deadlines for Class Members to submit Objections, requests for\n\nexclusion, and Claim Forms. ECF 127, \u00b6\u00b6 8(d), 8(e).\n\n 87. On December 19, 2025, Angeion established the Settlement Website, which\n\ncontains copies, in forms available for download, of the Longform Notice, the Claim Form, the\n\nStipulation, the Complaint, the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Website also provides general information regarding\n\nthe case and its current status and deadlines for Class Members to submit Objections, requests for\n\nexclusion, and Claim Forms. The Settlement Website also includes copies, in forms available for\n\ndownload, of other important documents, including the Postcard Notice, the Summary Notice, and\n\nthe briefing on defendants Shendelman\u2019s and Perfetti\u2019s motions to dismiss. Angeion will update\n\nthe website as necessary throughout the administration of the Settlement. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6\u00b6\n\n26-29.\n\n 88. As of February 10, 2026, the Settlement Website has been visited 2,335 times. Ex.\n\n1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6 28.\n\n C. Requests for Copies of the Longform Notice and Claim Form\n\n 89. The Preliminary Approval Order directs Angeion to \u201cmail or email a copy of the\n\nLongform Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form to any Class Member that requests one by\n\nphone, email, or mail.\u201d ECF 127, \u00b6 8(d).\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 26 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 90. Through February 10, 2026, Angeion has received two such requests for copies of\n\nthe Longform Notice and Claim Form by phone. Angeion promptly sent copies of the Longform\n\nNotice and Claim Form in response to these requests by email or mail. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6\u00b6 30-\n\n32.\n\nV. The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement to Date\n\n 91. The deadline for Class Members to request exclusion from the Settlement is\n\nFebruary 26, 2026. Also, the deadline for Class Members to object to the Settlement, the proposed\n\nPlan of Allocation (which is discussed below in Section VII), or the Fee and Expense Application\n\n(which is discussed below in Section VIII), is February 26, 2026.\n\n 92. Through February 10, 2026, Angeion has not received any requests for exclusion\n\nfrom the Settlement or objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the Fee\n\nand Expense Application. Ex. 1 (Cody Decl.), \u00b6 35.\n\n 93. Through the date of this Declaration, Lead Counsel is not aware of any objections\n\nto the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the proposed Fee and Expense Application. Lead\n\nCounsel is also not aware of any requests for exclusion from the Settlement. Lead Counsel will\n\nprovide a further update on any requests for exclusion or objections in connection with its reply\n\nsubmission on March 12, 2026.\n\n 94. Since the December 19, 2025 Notice Date through the date of this Declaration,\n\nLead Counsel has received emails or phone calls from three potential Class Members. These calls\n\nand emails involved questions about the Settlement. None of the potential Class Members raised\n\nany objections or concerns with the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the potential Fee and\n\nExpense Application.\n\n 95. Also, Lead Plaintiff fully supports the Settlement. See Ex. 2 (Dietrich Decl.).\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 27 of 38\n\n\n\n\nVI. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate to the Class\n\n A. The Acquisition and the Warrants\n\n 96. The Warrants that were negotiated as part of the Settlement provided for the\n\npurchase of up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.48 per\n\nshare, the closing price of Applied common stock on August 19, 2025, the date the settlement was\n\nreached.\n\n 97. The purpose of the Warrants was to provide additional compensation to the Class\n\nin the event Applied\u2019s financial condition recovered.\n\n 98. Unfortunately, after the Settlement was reached, Applied\u2019s financial condition\n\ncontinued to deteriorate.\n\n 99. On November 13, 2025, Applied filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended\n\nSeptember 30, 2025, which contained another going concern warning. Applied incurred a net loss\n\nof $62.1 million for the three quarters ended September 30, 2025, had no ongoing source of\n\nrevenues to cover its expenses, and as of quarter end had only $11.9 million in cash and cash\n\nequivalents and total liabilities of $34.9 million. 7\n\n 100. On December 11, 2025, Applied common stock closed at $0.2169 per share. As\n\nreported in the Tender Offer Documents, as of December 19, 2025, there were 153,957,727 shares\n\nof Applied common stock issued and outstanding, implying a market capitalization of\n\napproximately $33.4 million.\n\n\n\n\n7\n Applied\u2019s 2025 Third Quarter Form 10-Q, available at\nwww.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001697532/000119312525278818/aplt-\n20250930.htm, at 4, 8-9.\n\n 24\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 28 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 101. After the market closed on December 11, 2025, Applied announced the\n\nAcquisition. The next day Applied common stock closed at $0.1173 per share. At this per share\n\nprice, Applied had a market capitalization of approximately $18.05 million.\n\n 102. On February 3, 2026, Applied announced that the Acquisition had closed. See ECF\n\n132. The price of Applied common stock closed at $0.1030 per share that day, implying a market\n\ncapitalization of $15.86 million. As stated above, the aggregate consideration paid by Cycle for\n\nApplied was approximately $14.3 million, or $0.09288 per share.\n\n 103. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, the Warrants are to be issued to Lead\n\nPlaintiff and the Class 14 days after the Court grants final approval to the Settlement. \u00b6 2.7.\n\nPursuant to the terms of the Warrant, \u201cApplied shall cause any successor entity in a Fundamental\n\nTransaction in which the Company is not the survivor (the \u201cSuccessor Entity\u201d) to assume in writing\n\nall of the obligations of the Company under this Warrant.\u201d ECF 126, Ex. C \u00a7 3(d).\n\n 104. Lead Counsel is still evaluating the impact of the Acquisition on the Warrants.\n\nHowever, because the Acquisition consideration is significantly below the strike price for the\n\nWarrants of $0.48 per share, the Warrants are likely to have minimal value.\n\n B. The Percentage Recovery of the Settlement Represents an Excellent Result\n for the Class Given the Risks of Continued Litigation\n\n 105. The $15 million cash settlement, not including the Warrants, is an excellent result\n\nfor the Class.\n\n 106. A recent report by National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (\u201cNERA\u201d) reports\n\nthat the median percentage recovery in settlements of class actions during the period January 2016\n\nthrough December 2025 involving aggregate investor losses between $200 million to $399 million\n\nto be 2.7%. See Edward Flores & Svetlana Starykh, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 29 of 38\n\n\n\n\nLitigation: 2025 Full-Year Review (National Economic Research Associates, Inc. Jan. 21, 2026)\n\n(\u201cNERA Report\u201d). 8 This information is reflected on page 27, Figure 23 of the NERA Report.\n\n 107. The 2.7% median recovery is less than the 4%-6.9% percentage of recovery implied\n\nby comparing the $15 million cash portion of the Settlement to the maximum recoverable damages\n\nestimated by Lead Plaintiff\u2019s damages consultant.\n\n 108. NERA also calculated that the median ratio of settlement to investor losses for\n\nsettlements reached in 2025 was 1.5%. NERA Report at 28, Figure 24. This is also significantly\n\nbelow the 4%-6.9% (assuming recovery) of potential damages represented by the Settlement here.\n\nAs noted above, Lead Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of damages is based on the maximum value of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\npotential recovery, the accuracy of his expert\u2019s trading model, and assumes all claims will be filed.\n\n 109. The NERA Report therefore evidences that the $15 million risk-free Settlement\n\nrepresents a reasonable percentage of the range of potential maximum provable damages.\n\nVII. The Plan of Allocation is Fair and Reasonable\n\n 110. As provided in the Stipulation, the Longform Notice and proposed Plan of\n\nAllocation, once Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administrative Costs, a Court-awarded Fee and\n\nExpense Award, any Warrant Exercise Expenses, any Warrant Registration Expenses, and any\n\nother Court-approved costs or fees are deducted from the Settlement Fund, the Net Settlement\n\nFund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Stipulation and Plan of\n\nAllocation.\n\n 111. As set forth in the Court\u2019s Preliminary Approval Order and the Longform Notice,\n\nall Class Members who want to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund must\n\n\n8\n The NERA Report is available at\nhttps://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2026/PUB_2025_Recent_SCA_Trends_Fu\nll-Year_0121.pdf .\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 30 of 38\n\n\n\n\nsubmit a valid Claim Form with all required information postmarked, or submitted through the\n\nSettlement website, no later than April 8, 2026.\n\n 112. As provided in the Notice, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed among\n\nSettlement Class Members according to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court.\n\n 113. The proposed Plan of Allocation is set forth on page 11 of the Longform Notice,\n\nattached as Exhibit D to Ex. 1 (Cody Decl).\n\n 114. The proposed Plan of Allocation was developed based on the damages calculations\n\nperformed by Lead Plaintiff\u2019s damages consultant in connection with the mediation.\n\n 115. The premise of the Plan of Allocation is that the true value of Applied common\n\nshares during the Class Period was $1.69 per share, the closing price on December 3, 2024, after\n\nthe disclosure of the CRL and the Warning Letter.\n\n 116. Under the Plan of Allocation, shares of Applied common stock purchased during\n\nthe Class Period and held through at least November 29, 2024, will be assigned a Recognized Loss\n\nbased on several factors, including purchase price, sale price, and the per share decline in Applied\u2019s\n\ncommon stock on November 29, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 3, 2024. Thus, the Plan\n\ncreates a framework for equitable distribution of the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members\n\nbased on the damages they suffered as result of their purchases of Applied common stock during\n\nthe Class Period and related to the allegations of the Complaint.\n\n 117. Based on the information provided by Claimants, the Claims Administrator will\n\ndetermine their eligibility to participate (i.e., whether they are an Authorized Claimant) and\n\ncalculate each Authorized Claimant\u2019s pro rata share based on the Authorized Claimant\u2019s\n\nRecognizes Loss compared to the total of all Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Losses, and Lead\n\nPlaintiff will be subject to the same formula for distribution of the Settlement as other Class\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 31 of 38\n\n\n\n\nMembers. Before rejecting a Claim in whole or in part, the Claims Administrator will\n\ncommunicate with the Claimant in writing, to give the Claimant the chance to remedy any curable\n\ndeficiencies in the Claim submitted. \u00b6 6.8. Any claim disputes that cannot be resolved will be\n\npresented to the Court for resolution. Id. No Authorized Claimant will receive a distribution of\n\nless than $10.00 in cash or ten whole shares of common stock, calculated on an adjusted basis.\n\n 118. In sum, the Plan of Allocation is designed to fairly and rationally allocate the\n\nproceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members based on losses they suffered on\n\ntransactions in Applied common stock that were attributable to the conduct alleged in the\n\nComplaint. Accordingly, Lead Counsel respectfully submits that the Plan of Allocation is fair and\n\nreasonable, and should be approved by the Court.\n\n 119. As discussed above, to date, no objections to the proposed Plan of Allocation have\n\nbeen received. Any objections that may be received will be addressed in Lead Counsel\u2019s reply\n\npapers, which are due to be filed on or before March 12, 2026.\n\nVIII. Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application\n\n 120. In addition to seeking final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, Lead\n\nCounsel is applying to the Court for a Fee and Expense Award of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or\n\n$3 million, plus 20% of any Warrant Proceeds, plus interest earned at the same rate as the\n\nSettlement Fund, and reimbursement of expenses in an amount of $46,313.15.\n\n A. Lead Counsel\u2019s Request for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees\n\n 121. As stated in the Declaration of Dr. Martin Dietrich in Support of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nUnopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Class\n\nfor Settlement Purposes, and Approval of Notice to the Settlement Class, dated November 3, 2025\n\n(\u201cLP PA Decl.,\u201d ECF 121-1), Wolf Popper and Dr. Dietrich negotiated the percentage of attorneys\u2019\n\nfees that was subsequently memorialized in a retainer agreement at the outset of Wolf Popper\u2019s\n\n 28\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 32 of 38\n\n\n\n\nretention. The agreement that was negotiated provided for different caps on the attorneys\u2019 fees\n\nthat could be requested by Wolf Popper depending on what stage of the litigation a resolution was\n\nreached, if any. Dr. Dietrich negotiated a maximum amount of attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% if the\n\nlitigation resolved before the start of fact discovery, and a maximum amount of attorneys\u2019 fees of\n\n24% if the litigation resolved after the start of fact discovery and before a motion for class\n\ncertification was filed. There were three additional maximum amounts of attorneys\u2019 fees if the\n\nlitigation resolved at a later point.\n\n 1. The Time and Labor Required to Achieve the Settlement\n\n 122. Based on the time records of Wolf Popper, attorneys and staff at Wolf Popper\n\nworked approximately 1,948.80 hours on this litigation from inception through February 12, 2026,\n\nfor a lodestar value of $1,310,582.00. A breakdown of the hours worked by timekeepers at Wolf\n\nPopper is reflected below:\n\n NAME POSITION/TITLE HOURS HOURLY LODESTAR\n RATE\n Robert C. Finkel Senior Partner 125.90 $1,150.00 $144,785.00\n\n Carl L. Stine Senior Partner 17.70 $1,150.00 $20,355.00\n\n Joshua W. Ruthizer Partner 550.10 $950.00 $522,595.00\n\n Matthew Insley-Pruitt Partner 7.60 $950.00 $7,220.00\n\n Emer Burke Associate 341.60 $500.00 $170,800.00\n\n Samuel Coffin Associate 823.10 $495.00 $407,434.50\n\n Sandra Vidal-Pellon Of Counsel 34.50 $475.00 $19,332.50\n\n Melissa Gianfagna Senior Paralegal 36.00 $400.00 $14,400.00\n\n Steven Fleisig Financial Analyst 6.10 $600.00 $3,660.00\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 33 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 123. The more than 1,948.80 hours my firm expended on this case were reasonably\n\nspent, especially given the high-stakes, high-risk nature of this litigation. I am the partner who\n\noversaw Wolf Popper\u2019s activities in the litigation. I worked to assign tasks and assignments to\n\nattorneys and staff with the appropriate level of seniority.\n\n 124. The information set forth in this Declaration concerning Wolf Popper\u2019s time,\n\nincluding in the schedule above, was prepared from daily time records regularly prepared and\n\nmaintained by Wolf Popper in the ordinary course of business. I and attorneys and staff working\n\nunder my direction reviewed my firm\u2019s daily time records to confirm their accuracy. The purpose\n\nof this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the entries on the reports as well as the necessity\n\nfor, and reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the Litigation.\n\n 125. As a result of this review, reductions were made to both time and expenses in the\n\nexercise of billing judgment. For example, I removed time spent by attorneys\u2019 who worked less\n\nthan five hours on the matter. Also, excluded from the lodestar calculation is time specifically\n\nspent on issues relating to attorneys\u2019 fees or Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application. The\n\nlodestar figure also does not take into account the number of hours that will be spent by Lead\n\nCounsel on further briefing and argument related to the Motion between now and the Settlement\n\nHearing, and on issues related to administration of the Settlement, processing of Claims, and\n\ndisseminating payments to Class Members, which, given the April 8, 2026 claim submission\n\ndeadline, is expected to continue well into 2026.\n\n 126. The hourly rates shown are the current rates set by Wolf Popper for each individual.\n\nIt is my understanding that Wolf Popper\u2019s hourly rates are comparable to the regular rates\n\nsubmitted by comparable firms for lodestar cross-checks in other securities class action fee\n\napplications.\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 34 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 2. The Quality of the Result Achieved by Lead Counsel\n\n 127. The Settlement provides for a recovery of $15 million in cash for the benefit of the\n\nClass. For the reasons set forth above and in light of the substantial risks of the litigation, Lead\n\nCounsel believes that the Settlement represents a decidedly favorable result for members of the\n\nClass in the face of significant litigation risk.\n\n 3. The Skill and Experience of Lead Counsel\n\n 128. The skill and expertise of Lead Counsel also supports the requested fee. Wolf\n\nPopper is highly experienced in the area of securities litigation and class actions, and has\n\nsuccessfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities fraud class actions on behalf\n\nof investors, as detailed in the firm resume attached as Exhibit 3.\n\n 129. The quality of work by Lead Counsel should also be evaluated in light of the quality\n\nof the opposition counsel. In this case, Defendants were each represented by three separate law\n\nfirms - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and McGuireWoods\n\nLLP, three large and prestigious international law firms with significant experience litigating high-\n\nstakes securities actions like this.\n\n 4. The Fully Contingent Nature of the Fee and the Extensive Risks of the\n Litigation\n\n 130. Wolf Popper LLP undertook this litigation, including the prosecution of this\n\nAction, on an entirely contingent basis. The risks by Lead Counsel in bringing those claims have\n\nbeen detailed above and those same risks are equally relevant to an award of attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n 131. From the outset, Lead Counsel understood that they were embarking on a complex,\n\nand expensive litigation with no guarantee of compensation for the substantial investment of time,\n\nmoney, and effort that the case would require. Lead Counsel understood that Defendants would\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 35 of 38\n\n\n\n\nraise numerous challenges to liability, damages, and class certification, and that there was no\n\nassurance of success.\n\n 132. Lead Counsel ensured that ample resources were dedicated to it, and that funds\n\nwere available to compensate staff and to advance the significant expenses that a case of this\n\nmagnitude and complexity requires. Lead Counsel vigorously prosecuted this Action for the\n\nbenefit of the Class and received no compensation, while incurring over $46,000 in expenses.\n\n 133. Lead Counsel bore risk that no recovery would be achieved. Indeed, as summarized\n\nabove, this case presented numerous risks that could have precluded any recovery. Also, success\n\nin contingent litigation such as this is never assured. To the contrary, it takes hard work and\n\ndiligence by skilled counsel to develop facts and theories that can result in a favorable outcome\n\nfor the Class.\n\n 5. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to Date\n\n 134. The Notices informed the Class that Lead Counsel would seek an award of\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees of up to 20% of the Settlement Fund.\n\n 135. The deadline for Class Members to object to the Fee and Expense Application is\n\nFebruary 26, 2026. As discussed above, to date, no objection to the Fee and Expense Application\n\nhas been received.\n\n 136. Any objections that may be received will be addressed in Lead Counsel\u2019s reply\n\npapers, which are due to be filed on or before March 12, 2026.\n\n 6. Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Endorsement of the Fee Application\n\n 137. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Martin Dietrich (Ex. 2 hereto),\n\nDr. Dietrich fully supports Lead Counsel\u2019s request attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund,\n\nor $3 million plus 20% of any Warrant Proceeds, and has concluded that the fee request is\n\nreasonable. As stated in Dr. Dietrich\u2019s earlier declaration (ECF 121-1, \u00b6 28), inasmuch as\n\n 32\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 36 of 38\n\n\n\n\ndiscovery had started prior to the Settlement, Lead Counsel were entitled to a 24% fee under our\n\nagreement with Dr. Dietrich, but have agreed with Dr. Dietrich to request a fee of 20%.\n\n 138. This Action involved great complexity, concerning FDA processes for new drug\n\napprovals. Although we are mindful that this Court at times has awarded fees of 15% of Settlement\n\nAmounts, in light of the prior fee agreement with Dr. Dietrich and the complexity of this matter, I\n\nsubmit that a 20% fee is warranted.\n\n 139. In sum, Lead Counsel accepted this case on a fully contingent basis, committed\n\nsignificant resources to it, and prosecuted it without any compensation or guarantee of success.\n\nBased on the favorable result obtained, the quality of the work performed, the risks of the Action,\n\nand the contingent nature of the representation, Lead Counsel respectfully submits that a fee award\n\nof 20% is fair and reasonable.\n\n B. Lead Counsel\u2019s Costs and Expenses\n\n 140. Wolf Popper also seeks payment from the Settlement Fund of $46,313.15 in\n\nLitigation costs and expenses that were reasonably incurred in connection with commencing,\n\nlitigating, and settling the claims asserted in this Action.\n\n 141. From the beginning of the case, Lead Counsel were aware that they might not\n\nrecover any of their expenses and, even in the event of a recovery, would not recover any of their\n\nout-of-pocket expenditures until such time as the Action might be successfully resolved. Wolf\n\nPopper also understood that, even assuming that the case was ultimately successful, reimbursement\n\nfor expenses would not compensate them for the lost use of the funds advanced by to prosecute\n\nthe Action. Accordingly, Wolf Popper was motivated to and did take appropriate steps to avoid\n\nincurring unnecessary expenses and to minimize costs without compromising the vigorous and\n\nefficient prosecution of the case.\n\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 37 of 38\n\n\n\n\n 142. Wolf Popper incurred a total of $46,313.15 in costs and expenses connection with\n\nthe prosecution of this Action as reflected in the books and records of the firm. These books and\n\nrecords are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an\n\naccurate record of the expenses incurred. These expenses were incurred without any guarantee of\n\nrecovery and on behalf of the Class.\n\n 143. The firm\u2019s unreimbursed expenses are as follows:\n\n EXPENSES CHARGE\n Local Travel $124.51\n Document Retrieval Charges $289.00\n Electronic Discovery Vendor Charges $830.17\n Photocopying, Printing, and Scanning $1,351.95\n Expert Fees $9,500\n Online Legal Research $8,098.30\n Investigator Fees $9,458.75\n Mediation Fees $16,614.75\n Mailing Fees $45.72\n TOTAL $46,313.15\n\n 144. Lead Counsel respectfully submits that all of these expenses were reasonably\n\nincurred in connection with the prosecution of the Action. For example, the Investigator Fees,\n\nwhich are approximately 20% of the total litigation expenses, were necessary part of Lead Plaintiff\n\nand Lead Counsel\u2019s investigation in connection with preparing the FAC and SAC. The Expert\n\nFees, which are also approximately 20% of the total litigation expense, were necessary for Lead\n\nPlaintiff and Lead Counsel to prepare for mediation and negotiate a settlement that properly\n\ncompensated Class Members. The Mediation Fees, which are approximately 35% of the total\n\nlitigation costs, represent Lead Plaintiff\u2019s share of the fees to JAMS for the services of Mr.\n\nMelnick. The Legal Research Fees and Document Retrieval Charges, which amount to\n\napproximately 17% of the total litigation expenses, were necessary to, among other things, Lead\n\n\n 34\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135 Filed 02/12/26 Page 38 of 38\n\n\n\n\nCounsel\u2019s factual investigation of the claims, the preparation of the FAC and SAC, and responding\n\nto Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss.\n\n 145. The other expenses for which Lead Counsel seeks payment are the types of\n\nexpenses that are necessarily incurred in class action litigation, including, among others, electronic\n\ndiscovery charges and copying and printing costs.\n\n 146. The Notices informed the Class that Lead Counsel would seek reimbursement of\n\nlitigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $50,000. To date, no objection to the amount of\n\nlitigation expenses has been received. If any objection is received, Lead Counsel will address it\n\nin its reply papers on or before March 12, 2026.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct.\n\n Executed on the 12th day of February, 2026.\n\n\n\n /s/ Joshua W. Ruthizer____________\n Joshua W. Ruthizer\n Wolf Popper LLP\n 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n New York, NY 10022\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:55.030641-07:00","document_number":"135","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063149","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749080/","id":479749080,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/135/1/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:52.790129-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:48:44.515769-07:00","sha1":"0f5c9079377ac700b3701c3c7311d9c2d94de3a2","page_count":45,"file_size":1272125,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 45\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\n SECURITIES LITIGATION\n CLASS ACTION\n\n\n DECLARATION OF DAWN M. CODY REGARDING: (I) MAILING AND EMAILING\n OF NOTICE; (II) PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE;\n AND (III) REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION RECEIVED TO DATE\n\n I, Dawn M. Cody, hereby declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746:\n\n 1. I am a Project Manager at Angeion Group LLC (\u201cAngeion\u201d). Angeion\u2019s business\n\naddress is 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The Court\u2019s November 20, 2025\n\nOrder Granting Preliminary Approval Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), Certifying Class for\n\nSettlement Purposes, and Approving Form of Notice and Directing Class Notice to the Class (ECF\n\nNo. 127) (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), appointed Angeion as the Claims Administrator in\n\nconnection with the Settlement in the above-captioned Action.1 ECF No. 127 \u00b6 7.\n\n 2. I am over 21 years of age and am not a party to this Action. I am familiar with the\n\nfacts set forth herein based on personal knowledge, as well as information provided to me by my\n\ncolleagues in the ordinary course of business at Angeion.\n\n 3. I submit this Declaration to provide the Court and the Parties to the Action with\n\ninformation regarding the dissemination of the Notice as well as other updates regarding the notice\n\nand the settlement administration process.\n\n 4. Angeion will provide a subsequent declaration to update the information in the\n\nDeclaration before the Court\u2019s Settlement Hearing.\n\n\n\n1\n Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement,\ndated November 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation,\u201d ECF No. 126).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 45\n\n\n\n\n DISSEMINATION OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE\n\n 5. The Preliminary Approval Order directed Angeion to, on or before December 19,\n\n2025, \u201cmail by First Class Mail, or email, where practicable\u201d the Postcard Notice to \u201call Class\n\nMembers who can be identified with reasonable effort.\u201d ECF No. 127 \u00b6 8(b). A copy of the\n\nPostcard Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n 6. On December 2, 2025, Lead Counsel forwarded to Angeion one data file containing\n\nthe names and addresses of record holders of Applied Therapeutics, Inc (\u201cApplied\u201d) common\n\nstock, which was received by Lead Counsel from counsel to Applied. Upon receipt, Angeion\n\nelectronically processed the data to ensure adequate address formatting and the removal of\n\nduplicates, resulting in 57 (the \u201cInitial Mailing List\u201d) distinct records for mailing. Prior to mailing,\n\nAngeion standardized and updated the Initial Mailing List addresses using NCOALink\u00ae a national\n\ndatabase of address changes that is compiled by the United States Postal Service (the \u201cUSPS\u201d).\n\nOn December 19, 2025, Angeion caused the Postcard Notice to be sent by First-Class Mail to these\n\n57 potential Class Members.\n\n 7. On or around December 9, 2025, Lead Counsel also provided a list containing\n\nnames and email addresses for 6 potential Class Members who had contacted Lead Counsel during\n\nthe pendency of the litigation. On December 19, 2025, Angeion caused the Postcard Notice to be\n\nemailed to these 6 potential Class Members. A copy of the emailed version of the Postcard Notice\n\nis attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n 8. As in most class actions of this nature, the vast majority of potential Class Members\n\nare beneficial purchasers whose securities are held in \u201cstreet name\u201d by nominees \u2013 i.e., the\n\nsecurities are purchased by brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other third-party nominees in\n\nthe name of the nominee, on behalf of the beneficial purchasers. The names and addresses of these\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 45\n\n\n\n\nbeneficial purchasers are known only to the nominees. Angeion maintains a proprietary database\n\nwith names and addresses of known brokers, dealers, banks and other nominees to be used for\n\nnotifying record holders of settlements (the \u201cBroker Database\u201d).\n\n 9. The Preliminary Approval Order directed Angeion to \u201cuse reasonable efforts to\n\ngive notice to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other persons or entities who\n\npurchased Applied common stock during the Class Period (between January 3, 2024 and\n\nDecember 2, 2024, inclusive) as record owners but not as beneficial owners.\u201d ECF No. 127, \u00b6 10.\n\n 10. In an effort to ensure institutions in the Broker Database would provide their\n\ninformation to Angeion as soon as possible, on December 19, 2025, Angeion caused a \u201cNominee\n\nLetter\u201d to be mailed to the 4,155 records contained in the Broker Database. The Nominee Letter\n\nincluded the same instructions provided in the Special Notice to Securities Brokers and Other\n\nNominees section identified on page 10 in the Notice. The reverse side of the Postcard Notice,\n\nwhich provides recipients with a summary of information concerning the Litigation and the\n\nSettlement, the deadlines for Class Members to object to or opt-out of the Settlement, the deadline\n\nfor Class Members to submit a Proof of Claim and Release (\u201cClaim Form\u201d), and directs recipients\n\nto the Settlement Website and Longform Notice for more information and copies of the Claim\n\nForm, was included as part of the Nominee Letter. A copy of the Nominee Letter is attached hereto\n\nas Exhibit C.\n\n 11. Angeion also provided a copy of the Longform Notice and Claim Form to the\n\nDepository Trust Company (\u201cDTC\u201d) for posting on its Legal Notice System (\u201cLENS\u201d). The LENS\n\nmay be accessed by any nominee that participates in the DTC\u2019s security system and provides the\n\nDTC participants with the ability to search for and download legal notices as well as receive email\n\nalerts based on particular notices or particular security identifiers (known as CUSIPs). The\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 45\n\n\n\n\nLongform Notice and Claim Form were posted on the DTC\u2019s LENS on December 30, 2025. A\n\ncopy of the Longform Notice and the Claim Form are attached hereto as Exhibits D and E,\n\nrespectively.\n\n 12. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that:\n\n nominees and custodians shall WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of their\n receipt of the Postcard Notice either: (a) provide to the Claims Administrator the\n name, last known address, and email address of each beneficial owner for whom\n they are nominee or custodian; (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice for the\n Claims Administrator sufficient to send to all beneficial owners for whom they are\n nominee or custodian, which will be provided to nominees or custodians free of\n charge, and WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, mail the Postcard\n Notice directly to all such persons or entities, or (c) request the link to the Postcard\n Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form from the Claims Administrator, and\n WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, email the link directly to all\n beneficial owners for whom they are nominee or custodian. Nominees who elect to\n follow procedure (b) or (c), MUST send a statement to the Claims Administrator\n confirming that the mailing/emailing was made as directed and keep a record of the\n names and mailing/emailing addresses used. Upon receipt by the Claims\n Administrator of proper documentation, nominees may seek reimbursement of their\n reasonable expenses actually incurred, not to exceed (a) $0.03 per name, mailing\n address and email address (to the extent available) provided to the Claims\n Administrator; (b) $0.0:3 per postcard, plus postage at the pre-sort rate used by the\n Claims Administrator, for mailing the Postcard Notice; or (c) $0.03 per email for\n emailing the Postcard Notice and Proof of Claim and Release. Any disputes with\n respect to the reasonableness or documentation of expenses incurred shall be\n subject to review by the Court. [ECF No. 127, \u00b6 10.]\n\n 13. The Longform Notice also included this requirement, and directed those who\n\npurchased or otherwise acquired Applied common stock during the Class Period as a nominee for\n\na beneficial owner to, within seven days (7) days of receipt of the Postcard Notice, either (a)\n\nprovide Angeion with the name, last known address, and email address of each person or\n\norganization for whom or which they purchased or other acquired Applied common stock during\n\nthe Class Period; (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice from Angeion and send by First-Class\n\nMail to those beneficial owners of Applied common stock during the Class Period; or (c) request\n\nthe link to the Postcard Notice and Claim Form from Angeion and email the link directly to those\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 45\n\n\n\n\nbeneficial owners of Applied common stock. ECF No. 127, \u00b6 10; Ex. D, p. 10. The Postcard\n\nNotice summarized this requirement and directed recipients to page 10 of the Longform Notice for\n\nfurther information. Ex. A, p. 1.\n\n 14. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has received 1,770 records of potential Class\n\nMembers from individuals or brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other nominees. Angeion\n\nhas promptly mailed or emailed the Postcard Notice to these individuals.\n\n 15. Angeion has also received requests from brokers and other nominee holders for\n\ncopies of the Postcard Notice or the links to the Postcard Notice and Claim Form. These brokers\n\nand nominees are required to mail 33,970 Postcard Notices and email the links to 20,424 potential\n\nClass Members.\n\n 16. Angeion will continue to disseminate copies of the Postcard Notice and links in\n\nresponse to additional requests from brokers and other nominee holders in a timely manner.\n\n 17. As of February 10, 2026, a total of 60,382 notifications have been disseminated to\n\npotential Class Members and their nominees. This total includes 39,864 Postcard Notices sent via\n\nFirst-Class Mail and 20,518 links to the Postcard Notice and Claim Form sent via email.\n\n 18. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that \u201c[f]or all Postcard Notices returned\n\nas undeliverable, the Claims Administrator shall use its best efforts to locate updated addresses.\u201d\n\nECF No. 127, \u00b6 8(b). A total of 6 Postcard Notices have been returned by the USPS as\n\nundeliverable without a forwarding address. Angeion conducted address verification searches\n\n(\u201cskip traces\u201d) in an attempt to locate updated addresses. Angeion identified 5 updated addresses\n\nvia skip tracing. Angeion updated the Class Member database and has remailed Postcard Notices\n\nto 5 potential Class Members located via this process.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 45\n\n\n\n\n PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE\n\n 19. The Preliminary Approval Order directed that on or before December 19, 2025,\n\nAngeion \u201cshall cause the Summary Notice to be published once over PRNewswire or a comparable\n\nnational wire service with similar reach.\u201d ECF No. 127, \u00b6 8(c).\n\n 20. Angeion caused the Summary Notice to be transmitted once over PRNewswire on\n\nDecember 19, 2025. Proof of this transmission of the Summary Notice is attached hereto as\n\nExhibit F.\n\n TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS\n\n 21. On or about December 19, 2025, a case-specific toll-free phone number,\n\n833-703-4229, was established with an Interactive Voice Response (\u201cIVR\u201d) system and live\n\noperators to accommodate potential Class Members with questions about the Action and the\n\nSettlement. An automated attendant answers all calls initially and presents callers with a series of\n\nchoices to respond to basic questions. If callers need further help, they have the option to be\n\ntransferred to an operator during business hours.\n\n 22. As of February 10, 2026, 54 calls have been made to the case specific toll-free\n\nphone number, and 15 calls have been handled by live operators.\n\n 23. Angeion continues to maintain the telephone number and will continue to update\n\nthe IVR system as necessary throughout the administration of the Settlement.\n\n 24. Angeion also created a settlement specific email address where potential Class\n\nMembers can write with questions and requests for information:\n\nInfo@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has received 112\n\nemails.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 45\n\n\n\n\n 25. Angeion continues to maintain this email address and monitor the email box, and\n\nwill continue to do so throughout the administration of the Settlement.\n\n SETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n\n 26. The Preliminary Approval Order directed Angeion to established a case-specific\n\nwebsite, www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and to publish the following documents on this\n\nSettlement Website in forms available for download: the Longform Notice, the Claim Form, the\n\nStipulation, the Complaint, the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order. The Preliminary Approval Order also directed Angeion to publish\n\non the Settlement Website the deadlines for Class Members to submit Objections, requests for\n\nexclusion, and Claim Forms. ECF No. 127, \u00b6\u00b6 8(d), 8(e).\n\n 27. On December 19, 2025, Angeion established the Settlement Website, which\n\ncontains copies, in forms available for download, of the Longform Notice, the Claim Form, the\n\nStipulation, the Complaint, the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the\n\nPreliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Website also provides general information regarding\n\nthe case and its current status and deadlines for Class Members to submit Objections, requests for\n\nexclusion, and Claim Forms. The Settlement Website also includes copies, in forms available for\n\ndownload, of other important documents, including the Postcard Notice, the Summary Notice, and\n\nthe briefing on defendants Shendelman\u2019s and Perfetti\u2019s motions to dismiss. Angeion will update\n\nthe website as necessary through the administration of the Settlement.\n\n 28. As of February 10, 2026, the Settlement Website has been visited 2,335 times.\n\n 29. Angeion will continue to maintain the Settlement Website and update it as\n\nnecessary with additional important documents or information throughout administration of the\n\nSettlement.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 45\n\n\n\n\n REQUESTS FOR COPIES OF THE LONGFORM NOTICE AND CLAIM FORM\n\n 30. The Preliminary Approval Order directs Angeion to \u201cmail or email a copy of the\n\nLongform Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form to any Class Member that requests one by\n\nphone, email, or mail.\u201d ECF No. 127, \u00b6 8(d).\n\n 31. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has received 2 such requests for copies of the\n\nLongform Notice and Claim Form by phone. Angeion promptly sent copies of the Longform\n\nNotice and Claim Form in response to these requests by email or mail.\n\n 32. Angeion will continue to mail or email copies of the Longform Notice and Claim\n\nForm in response to requests for such documents throughout administration of the Settlement.\n\n REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS\n\n 33. The Preliminary Approval Order provides procedures for Class Members to request\n\nexclusion from the Settlement or object to the Settlement. ECF No. 127, \u00b6\u00b6 16-21. Pursuant to\n\nthe Preliminary Approval Order, such requests for exclusion must be received or filed with the\n\nCourt by February 26, 2026, a date which is after the date of this Declaration. Id.\n\n 34. The Postcard Notice provides a summary of Class Members\u2019 ability to request\n\nexclusion from the Settlement. The Postcard Notice also directs Class Members to the Settlement\n\nWebsite and Longform Notice, which provide Class Members with clear instructions on how to\n\nrequest exclusion from the Settlement. Specifically, Class Members are informed that requests for\n\nexclusion from the Settlement Class are to be sent by First-Class Mail to Applied Therapeutics\n\nSecurities Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA\n\n19103, such that they are received no later than February 26, 2026. The Longform Notice also\n\nsets forth the information that must be included in each request for exclusion. See Ex. A, p. 2; Ex.\n\nD, pp. 6-7.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 45\n\n\n\n\n 35. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has not received any requests for exclusion.\n\n 36. The Postcard Notice provides a summary of Class Members\u2019 ability to object to the\n\nSettlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel\u2019s application for attorneys\u2019 fees and\n\nexpenses. The Postcard Notice also directs Class Members to the Settlement Website and the\n\nLongform Notice, which provide Class Members with clear instructions on how to object to the\n\nSettlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel\u2019s application for attorneys\u2019 fees and\n\nexpenses. Class Members are informed that any such objection must be submitted in writing such\n\nthat the request is received by Lead Counsel and filed with the Court no later than February 26,\n\n2026. The Longform Notice also sets forth the information that must be included in each objection.\n\n 37. Despite these instructions, Class Members occasionally send objections to the\n\nClaims Administrator rather than to counsel and the Court. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has\n\nnot received any objections, and is not aware of any objections being filed with the Court.\n\n 38. Angeion has monitored and will continue to monitor all mail delivered to the above\n\naddress for requests for exclusion and objections.\n\n CLAIMS PROCESS\n\n 39. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, Claims are to be submitted no later\n\nthan April 8, 2026. ECF No. 127, \u00b6 14.\n\n 40. As of February 10, 2026, Angeion has received 157 Claims from potential Class\n\nMembers.\n\n 41. As in most cases of this nature, the vast majority of Claims are expected to be\n\nsubmitted on or around the claim filing deadline. As claims are received, Angeion will continue\n\nto load and process claim submissions.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 45\n\n\n\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n Executed this 11th day of February 2026.\n\n\n\n\n Dawn M. Cody\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n Postcard Notice\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 13 of 45\n\n\nIn re Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Applied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\n No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC c/o Claims Administrator\n United States District Court for the 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\n Southern District of New York Philadelphia, PA 19103\n Toll-Free Number: 1-833-703-4229\n Court-Ordered Legal Notice of Proposed\n Website: APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Settlement of Class Action\n Email: Info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\nImportant Notice about a Securities Class Action\n Settlement. You may be entitled to a payment.\n This Postcard Notice may affect your legal \u00abScanString\u00bb\n rights. Please read it carefully. Postal Service: Please Do Not Mark or Cover Barcode\n\n This card provides only limited information NOTICE ID \u00abNoticeID\u00bb\nabout the Settlement. For more information, [NAME1]\n or to read the Amended Stipulation of [ADDR1]\nSettlement and Longform Notice, please visit [CITY] [ST] [ZIP]\n www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com. [COUNTRY]\n Special Notice to Nominees. If you hold APLT\n common stock as nominee for a beneficial\nowner, then you must, within 7 calendar days of\n receipt of this Postcard, follow the instructions\n on page 10 of the Longform Notice.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 14 of 45\n For More Information, Please Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\nWhy Did I Receive This Notice? The Parties to the securities class action listed on the front of this postcard have reached a proposed Settlement, under the\nterms and conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated November 20, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d). This Postcard Notice advises potential Class\nMembers of information about the proposed Settlement. Capitalized terms used in this notice that are not otherwise defined are defined in the Stipulation.\nWhat Is The Case About? Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and the Class, that Applied Therapeutics, Inc (\u201cApplied\u201d) and two of its former officers and\ndirectors (\u201cDefendants\u201d) made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and\nSEC Rule 10b-5 concerning, among other things, the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for\ngovorestat, and that these alleged misrepresentations allegedly caused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the\nJanuary 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024 \u201cClass Period.\u201d Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not determined that Defendants did anything\nwrong.\nWho Is Included In The Class? The Class includes all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Applied common stock on a U.S. exchange\nduring the Class Period. As set forth in the Stipulation and Longform Notice, Defendants, their families, certain current and former employees of Applied, and\nother entities and Private Placement Investors, are excluded from the Class by definition.\nWhat Is The Proposed Settlement? Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid $15,000,000 in cash and warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares\nof Applied common stock at $0.48 per share (together, the \u201cSettlement Amount\u201d). The proposed Settlement provides that the Settlement Amount, after deduction\nof any Court-approved attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes and Tax Expenses, and Warrant Exercise Expenses, is to be\ndivided among all Class Members who submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release (\u201cClaim Form\u201d), in exchange for the settlement of this Litigation and the\nreleases by Class Members of all claims related to this case.\nTo qualify for payment, you must submit a Claim Form. The Claim Form can be found on the Settlement Website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or\nwill be sent to you upon request to the Claims Administrator. To be valid, Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online by April 8, 2026.\nOther Options. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit a written request to exclude yourself (opt out) such that it is received\nno later than February 26, 2026. If you opt out, you will receive no benefits from the Settlement. If you do not opt out, you will be legally bound by the Settlement,\nand you will not be able to sue the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you do not opt out, you may submit a written objection to the Settlement\nsuch that it is received no later than February 26, 2026. The Longform Notice available on the Settlement Website explains how to submit a Claim Form, opt out\nor object.\nSettlement Hearing. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the Plan\nof Allocation, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel\u2019s requested attorneys\u2019 fees of up to 20% of the Settlement Amount plus expenses not to exceed $50,000, and any objections\nthereto. You or your lawyer, at your own expense, may attend the hearing if you object, but you are not required to do so.\nIf you have questions, you may contact the Claims Administrator at the contact information on the front of this Postcard or the following Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel:\nJoshua Ruthizer, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, 1- 877-370-7703.\n\n Do not call or write the Court with questions or regarding this notice.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 15 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n Email Version of Postcard Notice\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 16 of 45\n\nSubject: Applied Therapeutics Securities Notice of Proposed Settlement\n\nIn re Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation,\nNo. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC\nUnited States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York\n\nCourt-Ordered Legal Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action\n\nImportant Notice about a Securities Class Action Settlement. You may be entitled to a payment.\nThis Notice may affect your legal rights. Please read it carefully.\n\nThis Notice provides only limited information about the Settlement.\nFor more information, or to read the Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Longform Notice, please visit\nwww.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n\nWhy Did I Receive This Notice? The Parties to the securities class action listed on the front of this postcard have\nreached a proposed Settlement, under the terms and conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement,\ndated November 20, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d). This Postcard Notice advises potential Class Members of information\nabout the proposed Settlement. Capitalized terms used in this notice that are not otherwise defined are defined in\nthe Stipulation.\n\nWhat Is The Case About? Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and the Class, that Applied Therapeutics, Inc\n(\u201cApplied\u201d) and two of its former officers and directors (\u201cDefendants\u201d) made materially false and misleading\nstatements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5\nconcerning, among other things, the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and\nDrug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat, and that these alleged misrepresentations allegedly caused the price\nof Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the January 3, 2024 through December\n2, 2024 \u201cClass Period.\u201d Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not determined that Defendants did\nanything wrong.\n\nWho Is Included In The Class? The Class includes all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired\nApplied common stock on a U.S. exchange during the Class Period. As set forth in the Stipulation and Longform\nNotice, Defendants, their families, certain current and former employees of Applied, and other entities and Private\nPlacement Investors, are excluded from the Class by definition.\n\nWhat Is The Proposed Settlement? Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid $15,000,000 in cash and\nwarrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied common stock at $0.48 per share (together, the\n\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d) 1. The proposed Settlement provides that the Settlement Amount, after deduction of any\nCourt-approved attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes and Tax Expenses, and\nWarrant Exercise Expenses, is to be divided among all Class Members who submit a valid Proof of Claim and\nRelease (\u201cClaim Form\u201d), in exchange for the settlement of this Litigation and the releases by Class Members of\nall claims related to this case.\n\nTo qualify for payment, you must submit a Claim Form. The Claim Form can be found on the Settlement\nWebsite www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or will be sent to you upon request to the Claims Administrator.\n\nTo be valid, Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online by April 8, 2026.\n\nOther Options. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit a written request to\nexclude yourself (opt out) such that it is received no later than February 26, 2026. If you opt out, you will\nreceive no benefits from the Settlement. If you do not opt out, you will be legally bound by the Settlement, and\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 17 of 45\n\nyou will not be able to sue the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you do not opt out, you may\nsubmit a written objection to the Settlement such that it is received no later than February 26, 2026. The\nLongform Notice available on the Settlement Website explains how to submit a Claim Form, opt out or object.\n\nSettlement Hearing. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, to\nconsider whether to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel\u2019s requested attorneys\u2019 fees\nof up to 20% of the Settlement Amount plus expenses not to exceed $50,000, and any objections thereto. You or\nyour lawyer, at your own expense, may attend the hearing if you object, but you are not required to do so.\n\nIf you have questions, you may contact the Claims Administrator at the contact information on the front of this\nPostcard or the following Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel: Joshua Ruthizer, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York,\nNY, 10022, 1- 877-370-7703.\n1\n On Thursday, December 11, 2025, Applied issued a press release announcing that it had entered into a merger\nagreement with Cycle Group Holdings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to which Cycle will commence a tender offer\nto acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock for a per share price of $0.088 per share in cash\npayable at closing plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that entitles the holder to receive\npotential additional payments (the \u201cTransaction\u201d). The Transaction is subject to the tender of a majority of the\noutstanding shares of Applied common stock and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026.\n\nApplied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\nClaims Administrator\n1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n\nToll-Free Number: 1-833-703-4229\nEmail: Info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n\n For More Information, Please Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 18 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n Nominee Letter\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 19 of 45\n Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n c/o Claims Administrator info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 (833) 703-4229\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n\n NOTICE TO BANKS BROKERS AND NOMINEES\n TIME-SENSITIVE, COURT-ORDERED ACTION REQUIRED ON YOUR PART\n In re Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n\n A proposed Settlement has been reached in the above-captioned action. The stock at issue is:\n Applied Therapeutics, Inc. common stock\n Ticker(s): APLT CUSIP(s): 03828A101\n If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Applied Therapeutics, Inc., on a U.S.\nbased exchange between January 3, 2024, and December 2, 2024, inclusive, for the beneficial interest of an individual or\nentity other than yourself, WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ENCLOSED POSTCARD NOTICE, YOU\nMUST EITHER:\n\n (a) Provide a list of names, last known mailing addresses, and email addresses of all such beneficial owners\n described above;\n (b) Request a sufficient number of Court-approved Postcard Notices to forward to all such beneficial owners and,\n within seven (7) calendar days of receipt, forward the Postcard Notice to all such beneficial owners; or\n (c) Request a copy of the link to the court-approved Notice and Proof of Claim form and email the link to all\n such beneficial owners.\nIf you are providing a list of names, addresses and emails, please send an Excel file to the email address below.\nIf you are forwarding the Postcard, send the quantity required via email to the address below. You must mail the\nPostcard Notice to the beneficial owners within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the Postcard.\nIf you are requesting a copy of the link, please email the request to the address below. Please communicate to us the\nquantity of emails expected to be released.\nIf you have no such beneficial owners, advise of the same via email at the address below.\n Email: info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Expense Reimbursement\nYou may request reimbursement for any reasonable expenses actually incurred and not to exceed:\n x $0.03 per emailed link to the Settlement Notice and Proof of Claim.\n x $0.03 per name, address, and email address if you provide your client information, OR\n x $0.03 per Postcard Notice mailed, plus postage. Postage costs are pass through with no mark-up, at the pre-sort\n rate used by the Claims Administrator.\n All invoices must be submitted to info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com within 30 days of completing the mailing or\nproviding your file. Invoices must include proper documentation supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is\nsought along with a statement confirming that the mailing was made as directed.\n For further details, please visit the Settlement Website.\n If you have any questions, please visit the Settlement Website at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, email\ninfo@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, or call (833) 703-4229.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 20 of 45\nWhy Did I Receive This Notice? The Parties to the securities class action listed on the front of this postcard have reached a proposed Settlement, under the terms\nand conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated November 20, 2025 (\u201cStipulation\u201d). This Postcard Notice advises potential Class Members of\ninformation about the proposed Settlement. Capitalized terms used in this notice that are not otherwise defined are defined in the Stipulation.\nWhat Is The Case About? Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and the Class, that Applied Therapeutics, Inc (\u201cApplied\u201d) and two of its former officers and directors\n(\u201cDefendants\u201d) made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5\nconcerning, among other things, the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat, and that these\nalleged misrepresentations allegedly caused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the January 3, 2024 through December 2,\n2024 \u201cClass Period.\u201d Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not determined that Defendants did anything wrong.\nWho Is Included In The Class? The Class includes all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Applied common stock on a U.S. exchange during\nthe Class Period. As set forth in the Stipulation and Longform Notice, Defendants, their families, certain current and former employees of Applied, and other entities\nand Private Placement Investors, are excluded from the Class by definition.\nWhat Is The Proposed Settlement? Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid $15,000,000 in cash and warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of\nApplied common stock at $0.48 per share (together, the \u201cSettlement Amount\u201d). The proposed Settlement provides that the Settlement Amount, after deduction of any\nCourt-approved attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes and Tax Expenses, and Warrant Exercise Expenses, is to be divided among\nall Class Members who submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release (\u201cClaim Form\u201d), in exchange for the settlement of this Litigation and the releases by Class Members\nof all claims related to this case.\nTo qualify for payment, you must submit a Claim Form. The Claim Form can be found on the Settlement Website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or will be\nsent to you upon request to the Claims Administrator. To be valid, Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online by April 8, 2026.\nOther Options. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit a written request to exclude yourself (opt out) such that it is received no later\nthan February 26, 2026. If you opt out, you will receive no benefits from the Settlement. If you do not opt out, you will be legally bound by the Settlement, and you will\nnot be able to sue the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you do not opt out, you may submit a written objection to the Settlement such that it is received\nno later than February 26, 2026. The Longform Notice available on the Settlement Website explains how to submit a Claim Form, opt out or object.\nSettlement Hearing. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the Plan of\nAllocation, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel\u2019s requested attorneys\u2019 fees of up to 20% of the Settlement Amount plus expenses not to exceed $50,000, and any objections thereto.\nYou or your lawyer, at your own expense, may attend the hearing if you object, but you are not required to do so.\nIf you have questions, you may contact the Claims Administrator at the contact information on the front of this Postcard or the following Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel: Joshua\nRuthizer, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, 1- 877-370-7703.\n\n Do not contact the Court, Defendants, or their counsel in this Action with questions.\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 21 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT D\n Longform Notice\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 22 of 45\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION\n CLASS ACTION\n\n\n NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;\n(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY\u2019S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT\n OF LITIGATION EXPENSES\n A Federal Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.\nTO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON\n STOCK OF APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC. (\u201cAPPLIED\u201d OR THE \u201cCOMPANY\u201d) ON A U.S. BASED EXCHANGE\n BETWEEN JANUARY 3, 2024 AND DECEMBER 2, 2024, INCLUSIVE, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM\n THE CLASS (THE \u201cCLASS\u201d)\nPLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS\nACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE\nSETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A\nVALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE (\u201cCLAIM FORM\u201d) POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 8, 2026.\nThis Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (\u201cNotice\u201d) has been sent to you pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\nProcedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \u201cCourt\u201d). The purpose of this Notice is to inform\nyou of the pendency of this class action (the \u201cLitigation\u201d) between Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), and Defendants Applied, Dr.\nShoshana Shendelman and Dr. Riccardo Perfetti (the \u201cIndividual Defendants\u201d), and the proposed settlement consisting of fifteen million U.S. dollars\n(USD $15,000,000) in cash and Warrants to purchase up to one million (1,000,000) shares of Applied common stock (the \u201cSettlement\u201d) and of the\nhearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as well as counsel\u2019s application for fees and\nexpenses. This Notice describes what steps you may take in relation to the Settlement and this class action. 1\nThis Notice is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of the allegations\nin the Litigation as to any of the Defendants or the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by or against the Defendants. This Notice is solely to advise\nyou of the pendency and proposed Settlement of the Litigation and of your rights in connection therewith.\n\n YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT\n The only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.\n SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM\n Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online on or before April 8, 2026.\n Get no payment. This is the only option that potentially allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the\n Defendants or any other Released Person about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement. Should you\n elect to exclude yourself from the Class you should understand that Defendants and the other Released Defendant\n Parties will have the right to assert any and all defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert,\n EXCLUDE YOURSELF including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are untimely under applicable statutes of limitations\n and statutes of repose.\n Requests for exclusion must be received by the Claims Administrator on or before February 26, 2026.\n Postmarked on February 26, 2026 is not sufficient.\n Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for\n attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses. You will still be a Member of the Class. If you submit a written objection, you may\n OBJECT (but do not have to) attend the hearing.\n Objections must be received by the Court and counsel on or before February 26, 2026. Postmarked on\n February 26, 2026 is not sufficient.\n\n GO TO THE HEARING ON Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.\n MARCH 19, 2026 Requests to speak must be received by the Court and counsel on or before February 26, 2026.\n Receive no payment. You will, however, still be a Member of the Class, which means that you give up your right\n to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants or any other Released Defendant Parties about the legal\n DO NOTHING\n claims being resolved by this Settlement and you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court\n in the Litigation.\n\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated\nNovember 20, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation\u201d), which is available on the website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 1 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 23 of 45\n SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE\nStatement of Class Recovery\n Subject to Court approval, Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, has agreed to settle the Litigation in exchange for a payment of $15,000,000\nin cash and the issuance of Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied common stock, with an exercise price of $0.48 per share (the\n\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d). The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Class Members according to the Court-approved plan of allocation (the \u201cPlan\nof Allocation\u201d). The proposed Plan of Allocation is set forth on pages 8-10.\nEstimate of Average Recovery Per Share\n Based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8 million shares of Applied common stock eligible to recover under the\nSettlement, the average distribution from the cash portion of the Settlement Fund under the Plan of Allocation is estimated to be approximately $0.15\nper share before deduction of any Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Warrant Exercise Expenses, and the Fee and Expense\nAward as determined by the Court. In addition to any cash recovery, each Authorized Claimant will be eligible to receive a proportionate share of the\nproceeds from the Warrants, which will be distributed either in cash or in securities.\n Class Members should note, however, that these are only estimates. A Class Member\u2019s actual recovery will be a proportion of the Net\nSettlement Fund (cash plus proceeds from the Warrants) determined by that claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim as compared to the total Recognized Claims\nof all Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim. An individual Class Member may receive more or less than this estimated average\namount. See the Plan of Allocation set forth and discussed at pages 8-10 below for more information on the calculation of your claim.\nStatement of Potential Outcome of Case\n Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert estimates that if Plaintiff and the Class were completely successful on all claims, and Plaintiff and the Class\u2019s\ndamages theories and evidence were accepted in full by the Court and the jury, then the maximum recoverable damages for the Class would be\napproximately $377.5 million, or approximately $3.86 per share based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8 million shares of Applied\ncommon stock eligible to recover under the Settlement.\n Defendants deny that they are liable to the Class and deny that the Class has suffered any damages. The issues on which the parties disagree\nare many, but include: (1) whether Defendants engaged in conduct that would give rise to any liability to the Class under the federal securities laws, or\nany other laws; (2) whether Defendants have valid defenses to any such claims of liability; (3) the appropriate economic model for determining the\namount by which the prices of Applied common stock were allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Class Period; (4) the amount, if any, by\nwhich the prices of Applied common stock were allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Class Period; (5) the effect of various market forces\non the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the Class Period; (6) the extent to which external factors influenced the prices of Applied\ncommon stock at various times during the Class Period; (7) the extent to which the various matters that Plaintiff alleged were materially false or\nmisleading influenced (if at all) the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the Class Period; and (8) the extent to which the various\nallegedly adverse material facts that Plaintiff alleged were omitted influenced (if at all) the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the\nClass Period.\nStatement of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses Sought\n Since the action\u2019s inception, Lead Counsel have expended considerable time and effort in the prosecution of this Litigation on a wholly\ncontingent basis and have advanced the expenses of the Litigation in the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the Class,\nthey would be paid from such recovery. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of\nthe Settlement Amount, plus expenses not to exceed $50,000, plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund.\nIf the amounts requested are approved by the Court, the average cost per share of Applied common stock eligible to participate in the Settlement against\nthe cash portion of the Settlement Fund is estimated to be approximately $0.03 per share, based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8\nmillion shares of Applied common stock eligible to recover under the Settlement.\nFurther Information\n For further information regarding the Litigation, this Notice or to review the Stipulation, please contact the Claims Administrator toll-free at\n1-833-703-4229, or visit the website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n You may also contact a representative of counsel for the Class: Joshua W. Ruthizer, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, 12 th Floor. New\nYork, NY 10022, 1-877-370-7703, www.wolfpopper.com.\n Please do not call the Court or Defendants with questions about the Settlement.\nReasons for the Settlement\n Plaintiff\u2019s principal reason for entering into the Settlement is the benefit to the Class now, without further risk or the delays inherent in\ncontinued litigation. The cash benefit under the Settlement must be considered against the significant risk that a smaller recovery \u2013 or, indeed, no\nrecovery at all \u2013 might be achieved after contested motions, trial, and likely appeals, a process that could last several years into the future. For the\nDefendants, who have denied and continue to deny, all allegations of liability, fault, or wrongdoing whatsoever, the principal reason for entering into\nthe Settlement is to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, costs, and burdens inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as this Litigation. The\nSettling Parties agree that further conduct of this Litigation could be protracted and distracting, would dissipate the insurance currently available to\nresolve Plaintiff\u2019s claims, and further diminish Applied\u2019s financial condition.\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 2 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 24 of 45\n BASIC INFORMATION\n1. Why did I get this Notice?\n You or someone in your family or an investment account for which you serve as custodian may have purchased or otherwise acquired publicly\ntraded Applied common stock on a U.S. based exchange during the period between January 3, 2024 through and including December 2, 2024 (the\n\u201cClass Period\u201d).\n This Notice explains the class action lawsuit, the Settlement, Class Members\u2019 legal rights in connection with the Settlement, what benefits\nare available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.\n The Court directed that this Notice be made publicly available on www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com to inform Class Members of the\nterms of the proposed Settlement and about all of their options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement at the upcoming hearing to\nconsider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and Lead Counsel\u2019s application for attorneys\u2019\nfees and expenses (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d).\n The Court in charge of the Litigation is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the case is known as In\nre Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC-VF. The case has been assigned to the Honorable Denise Cote. The\nindividual representing the Class is the Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich, and the Company, and individuals he sued and who have now settled are called\nthe Defendants.\n\n2. What is this lawsuit about?\n Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (the \u201cComplaint\u201d), filed on June 13, 2025, alleges that Defendants violated Sections\n10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. \u00a7\n240.10b-5. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period (January 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024, inclusive), Defendants\nmade materially false and misleading statements to investors and the Class in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 concerning, among other\nthings, the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat to treat Classic\nGalactosemia (\u201cGalactosemia\u201d), a rare genetic metabolic disorder that can be fatal if untreated; Defendants\u2019 interactions with the FDA concerning the\nNDA; the reliability of the data underlying the NDA; and alleged known material deficiencies with the NDA.\n The Complaint alleges that (a) between March and June 2021, as part of Applied\u2019s ACTION-Galactosemia Kids Study (the \u201cPediatric\nStudy\u201d), 19 of the 47 subjects enrolled at a clinical site\u2014over 40% of the study population\u2014received only approximately 80% of the intended dose of\ngovorestat due to a labeling error (the \u201cDosing Errors\u201d); (b) the Dosing Errors were a violation of the clinical trial protocol that Applied agreed to with\nthe FDA for the conduct of the Pediatric Study; (c) Defendants knew (i) about the Dosing Errors and that they constituted a violation of the clinical\ntrial protocol for the Pediatric Study, (ii) that information about the Dosing Errors and the clinical data recorded for patients who received the Dosing\nErrors (the \u201cDosing Errors Clinical Data\u201d) was required by FDA regulation and guidance to be included in the NDA, (iii) that the NDA failed to include\nthis information, and instead reported clinical data as if the patients received the full, correct dose, and (iv) as a result, the NDA was materially deficient\nand failed to comply with FDA regulations.\n In addition, the Complaint alleges that (a) on March 27, 2024, one of Applied\u2019s vendors for the Pediatric Study deleted clinical source data\nfor all 47 patients enrolled in the study (the \u201cStudy Data Deletion\u201d), (b) between April 23 and May 3, 2024, the FDA conducted an inspection of a\nclinical test site and discovered the Study Data Deletion, (c) the Study Data Deletion was a violation of the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study;\n(d) at the conclusion of the inspection, on May 3, 2024, the FDA issued a FDA Form 483 to Applied that detailed the Study Data Deletion and two\nother objectionable conditions (the \u201cForm 483\u201d), and also discussed the Form 483 with Defendant Shendelman; (e) on May 9, 2023, Applied responded\nto the Form 483 and informed the FDA that deleted source data for 11 subjects could not be recovered; and (f) therefore, by May 9, 2024, the Defendants\nknew (i) about the Study Data Deletion, (ii) that the FDA knew Applied had violated FDA regulations and the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric\nStudy, and (iii) that the FDA could not verify clinical results of the Pediatric Study as part of its NDA review.\n The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the failure to disclose the facts summarized in the preceding two paragraphs rendered\nDefendants\u2019 statements materially false and misleading.\n The Complaint also alleges that these alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at\nartificially inflated levels during the Class Period, until the market learned the truth through, among other things, the November 27, 2024 disclosure of\na complete response letter (\u201cCRL\u201d) from the FDA to Applied rejecting the NDA and the December 3, 2024 publication by the FDA of a Warning Letter\nfrom the FDA to Applied that identified the Study Data Deletion and failure to include information about the Dosing Errors and Dosing Errors Clinical\nData in the NDA. The Complaint alleges that these disclosures resulted in a sharp decline in Applied\u2019s share price.\n\n3. Why is there a settlement?\n The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or of the Plaintiff and the Class. Instead, both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid the\ndistraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and Plaintiff agreed to the Settlement in order to ensure that Class Members will receive compensation.\n\n WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT\n4. How do I know if I am a Member of the Class?\n The Court directed that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly\ntraded common stock of Applied on a U.S. based exchange during the period from January 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024, inclusive, except those\nPersons and entities that are excluded.\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 3 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 25 of 45\n Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current and former officers, directors, and employees of Applied (the \u201cExcluded\nPersons\u201d); (iii) any person or entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024 Private Placement (the \u201cPrivate Placement Investors\u201d); (iv)\nmembers of Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or Private Placement Investors\u2019 immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns;\nand (v) any entity in which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement Investors have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded\nfrom the Class are those Persons who timely and validly exclude themselves therefrom by submitting a request for exclusion in accordance with the\nrequirements set forth in question 11 below.\n Please Note: Receipt of this Notice or the Postcard Notice does not mean that you are a Class Member or that you will be entitled to receive\na payment from the Settlement. Please check your records or contact your broker to see if you are a Class Member. If you are a Class Member and you\nwish to be eligible to participate in the distribution of proceeds from the Settlement, you are required to submit the Claim Form available on the\nSettlement Website, www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and the required supporting documentation as set forth therein postmarked or submitted\nonline on or before April 8, 2026.\n\n5. What if I am still not sure if l am included?\n If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. You can contact the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229,\nvia email at Info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you can submit a Claim Form online or via US Mail, to see if you qualify.\n\n THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS \u2013 WHAT YOU GET\n6. What does the Settlement provide?\n The Settlement provides that, in exchange for the release of the Released Claims (defined below) and dismissal of the Litigation, Defendants\nhave agreed to provide consideration consisting of $15,000,000 cash and the issuance of Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied\ncommon stock, with a term of one year from the Effective Date of the Settlement an exercise price of $0.48 per share (together, the \u201cSettlement\nAmount\u201d).\n The Warrants will be held and administered by the Securities Escrow Agent on behalf of the Class. The Securities Escrow Agent, under the\nsupervision of Lead Counsel, will determine whether and when to exercise the Warrants. Warrant Proceeds may be paid in cash or in Applied common\nstock or other securities (in the event Applied is acquired or merges with another company, pursuant to the terms of the Warrants). No Class Member\nwill receive an interest in the Warrants themselves. The Securities Escrow Agent, under the supervision of Lead Counsel, will decide whether to sell\nthe Warrant Proceeds paid in the form of Applied common stock or other securities and to distribute the resulting cash proceeds, or to distribute the\nApplied common stock or other securities to Class Members.\n Any Warrant Proceeds realized from the exercise of the Warrants and/or and sale of Warrant Proceeds paid in the form of Applied common\nstock or other securities shall be added to the Net Settlement Fund and distributed to Authorized Claimants pursuant to this Plan of Allocation. The\nPlan of Allocation is described in more detail on pages 8-10. No Class Member will receive individual warrant certificates. In the event the Warrants\nexpire unexercised or proves to have no realizable value, no additional distribution will be made on account of the Warrants.\n On Thursday, December 11, 2025, Applied issued a press release announcing that it had entered into a merger agreement with Cycle Group\nHoldings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to which Cycle will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock\nfor a per share price of $0.088 per share in cash payable at closing plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that entitles the holder to\nreceive potential additional payments (the \u201cTransaction\u201d). The Transaction is subject to the tender of a majority of the outstanding shares of Applied\ncommon stock and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026.\n\n7. How much will my payment be?\n Your share of the Net Settlement Fund (as defined and described in the Plan of Allocation on pages 8-10 below) will depend on several\nthings, including the total claims for Applied common shares represented by the valid Claim Forms that Class Members send in, compared to the value\nof your claim, all as calculated under the Plan of Allocation discussed below.\n\n HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT \u2013 SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM\n8. How can I get a payment?\n To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a timely and valid Claim Form. You can request a Claim Form be\nmailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229, or download a Claim Form from www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\nRead the instructions carefully, fill out the Claim Form, include all the documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail or submit it online through\nwww.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com so that it is postmarked or received no later than April 8, 2026.\n\n9. When would I get my payment?\n The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., EDT, to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the\nCourt approves the Settlement, there might be appeals. It is always uncertain whether appeals can be resolved, and if so, how long it would take to\nresolve them. It also takes time for all the Claim Forms to be processed. Please be patient.\n\n10. What am I giving up to get a payment or to stay in the Class?\n Unless you timely and validly exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of\nany other lawsuit against Defendants or their Related Parties about the Released Claims (as defined below) in this case. It also means that all of the\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 4 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 26 of 45\nCourt\u2019s orders will apply to you and legally bind you. If you remain a Class Member, and if the Settlement is approved, you will give up all \u201cReleased\nClaims\u201d (as defined below), including \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d (as defined below), against the \u201cReleased Persons\u201d (as defined below):\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Claims\u201d means any and all rights, liabilities, suits, debts, obligations, demands, damages, losses, judgment, matters, issues, claims\n (including \u201cUnknown Claims,\u201d as defined below), and causes of action, of every nature and description whatsoever, in law, equity, or otherwise,\n whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether arising under\n federal, state, local, statutory, common, or foreign law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether class and/or individual in nature, that (a)\n Lead Plaintiff or any other Class Member asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation, or could in the future assert in any court or forum based\n upon, relating to, in connection with, or arising from the allegations, transactions, facts, matters or occurrences, errors, representations,\n misrepresentations, actions, failures to act, or omissions that were alleged, set forth, or referred to in the Litigation, and (b) also relate to the\n purchase of publicly traded shares of Applied common stock on a U.S. based exchange during the Class Period. \u201cReleased Claims\u201d does not\n include: (i) derivative claims; (ii) ERISA claims; and (iii) claims to enforce the Settlement.\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Defendants\u2019 Claims\u201d means any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, including both\n known claims and Unknown Claims, against Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel or any Class Member that arise out of or relate in any way to the\n institution, prosecution, or settlement of the claims against Defendants in the Litigation. Released Defendants\u2019 Claims do not include claims\n relating to the enforcement of the Settlement.\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Defendant Parties\u201d means each and all of Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel, and any of their Related Parties means each and all\n of the Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel and their Related Parties.\n \u2022 \u201cRelated Parties\u201d means any Person\u2019s former, present or future parents, subsidiaries, divisions, controlling persons, associates, related\n entities and affiliates, any entity in which a Person has a controlling interest, and each and all of their respective present and former employees,\n members, partners, principals, officers, directors, controlling shareholders, agents, attorneys, advisors (including financial or investment advisors),\n accountants, auditors, consultants, underwriters, investment bankers, commercial bankers, entities providing fairness opinions, general or limited\n partners or partnerships, limited liability companies, members, joint ventures and insurers and reinsurers or co-insurers of each of them; as well\n as the predecessors, successors, estates, immediate family members, spouses, heirs, executors, trusts, trustees, administrators, agents, legal or\n personal representatives, assigns, and assignees of each of them, in their capacity as such..\n \u2022 \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d means: (a) any and all Released Claims, which any of the Lead Plaintiff, Members of the Class, or Lead Counsel do\n not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties, which, if known by them, might have\n affected their settlement with and release of the Released Defendant Parties, or might have affected their decision(s) with respect to the Settlement,\n including, but not limited to, whether or not to object to this Settlement; and (b) any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims that any of the Defendants\n or Defendants\u2019 Counsel do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of Released Plaintiff Parties, which, if known by\n them might have affected their settlement and release of Released Plaintiff Parties. With respect to (a) any and all Released Claims against the\n Released Defendant Parties, and (b) any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against Released Plaintiff Parties, the Settling Parties stipulate and\n agree that, upon the Effective Date, the Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant Party\n shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived the provisions, rights, and benefits of California Civil\n Code \u00a7 1542, which provides:\n A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist\n in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his\n or her settlement with the debtor or released party.\n The Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant Party shall be deemed to have, and by\n operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory\n of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code \u00a7 1542. The Released\n Plaintiff Parties and Released Defendant Parties acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts, legal theories or authorities in addition to or\n different from those which he, she, it or their counsel now knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims\n or Released Defendants\u2019 Claims, but (a) the Released Plaintiff Parties shall expressly fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle,\n discharge, extinguish and release, and each Released Plaintiff Party shall be deemed to have waived, compromised, settled, discharged,\n extinguished, and released, and, upon the Effective Date, and by operation of the Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged,\n extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, known or unknown,\n suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, accrued or unaccrued, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore\n have existed, or may hereafter exist, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not\n limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent\n discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities, and (b) the Released Defendant Parties shall expressly\n fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle, discharge, extinguish and release, and, upon the Effective Date, and by operation of the\n Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged, extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released\n Defendants\u2019 Claims against the Released Plaintiff Parties, the Class and Lead Counsel, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent\n or non-contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing\n or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of\n any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities.\n The Settling Parties acknowledge, and the Released Plaintiff Parties and Released Defendant Parties shall be deemed by operation of the Judgment\n to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and is an essential element of the Settlement of which this release\n is a part.\n The Settlement also bars any and all claims for contribution or indemnity against any of the Released Defendant Parties arising out of, relating\nto or concerning any acts, facts, statements, or omissions that were or could have been alleged in the Litigation.\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 5 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 27 of 45\n EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS\n If you do not want to participate in this Settlement, and you want to keep the right to potentially sue the Defendants and the other Released\nPersons, on your own, about the claims being released by the Settlement, then you must take steps to remove yourself from the Settlement. This is\ncalled excluding yourself \u2013 or is sometimes referred to as \u201copting out.\u201d If you are requesting exclusion because you want to bring your own lawsuit\nbased on the matters alleged in this Litigation, you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any individual claim that you may wish to\npursue would be time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or repose.\n\n11. How do I get out of the Class and the proposed Settlement?\n To exclude yourself from the Class and the Settlement, you must send a letter or other document by First-Class Mail stating that you \u201crequest\nexclusion from the Class in the Applied Therapeutics Settlement.\u201d The request for exclusion must include (i) the name, address, and telephone number\nof the Person requesting exclusion; (ii) the caption of the Action; (iii) a list identifying all transactions in Applied common stock during the Class\nPeriod by the Person requesting exclusion, the date of each transaction, and the price of each transaction; (iv) documentation sufficient to evidence\neach listed transaction in Applied common stock during the Class Period by the Person requesting exclusion and the date of each transaction; and (v)\na statement that the Person wishes to be excluded from the Class. Any request for exclusion must be in writing and signed under penalty of perjury by\nthe beneficial owner(s) of the shares of Applied common stock that are the subject of the request for exclusion. You must submit your exclusion request\nso that it is received no later than February 26, 2026 to:\n Applied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\n c/o Claims Administrator\n 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not be legally\nbound by anything that happens in this lawsuit, and you may be able to sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons about the Released Claims\nin the future.\n\n12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons for the same thing later?\n No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any rights you may potentially have to sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons for\nany and all Released Claims. If you have a pending lawsuit against the Released Persons, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You must\nexclude yourself from the Class in this Litigation to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is February 26, 2026.\n\n13. If I exclude myself, can I get money from the proposed Settlement?\n No. If you exclude yourself, you should not send in a Claim Form to ask for any money. But you may have the right to potentially sue or be\npart of a different lawsuit against the Defendants and the other Released Persons.\n\n OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT\n You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement or any part of it.\n\n14. How do I tell the Court that I object to the proposed Settlement?\n If you are a Class Member, you can comment on or object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or Lead Counsel\u2019s\nFee and Expense Application. You can write to the Court setting out your comment or objection. The Court will consider your views. To comment or\nobject, you must send a letter or other document saying that you wish to comment on or object to the proposed Settlement in the Applied Therapeutics\nSettlement. Any objection must be signed personally under penalty of perjury by the Class Member submitting the objection and include (i) the name,\naddress and telephone number of the Class Member objecting; (ii) the caption of the Action; (iii) a statement of the Class Members\u2019 objection or\nobjections, and the specific reasons for each objection, including any legal and evidentiary support the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court\u2019s\nattention and whether the objections apply only to the objector, a specific subset of the Class, or to the entire Class; (iv) a list identifying all transactions\nin Applied common stock during the Class Period by the Class Member objecting, the date of each transaction, and the price of each transaction; and\n(v) documents sufficient to prove membership in the Class, including the objecting Class Member\u2019s purchases, and/or sales of Applied common stock\nduring the Class Period, the dates, the number of shares purchased or sold, and the price paid or received for such purchase or sale. Your comments or\nobjection must be filed with the Court and mailed or delivered to each of the following addresses such that it is received no later than February 26, 2026:\n COURT LEAD COUNSEL\n Clerk of Court WOLF POPPER LLP\n United States District Court Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.\n Southern District Of New York 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10022\n New York, NY 10007\n\n\nPLEASE NOTE that all objections will be filed publicly with the Court. You should redact any personally identifiable information before\nsubmitting your objection, such as account numbers or social security numbers.\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 6 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 28 of 45\n15. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?\n Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class.\n Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to recover money from the Settlement and do not want to release any claims you\nthink you may have against Defendants and their Related Parties. If you exclude yourself, you cannot object to the Settlement because it does not affect you.\n\n THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU\n16. Do I have a lawyer in this case?\n The Court ordered that the law firm of Wolf Popper LLP represent the Class Members, including you. These lawyers are called Lead Counsel.\nIf you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.\n\n17. How will the lawyers be paid?\nLead Counsel will apply to the Court for a Fee and Expense Award for (a) an award of attorneys\u2019 fees not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the\nSettlement Amount and (b) expenses, costs and charges in an amount not to exceed $50,000 in connection with prosecuting the Litigation, plus interest\non such fees and expenses at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from the\nSettlement Fund. Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application will ask that it be awarded attorneys\u2019 fees in a percent of the cash settlement\nconsideration and any Warrant Proceeds that result from exercise of the Warrants.\n\n THE COURT\u2019S SETTLEMENT HEARING\n The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do\nnot have to.\n\n18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement?\n The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at 11:00 a.m., EDT on March 19, 2026, at the United States District Court for the Southern District\nof New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18B, New York, NY 10007. At the hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement and the Plan of\nAllocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them, even if you do not ask to speak at the hearing. The\nCourt will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Lead Counsel and Plaintiff. After\nthe Settlement Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation. We do not know how long these decisions\nwill take. You should be aware that the Court may change the date and time of the Settlement Hearing without another notice being sent to Class\nMembers. If you want to attend the hearing, you should check with Lead Counsel or the Settlement Website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\nbeforehand to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed.\n\n19. Do I have to come to the hearing?\n No. Lead Counsel will answer questions the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection,\nyou do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as your written objection was received by the deadline stated herein and otherwise complies\nwith the requirements set forth herein, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary. Class Members\ndo not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.\n\n20. May I speak at the hearing?\n If you object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense Application, you may ask the Court for permission to\nspeak at the Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must include in your written objection (see question 14 above) a written statement of your intention to\nappear at the hearing and to include in your written objections the identity of any witnesses you may call to testify and copies of any exhibits you intend\nto introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. Your notice of intention to appear must be received with your written objection and be received\nno later than February 26, 2026, and addressed to the Clerk of Court, Lead Counsel, and Defendants\u2019 Counsel, at the addresses listed above in\nquestion 14.\n You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Class.\n\n IF YOU DO NOTHING\n\n21. What happens if I do nothing?\n If you do nothing, you will not receive any money from this Settlement. In addition, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start\na lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Defendants and their Related Parties about the Released Claims in this case.\n\n GETTING MORE INFORMATION\n\n22. How do I get more information?\n For even more detailed information concerning the matters involved in this Litigation, you can obtain answers to common questions regarding\nthe proposed Settlement by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229. Reference is also made to the Settlement Agreement, to\nthe documents filed in support of the Settlement, to the Orders entered by the Court and to the other Settlement related papers filed in the Litigation,\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 7 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 29 of 45\nwhich are posted on the Settlement Website at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and which may also be inspected at the Office of the Clerk of the\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York, during regular business hours. For a fee, all papers filed in this Litigation are\navailable at www.pacer.gov.\n\n PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND AMONG CLASS MEMBERS\n Each Class Member\u2019s share of the Settlement Fund will depend on several factors, including, but not limited to, how many Class Members\ntimely send in valid Claim Forms; the amount of Applied common stock you purchased during the Class Period; the prices and dates of those purchases;\nand the prices and dates of any sales you made. The Plan of Allocation below will provide more detail on your potential recovery.\n The Settlement Amount (together with any interest earned thereon) constitutes the \u201cSettlement Fund.\u201d The \u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d means the\nSettlement Fund less: (i) any Court-awarded Fee and Expense Award to Lead Counsel, and interest thereon; (ii) Notice and Administration Expenses\nthat are paid, incurred, or due and owing; (iii) Taxes and Tax Expenses that are paid, incurred, or due and owing; (iv) any Warrant Exercise Expenses\nthat are paid, incurred, or due and owing; and (v) any other Court-approved deductions that are paid, incurred, or due and owing. If the Settlement is\napproved by the Court, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to eligible members of the Class who timely submit valid Claim Forms (\u201cAuthorized\nClaimant(s)\u201d) in accordance with the Plan of Allocation.\n The Plan of Allocation is intended to distribute the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund equitably among all Class Members who are alleged\nto have suffered economic losses as a proximate result of Defendants\u2019 conduct. The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant\u2019s\npro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Loss.\u201d The Recognized Loss formula will be the\nAuthorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss divided by the total of the Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the total amount in\nthe Net Settlement Fund. The Recognized Loss formula is not a formal damage analysis, and the calculations made in accordance with the formula are\nnot intended to be estimates, or indicative, of the amount of what a Class member lost or might have been able to recover after a trial; nor is it an\nestimate of the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement.\n In order to have recoverable damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, disclosure of the alleged\nmisrepresentation and/or omission must be the cause of the decline in the price of the security. In this Litigation, Lead Plaintiff alleges that the truth\nconcerning Defendants\u2019 materially false and misleading statements (corrective disclosures) was revealed to the market after the close of trading on\nWednesday November 27, 2024 (the day before the Thanksgiving Holiday, when U.S. trading markets were closed), when Applied announced it had\nreceived the CRL and the FDA had rejected the NDA, and during the trading day on December 3, 2024, when the FDA published the Warning Letter\non its website disclosing reasons for the rejection of the NDA, and that those disclosures allegedly caused statistically significant declines in the price\nof Applied\u2019s common stock and removed the alleged artificial inflation in Applied common stock. Accordingly, for a Class member to have a\ncompensable loss in this Settlement, the Applied common stock must have been purchased during the Class Period and (i) held through at least the\nopening of trading on November 29, 2024 (the first trading day after November 27, 2024) to be eligible for loss associated with the first disclosure,\nand (ii) held through at least the close of the trading day on December 2, 2024 to be eligible for loss associated with the second disclosure.\nTHE COURT MAY APPROVE THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, OR MODIFY IT, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO THE CLASS.\nANY ORDER MODIFYING THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION WILL BE POSTED ON THE SETTLEMENT WEBSITE,\nwww.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n\n CALCULATION OF RECOGNIZED LOSS AND RECOGNIZED GAIN AMOUNTS\n The premise of the Plan of Allocation is that the true value of Applied common shares during the Class Period was allegedly $1.69 per share, the\nclosing price on December 3, 2024, after the disclosure of the CRL and the Warning Letter. A Recognized Loss shall be calculated by the Claims\nAdministrator for shares of Applied common stock purchased during the Class Period as follows:\n 1. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold prior to November 29, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be zero.\n 2. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold on November 29, 2024 or December 2, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser\n of (i) the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, (ii) the difference between the purchase price and $1.75 per share (the\n closing price on December 2, 2024), or (iii) $6.82 per share (the combined share price decline on November 29, 2024 and December 2, 2024).\n 3. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold on December 3, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser of (i) the difference\n between the purchase price and the sale price, (ii) the difference between the purchase price and $1.69 per share (the closing price on December\n 3, 2024), or (iii) $6.88 per share (the combined share price decline on November 29, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 3, 2024).\n 4. For shares purchased during the Class Period and still held at the close of trading on December 3, 2024 the Recognized Loss will be the lesser\n of (i) the difference between the purchase price and $1.69 per share (the closing price on December 3, 2024), or (ii) $6.88 per share (the\n combined share price decline on November 29, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 3, 2024).\n 5. Gains on shares both purchased and sold from November 29, 2024 through December 3, 2024 will offset a class member\u2019s Recognized Loss.\n ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS\n 1. Calculation of Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Claim\u201d: A Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Claim\u201d will be the sum of his, her, or its Recognized Loss Amounts\n as calculated above with respect to all Applied common stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period.\n 2. Purchase/Sale Dates: Purchases and sales of Applied common stock will be deemed to have occurred on the \u201ccontract\u201d or \u201ctrade\u201d date as opposed\n to the \u201csettlement\u201d or \u201cpayment\u201d date. The receipt or grant by gift, inheritance or operation of law of Applied common stock during the Class\n Period will not be deemed a purchase, acquisition or sale of publicly traded Applied common stock for the calculation of Recognized Loss, unless\n (i) the donor or decedent purchased such shares of Applied common stock on the open market on a U.S. based exchange during the Class Period;\n (ii) no Proof of Claim was submitted by or on behalf of the donor, on behalf of the decedent, or by anyone else with respect to such shares of\n Applied common stock; and (iii) it is specifically so provided in the instrument of gift or assignment.\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 8 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 30 of 45\n 3. The purchase price of Applied common stock will be the price paid on the open market and will not include any commissions or fees.\n 4. Any transactions executed outside of regular trading hours for the U.S. financial markets shall be deemed to have occurred during the next\n regular trading session.)\n 5. FIFO Matching: If a Class Member made multiple purchases, acquisitions, or sales of Applied common stock during the Class Period, the Applied\n common stock sold will be matched, in chronological order, against the first Applied common stock purchased or acquired during the Class Period\n (First-in, First-Out, or \u201cFIFO\u201d).\n 6. Short Sales: The date of covering a \u201cshort sale\u201d is deemed to be the date of purchase or acquisition of Applied common stock. The date of a\n \u201cshort sale\u201d is deemed to be the date of sale of Applied common stock. Under the Plan of Allocation, however, the Recognized Loss Amount\n on \u201cshort sales\u201d is zero.\n 7. If a claimant has an opening short position in Applied common stock, his, her, or its earliest Class Period purchases or acquisitions of Applied\n common stock will be matched against the opening short position, and not be entitled to a recovery, until that short position is fully covered.\n 8. Shares Purchased/Sold Through the Exercise of Options: Option contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the Settlement. With\n respect to shares of Applied common stock purchased or sold through the exercise of an option, the purchase/sale date of the Applied common\n stock is the exercise date of the option, and the purchase/sale price of the Applied common stock is the exercise price of the option.\n 9. Market Gains and Losses: The Claims Administrator will determine whether the Claimant had a \u201cMarket Gain\u201d or a \u201cMarket Loss\u201d with\n respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period. For purposes of making this calculation, the\n Claims Administrator will determine the difference between (i) the Claimant\u2019s Total Purchase Amount 2 and (ii) the sum of the Claimant\u2019s\n Total Sales Proceeds3 and the Claimant\u2019s Holding Value.4 If the Claimant\u2019s Total Purchase Amount minus the sum of the Claimant\u2019s Total\n Sales Proceeds and the Holding Value is a positive number, that number will be the Claimant\u2019s Market Loss; if the number is a negative\n number or zero, that number will be the Claimant\u2019s Market Gain.\n 10. If a Claimant had a Market Gain with respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period, the\n value of the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim will be zero, and the Claimant will in any event be bound by the Settlement. If a Claimant suffered\n an overall Market Loss with respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period but that Market\n Loss was less than the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, then the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim\n will be limited to the amount of the Market Loss.\n 11. Determination of Distribution Amount: The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis based on\n the relative size of their Recognized Claims. Specifically, a \u201cDistribution Amount\u201d will be calculated for each Authorized Claimant, which\n shall be the Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim divided by the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the\n total amount in the Net Settlement Fund.\n 12. Class Members who do not incur a Recognized Loss as defined in the Plan of Allocation, will not receive a cash distribution from the Net\n Settlement Fund, but will be bound by all determinations and judgments of the Court in connection with the Settlement, including being\n barred from asserting any of the Released Claims against the Released Parties.\n 13. If the sum total of Recognized Loss of all Authorized Claimants who are entitled to receive payment out of the Net Settlement Fund is greater than\n the Net Settlement Fund, each Authorized Claimant shall receive their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund.\n 14. If the Net Settlement Fund exceeds the sum total amount of the Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants entitled to receive payment\n out of the Net Settlement Fund, the excess amount in the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to all Authorized Claimants entitled\n to receive payment.\n 15. Given the costs of distribution, the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated among only those Authorized Claimants whose distributable share of Net\n Settlement Fund is $10.00 or greater or more than ten whole shares of Warrant Proceeds, calculated on an adjusted basis.\n 16. Class Members who do not submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim and Release form will not share in the Settlement proceeds, but will\n nevertheless be bound by the Settlement, the Judgment of the Court dismissing this Litigation, and the releases provided therein.\n 17. After the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Claims Administrator will make reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized\n Claimants cash their distribution checks. To the extent any monies remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the initial distribution, if Lead Counsel,\n in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determine that it is cost-effective to do so, the Claims Administrator, six (6) months after the initial\n distribution, will conduct a re-distribution of the funds remaining after payment of any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering the\n Settlement, including for such re-distribution, to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their initial distributions and who would receive at least\n $10.00 from such re-distribution. Additional re-distributions to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their prior checks and who would receive\n at least $10.00 on such additional re-distributions may occur thereafter if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determine\n that additional re-distributions, after the deduction of any additional fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement, including for such\n\n\n2\n The \u201cTotal Purchase Amount\u201d is the total amount the claimant paid (excluding commissions and other charges) for Applied common stock purchased or acquired\nduring the Class Period.\n3\n The Claims Administrator will match any sales of Applied common stock from the start of the Class Period through and including the close of trading on\nDecember 2, 2024, first against the claimant\u2019s opening position (the proceeds of those sales will not be considered for purposes of calculating market gains or losses).\nThe total amount received (excluding commissions and other charges) for the remaining sales of Applied common stock sold from the start of the Class Period through\nand including the close of trading on December 2, 2024, will be the \u201cTotal Sales Proceeds.\u201d\n4\n The Claims Administrator will ascribe a value of $1.69 per share for Applied common stock purchased or acquired during the Class Period and still held as of the\nclose of trading on December 2, 2024 (the \u201cHolding Value\u201d).\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 9 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 31 of 45\n re-distributions, would be cost-effective. At such time as it is determined that the re-distribution of funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is\n not cost-effective, the remaining balance will be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization(s), to be recommended by Lead\n Counsel and approved by the Court.\n 18. Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, or such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court, will be conclusive against all\n Claimants. No person shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel, Defendants, Defendants\u2019 counsel, or any of the other Released\n Person or the Claims Administrator or other agent designated by Lead Counsel, arising from distributions made substantially in accordance with\n the Stipulation, the plan of allocation approved by the Court, or further Orders of the Court. Lead Plaintiff, Defendants, and their respective counsel,\n and all other Released Persons, shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the investment or distribution of the Settlement Fund or the\n Net Settlement Fund; the plan of allocation; the determination, administration, calculation, or payment of any Claim or nonperformance of the\n Claims Administrator; the payment or withholding of taxes owed by the Settlement Fund; or any losses incurred in connection therewith.\n\n SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES\n If you hold Applied common stock pursuant to a transaction that took place within the United States within the Class Period as nominee for\na beneficial owner, then you must either: (a) provide to the Claims Administrator the name, last known address, and email address of each beneficial\nowner for whom they are nominee or custodian; (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice for the Claims Administrator sufficient to send to all beneficial\nowners for whom they are nominee or custodian, which will be provided to nominees or custodians free of charge, and WITHIN SEVEN (7)\nCALENDAR DAYS of receipt, mail the Postcard Notice directly to all such persons or entities, or (c) request the link to the Postcard Notice and Proof\nof Claim and Release form from the Claims Administrator, and WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, email the link directly to all\nbeneficial owners for whom they are nominee or custodian.\n Nominees who elect to follow procedure (b) or (c), MUST send a statement to the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing/emailing\nwas made as directed and keep a record of the names and mailing/emailing addresses used. Upon receipt by the Claims Administrator of proper\ndocumentation, nominees may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred, not to exceed (a) $0.03 per name, mailing address\nand email address (to the extent available) provided to the Claims Administrator; (b) $0.03 per postcard, plus postage at the pre-sort rate used by the\nClaims Administrator, for mailing the Postcard Notice; or (c) $0.03 per email for emailing the Postcard Notice and Proof of Claim and Release. Any\ndisputes with respect to the reasonableness or documentation of expenses incurred shall be subject to review by the Court.\n\n\n\nDATED: December 19, 2025 ___________________________________________________\n BY ORDER OF THE COURT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 10 of 10\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 32 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT E\n Claim Form\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 33 of 45\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES\n LITIGATION\n CLASS ACTION\n\n\n PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE\n1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS\n 1. To be eligible to receive a share of the Net Settlement Fund in connection with the Settlement 1 of\nthe above-captioned action (the \u201cAction\u201d), you must complete and, on page 7 below, sign this Proof of Claim and\nRelease (\u201cClaim Form\u201d) and mail it by first-class mail to the address below, postmarked no later than April 8, 2026,\nor submit a Claim Form online at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, on or before April 8, 2026.\n 2. Failure to submit your Claim Form by the date specified will subject your claim to rejection and\nmay preclude you from being eligible to receive any money in connection with the Settlement.\n 3. Submission of this Claim Form does not assure that you will share in the proceeds of the Settlement\nof the Action.\n 4. If you are not a Class Member, as defined below and in the Longform Notice, DO NOT submit a\nClaim Form. You may not, directly or indirectly, participate in the Settlement if you are not a Class\nMember.\n 5. If you are a Class Member and you do not timely request exclusion you are bound by the terms of\nany judgment entered in the Action, including the releases provided therein, whether or not you submit a Claim\nForm.\n 6. It is important that you completely read the Longform Notice (the \u201cNotice\u201d), available on the\nImportant Documents page at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com. The Notice describes the proposed\nSettlement, how Class Members are affected by the Settlement, and the manner in which the Net Settlement Fund\nwill be distributed if the Settlement and Plan of Allocation are approved by the Court. By signing and submitting\nthis Claim Form, you will be certifying that you have read and that you understand the Notice, including the terms\nof the releases described therein and provided for herein.\n 7. YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR COMPLETED CLAIM FORM, ACCOMPANIED BY\nCOPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED HEREIN, SO THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR\nRECEIVED BY THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR (IF SUBMITTED ONLINE) NO LATER THAN\nApril 8, 2026, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS:\n Applied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\n c/o Claims Administrator\n 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n Toll-free: 1-833-703-4229\n info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Do not mail or deliver your Claim Form to the Court, the parties to the Action, or their counsel.\n\n\n\n1\n This Proof of Claim and Release incorporates the definitions in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated November 20, 2025,\n (the \u201cStipulation\u201d), which can be obtained at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 1 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 34 of 45\n\nII. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION\n 1. You are a Class Member if you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock\nof Applied Therapeutics, Inc., (\u201cApplied\u201d) on a U.S. based exchange between January 3, 2024 and December 2, 2024,\ninclusive (\u201cClass Period\u201d). Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current and former officers,\ndirectors, and employees of Applied; (iii) any person or entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024\nPrivate Placement (the \u201cPrivate Placement Investors\u201d); (iv) members of Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or\nPrivate Placement Investors\u2019 immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any\nentity in which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement Investors have or had a controlling\ninterest.\n 2. Use Part A of this form entitled \u201cClaimant Information\u201d to identify the beneficial owner(s) of\nApplied common stock. The complete name(s) of the beneficial owner(s) must be entered. If you held the eligible\nApplied common stock in your own name, you are the beneficial owner as well as the record owner. If, however,\nyour shares of eligible Applied common stock were registered in the name of a third party, such as a nominee or\nbrokerage firm, you are the beneficial owner of these shares, but the third party is the record owner. This claim\nmust be signed and filed by the actual beneficial owner(s) or the legal representative of such owner(s).\n 3. All joint owners must sign this claim. The Social Security (or taxpayer identification) number and\ntelephone number of the beneficial owner may be used in verifying the claim. Failure to provide the foregoing\ninformation could delay verification of your claim or result in rejection of the claim.\n 4. One Claim Form should be submitted for each separate legal entity. A separate Claim Form\nshould be submitted for each separate legal entity (e.g., a claim for joint owners should not include separate\ntransactions of just one of the joint owners, and an individual should not combine his or her IRA transactions with\ntransactions made solely in the individual\u2019s name).\n 5. Agents, executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees must complete and sign the Claim Form\non behalf of persons or entities represented by them, and they must: expressly state the capacity in which they are\nacting; identify the name, account number, Social Security number (or taxpayer identification number), address,\nand telephone number of the beneficial owner, or other person or entity on whose behalf they are acting; and\nprovide evidence of their authority to bind the person or entity on whose behalf they are acting. For example,\nletters testamentary, letters of administration, or a copy of trust documents.\nIII. IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS\n 1. Use Part B of this form entitled \u201cSchedule of Transactions\u201d to supply all required details of your\ntransaction(s) in Applied common stock. If you need more space or additional schedules, attach separate sheets\ngiving all of the required information in substantially the same form. Sign and print or type your name on each\nadditional sheet.\n 2. On the schedule, provide all of the requested information with respect to all purchases,\nacquisitions, sales, and holdings of Applied common stock that occurred during the Class Period, whether the\ntransactions resulted in a profit or a loss. Failure to report all such transactions may result in the rejection of\nyour claim.\n 3. List each transaction separately and in chronological order, by trade date, beginning with the\nearliest. You must accurately provide the month, day, and year of each transaction you list.\n 4. You are required to submit valid and sufficient documentation for all your transactions in and\nholdings of Applied common stock included in the Claim Form. Documentation may consist of copies of broker\nconfirmation slips, monthly brokerage account statements, or an authorized statement from your broker\ncontaining the transactional and holding information found in a broker confirmation slip or account statement. If\nthese documents are not in your possession, please contact your broker. Failure to supply documentation could\ndelay verification of your claim or result in the rejection of your claim. The Parties and the Claims\nAdministrator do not independently have information about your investments.\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 2 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 35 of 45\n\n 5. Do not send original documents. Please keep a copy of all documents that you send to the Claims\nAdministrator. Also, do not highlight any portion of the Claim Form or any supporting documents.\n 6. The requests in this Claim Form are designed to gather the minimum amount of information\nnecessary to process the simplest claims. The Claims Administrator may request additional information as\nrequired to efficiently and reliably process your claim.\n 7. If the Court approves the Settlement, payments to eligible Authorized Claimants pursuant to the\nPlan of Allocation (or such other plan of allocation as the Court approves) will be made after any appeals are\nresolved, and after the completion of all claims processing. The claims process will take substantial time to\ncomplete fully and fairly. Please be patient.\n 8. PLEASE NOTE: As set forth in the Plan of Allocation, each Authorized Claimant shall receive\nhis, her or its pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. If the pro-rated payment to any Authorized Claimant\ncalculates to less than $10.00 or ten shares of Applied common stock or other securities received as Warrant\nProceeds, on an adjusted basis, it will not be included in the calculation and no distribution will be made to that\nAuthorized Claimant.\n 9. If you have questions concerning the Claim Form, or need additional copies of the Claim Form or\nthe Notice, you may contact the Claims Administrator at the address on the first page of the Claim Form, by email\nat info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by toll-free phone at 1-833-703-4229. Copies of the Claim Form and\nNotice are available to download at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n 10. NOTICE REGARDING ONLINE FILING: Claims may be submitted online using the Submit\nClaim page at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com. If your claim contains a large number of transactions, you\nmay request, or may be requested, to submit an electronic spreadsheet showing your transactions to accompany\nyour Claim Form.\n 11. NOTICE REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL FILERS: Certain claimants with large numbers of\ntransactions may request, either personally or through a legal representative (\u201cRepresentative Filers\u201d), to submit\ninformation regarding their transactions in electronic files. This is different than submitting your claim online\nusing the Settlement website. All such claimants MUST submit a manually signed paper Claim Form whether or\nnot they also submit electronic copies. If you wish to file your claim electronically, you must contact the Claims\nAdministrator at 1-833-703-4229 or info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com to obtain the required electronic\nspreadsheet for reporting your transactions. The Claims Administrator may also request that claimants with a\nlarge number of transactions file their claims electronically. No electronic files will be considered to have been\nproperly submitted unless the Claims Administrator issues to the claimant a written acknowledgment of\nreceipt and acceptance of electronically submitted data. Claims which are not submitted in accordance\nwith the Claims Administrator\u2019s instructions may be subject to rejection.\n\n IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE\n\n YOUR CLAIM IS NOT DEEMED SUBMITTED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN\nACKNOWLEDGEMENT POSTCARD OR EMAIL. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR WILL\nACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FORM WITHIN 60 DAYS. IF YOU DO\nNOT RECEIVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS, CALL THE CLAIMS\nADMINISTRATOR TOLL FREE AT 1-833-703-4229.\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 3 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 36 of 45\n\n PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE\n\n Your Claim Form must Applied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\n be submitted on or before 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Applied\n April 8, 2026 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Therapeutics, Inc.\n Email: info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Website: www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n\n PART A \u2013 CLAIMANT INFORMATION\nThe Claims Administrator will use this information for all communications regarding this Claim Form. If this information\nchanges, you MUST notify the Claims Administrator in writing at the address above. Complete names of all persons and\nentities must be provided.\nBeneficial Owner Name\n\nCo-Beneficial Owner Name\n\nEntity Name (if claimant is not an individual)\n\nRepresentative or Custodian Name (if different from Beneficial Owner(s) listed above)\n\nAddress 1 (Street Name and Number)\n\nAddress 2 (Apartment, unit, or box number)\n\nCity State ZIP\n\nForeign Province Foreign Country Postal Code\n\nTelephone Number (cell or home) Telephone Number (work)\n\nEmail Address\n\nAccount Number (if filing for multiple accounts, file a separate Claim Form for each unique account type)\n\nLast four digits of Social Security Number (individuals) Taxpayer Identification Number (estates, trusts, etc.)\n OR\n\nClaimant Account Type (check appropriate box):\n \u2610 Individual / Joint \u2610 Pension Plan \u2610 Trust\n \u2610 Corporation \u2610 Estate\n \u2610 IRA/401K \u2610 Other (please specify)\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 4 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 37 of 45\n\n PART B: SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS\nDo not include information regarding any securities other than Applied common stock. Please include proper\ndocumentation with your Claim Form as described in detail in Section III \u2013 Identification of Transactions, above.\n\n APPLIED COMMON STOCK\n Ticker: APLT\n CUSIP: 03828A101\n 1. HOLDINGS AS OF THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES\n JANUARY 2, 2024 \u2013 State the total number of Applied shares held as of the close\n of trading on January 2, 2024.\n If none, write \u201czero\u201d or \u201c0.\u201d (Must be documented.)\n\n 2. PURCHASES/ACQUISITIONS FROM JANUARY 3, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 3, 2024 \u2013 Separately\n list each and every purchase or acquisition of Applied common stock from January 3, 2024, through December 3, 2024,\n inclusive. (Must be documented.)\n Trade Date of\n Total Purchase / Acquisition Price\n Purchase / Acquisition Number of Shares Purchase / Acquisition\n (excluding any taxes,\n (List Chronologically) Purchased / Acquired Price Per Share\n commissions, and fees)\n (Month/Day/Year)\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n 3. SALES FROM JANUARY 3, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 3, 2024 \u2013 Separately list each and every sale or\n disposition of Applied common stock from January 3, 2024, through December 3, 2024, inclusive.\n (Must be documented.)\n Trade Date of\n Total Sale Price\n Sale / Disposition Number of Shares Sale\n (excluding any taxes,\n (List Chronologically) Sold / Disposed Price Per Share\n commissions, and fees)\n (Month/Day/Year)\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n / / $ $\n 4. HELD AS OF THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON DECEMBER 3, 2024 \u2013 State TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES\n the total number of Applied common stock held as of the close of trading on\n December 3, 2024. If none, write \u201czero\u201d or \u201c0.\u201d (Must be documented.)\n\n\n IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE for the schedule above, attach extra schedules in the\n same format. Print the beneficial owner\u2019s full name and last four digits of social security/taxpayer \u2610\n identification number on each additional page. If you attach extra schedules, check this box:\n FOR USE WITH ADDITIONAL SCHEDULES\n Beneficial Owner Name Last four digits of Social Security / Taxpayer ID No.\n\n\n YOU MUST READ AND SIGN THE RELEASE ON PAGE 7. FAILURE TO SIGN THE RELEASE MAY\n RESULT IN A DELAY IN PROCESSING OR THE REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM.\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 5 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 38 of 45\nSUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n By signing and submitting this Claim Form, the claimant(s) or the person(s) acting on behalf of the claimant(s)\ncertify(ies) that: I (We) submit this Claim Form under the terms of the Stipulation described in the Notice. I (We) also\nsubmit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \u201cCourt\u201d) with\nrespect to my (our) claim as a Class Member(s) and for purposes of enforcing the releases set forth herein. I (We) further\nacknowledge that I (we) will be bound by the terms of any judgment entered in connection with the Settlement in the Action,\nincluding the releases set forth therein. I (We) agree to provide additional information to the Claims Administrator to support\nthis claim, such as additional documentation for transactions in eligible Applied common stock, if required to do so. I (We)\nhave not submitted any other claim covering the same transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period and\nknow of no other person having done so on my (our) behalf.\nRELEASES, WARRANTIES, AND CERTIFICATION\n 1. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I am (we are) a Class Member as defined in the Notice, that I am\n(we are) not excluded from the Class, that I am (we are) not one of the \u201cReleased Defendant Parties\u201d as defined below.\n 2. As a Class Member, I (we) hereby acknowledge, on behalf of myself (ourselves) and each of my (our) heirs,\nexecutors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, full and complete satisfaction of, and do hereby\nfully, finally, and forever settle, release, and discharge with prejudice the \u201cReleased Claims\u201d (as defined below) as to each\nand all of the Released Defendant Parties. I (we) further acknowledge that I (we), and each of my (our) heirs, executors,\ntrustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing,\ninstituting, prosecuting, or maintaining any and all of the Released Claims against any and all of the Released Defendant\nParties. This release shall be of no force or effect unless and until the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes effective\non the Effective Date.\n a. \u201cReleased Claims\u201d means any and all rights, liabilities, suits, debts, obligations, demands, damages, losses,\n judgment, matters, issues, claims (including \u201cUnknown Claims,\u201d as defined below), and causes of action, of every\n nature and description whatsoever, in law, equity, or otherwise, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted,\n accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether arising under federal, state, local,\n statutory, common, or foreign law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether class and/or individual in nature,\n that (a) Lead Plaintiff or any other Class Member asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation, or could in the\n future assert in any court or forum based upon, relating to, in connection with, or arising from the allegations,\n transactions, facts, matters or occurrences, errors, representations, misrepresentations, actions, failures to act, or\n omissions that were alleged, set forth, or referred to in the Litigation, and (b) also relate to the purchase of publicly\n traded shares of Applied common stock on a U.S. based exchange during the Class Period. \u201cReleased Claims\u201d does\n not include: (i) derivative claims; (ii) ERISA claims; and (iii) claims to enforce the Settlement.\n b. \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d means: (a) any and all Released Claims, which any of the Lead Plaintiff, Members of the Class,\n or Lead Counsel do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant\n Parties, which, if known by them, might have affected their settlement with and release of the Released Defendant\n Parties, or might have affected their decision(s) with respect to the Settlement, including, but not limited to, whether\n or not to object to this Settlement; and (b) any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims that any of the Defendants or\n Defendants\u2019 Counsel do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of Released Plaintiff\n Parties, which, if known by them might have affected their settlement and release of Released Plaintiff Parties. With\n respect to (a) any and all Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, and (b) any and all Released\n Defendants\u2019 Claims against Released Plaintiff Parties, the Settling Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the\n Effective Date, the Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant\n Party shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived the provisions, rights,\n and benefits of California Civil Code \u00a7 1542, which provides:\n A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect\n to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would\n have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.\n The Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant Party shall be\n deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived any and all provisions, rights, and\n benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which is\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 6 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 39 of 45\n similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code \u00a7 1542. The Released Plaintiff Parties and Released\n Defendant Parties acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts, legal theories or authorities in addition to or\n different from those which he, she, it or their counsel now knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject\n matter of the Released Claims or Released Defendants\u2019 Claims, but (a) the Released Plaintiff Parties shall expressly\n fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle, discharge, extinguish and release, and each Released Plaintiff\n Party shall be deemed to have waived, compromised, settled, discharged, extinguished, and released, and, upon the\n Effective Date, and by operation of the Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged,\n extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims against the Released Defendant\n Parties, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, accrued or unaccrued, whether\n or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, or may hereafter exist, upon any theory of\n law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is\n negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent\n discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities, and (b) the Released\n Defendant Parties shall expressly fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle, discharge, extinguish and\n release, and, upon the Effective Date, and by operation of the Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled,\n discharged, extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against\n the Released Plaintiff Parties, the Class and Lead Counsel, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,\n contingent or non-contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed,\n upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to,\n conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard\n to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities. The\n Settling Parties acknowledge, and the Released Plaintiff Parties and Released Defendant Parties shall be deemed\n by operation of the Judgment to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and is\n an essential element of the Settlement of which this release is a part.\n c. \u201cReleased Defendant Parties\u201d means each and all of \u201cDefendants\u201d, \u201cDefendants\u2019 Counsel\u201d, and any of their\n \u201cRelated Parties,\u201d as defined in the Stipulation.\n d. \u201cReleased Plaintiff Parties\u201d means each and all of \u201cLead Plaintiff,\u201d \u201cClass Members,\u201d \u201cLead Counsel,\u201d and\n any of their \u201cRelated Parties,\u201d as defined in the Stipulation\n 3. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have not assigned or transferred or purported to assign or\ntransfer, voluntarily or involuntarily, any matter released pursuant to this release or any other part or portion thereof.\n 4. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have included information about all of my (our) purchases,\nacquisitions and sales of Applied common stock that occurred during the Class Period and the number of shares held by me\n(us), to the extent requested.\n 5. I (We) certify that I am (we are) NOT subject to backup tax withholding under the provisions of\nSection 3406(a)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code.\n Check this box if you are subject to backup withholding.\n\nI (We) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that all of the foregoing information\nsupplied on this Claim Form by the undersigned is true and correct.\n\n Executed this day of , in ,\n (Month / Year) (City) (State/Country)\n\n\nSignature of Claimant Signature of Joint Claimant, if any\n\n\nPrint Name of Claimant Print Name of Joint Claimant, if any\n\n\n(Capacity of person(s) signing, e.g., Beneficial Purchaser, Executor or Administrator)\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 7 of 8\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 40 of 45\n\n ACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.\n THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.\n\n REMINDER CHECKLIST:\n1. Please sign this Claim Form.\n2. DO NOT HIGHLIGHT THE CLAIM FORM OR YOUR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.\n3. Attach only copies of supporting documentation as these documents will not be returned to you.\n4. Keep a copy of your Claim Form for your records.\n5. The Claims Administrator will acknowledge receipt of your Claim Form by mail or email, within 60 days.\n Your claim is not deemed submitted until you receive an acknowledgment email (or postcard if email\n is not available). If you do not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days, please call the Claims\n Administrator toll free at 1-833-703-4229.\n6. If you move after submitting this Claim Form please notify the Claims Administrator of the change in your\n address, otherwise you may not receive additional notices or payment.\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 8 of 8\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 41 of 45\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT F\n PR Newswire\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 42 of 45\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 43 of 45\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 44 of 45\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-1 Filed 02/12/26 Page 45 of 45\n \"\u001b\u0019\u0014;\u001c\u001b\u001c\u001c\u0013\u001d;\u0019\u0019\u001c;\n \u001725+7%;\"\u0003;\u001d76,-:)4;\n \b ;\u001f,-4(;\u000e8)17)\u0001;\u0005\u0006\u0002\u0001\u0003 \u0014/224;\n \u001a )9;#24.\u0001;\u001a#; \u0005\u0004\u0004\u0006\u0006;\n \u001f)/ )3+21 ) ; \u0002\u0007 \u0004\u0002 \u0004\u0007;\n\n\n\n \u0010 \u0007\u0004\u0012\u0007\u0017\u0006\u000f\u0017\u000e\u000f\u0013\u0017\u0005\u000f\u000e\u0015\u0013\u0017\u0013 \u0007\u0017\u0005\u000f\u0016\u0011\u0014\u0002\u0017\u0013 \u0007\u0017\u0005 \u0007\u0011 \u0001\u0012\u0017\u000f\b\b \u0005\u0007\u0002\u0017\u0006\u0007\b\u0007\u000e\u0006\u0004\u000e\u0013\u0012\u0002\u0017\u000f\u0011\u0017\u0006\u0007\b\u0007\u000e\u0006\u0004\u000e\u0013\u0012\u0001\u0017\n \u0005\u000f\u0016\u000e\u0012\u0007 \u0017\u0011\u0007 \u0004\u0011\u0006 \u000e \u0017\u0013 \u0012\u0017\u000e\u000f\u0013 \u0005\u0007\u0003\u0017\n\n\n\n\u0010$;\u001b\u001d\u0012\u0013\u001d;\u001b\u0014;\u001f\u0015\u0013;\u0011\u001b!\u001d\u001f;\n!\u001a\u0016\u001f\u0013\u0012;\u001e \u0013\u001e;\u0012\u0016\u001e\u001f\u001d\u0016\u0011\u001f;\u0011\u001b!\u001d\u001f;\n\u001e\u001b!\u001f\u0015\u0013\u001d\u001a;\u0012\u0016\u001e\u001f\u001d\u0016\u0011\u001f;\u001b\u0014;\u001a\u0013\";# \u001b\u001d\u0018;\n\n\n\n\u0012\u000f\u0013\u0012 ;\u0012 )')0&)4;\u0005 \u0001;\u0006\u0004\u0006 ;\n\n\n\n\u001e\u001b!\u001d\u0011\u0013;\"2/*;\u001c233 )4;\u0019\u0019\u001c;\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:33:57.353296-07:00","document_number":"135","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063150","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Cody Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749081/","id":479749081,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/135/2/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:52.811418-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:41:07.046341-07:00","sha1":"4c7337ce78a6ae69be0ce4b5b2a763ffa3944377","page_count":5,"file_size":250486,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-2 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 411B368C-B2C4-4190-8BAD-44B10030DC55\n Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-2 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\n Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (DLC) (VF)\n SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF DR. MARTIN DIETRICH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR\n FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLAN OF\n ALLOCATION, AND AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND LITIGATION\n EXPENSES\n\n I, Dr. Martin Dietrich, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:\n\n 1. I am the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative in the above-\n\n captioned securities fraud class action.\n\n 2. I submit this declaration in full support of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Final\n\n Approval of the proposed class action settlement of $15 million in cash plus Warrants to purchase\n\n one million shares of Applied Therapeutics common stock at an exercise price of $0.48.\n\n 3. I currently reside in Orange County, Florida.\n\n 4. I previously submitted a Declaration in support of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for\n\n Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Class for Settlement\n\n Purposes, and Approval of the Notice to the Settlement Class, dated November 3, 2025 (ECF 121-\n\n 1).\n\n 5. I submit this Declaration to update my November 3, 2025 Declaration. The\n\n statements in my Declaration were and continue to be correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n 6. I have reviewed a draft of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Final Approval of Class\n\n Action Settlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation, and an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and\n\n Litigation Expenses. I authorized Lead Counsel to file that motion.\n\n 7. One element of the Settlement was Applied would issue Warrants for the Class to\n\n 1\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 411B368C-B2C4-4190-8BAD-44B10030DC55\n Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-2 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied common stock at a price of $0.48 per share, the closing\n\n price of Applied common stock on August 19, 2025, the day the Settlement was reached.\n\n 8. On December 11, 2025, defendant Applied issued a press release announcing that\n\n it had entered into a merger agreement with Cycle Group Holdings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to\n\n which Cycle would commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied\n\n common stock for a per share price of $0.088 per share in cash plus one non-transferrable\n\n contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that entitles the holder to receive potential additional payments\n\n (the \u201cAcquisition\u201d). The Acquisition subsequently closed.\n\n 9. I have discussed with Lead Counsel that because the consideration for the\n\n Acquisition is significantly below the strike price for the Warrants of $0.48 per share, the Warrants\n\n are likely to have minimal value.\n\n 10. Based on my involvement in this action, my review of Court filings and mediation\n\n statements, discussions with my counsel, and my understanding of the strength and risks of the\n\n claims asserted and the financial condition of Applied, I am satisfied that the $15 million in cash,\n\n without the potential compensation for the Class from the Warrants, still represents a fair and\n\n adequate result for the Class and is in the best interests of the Class.\n\n 11. I have discussed with Lead Counsel their application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees\n\n and reimbursement of costs and expenses.\n\n 12. As I stated in my November 3, 2025 Declaration, prior to retaining Wolf Popper as\n\n my counsel, I discussed the contingency fee model of payment with Adam Savett and Joshua\n\n Ruthizer of Wolf Popper, and negotiated a fair percentage of attorneys\u2019 fees that was subsequently\n\n memorialized in a retainer agreement. The agreement that I negotiated provided for different caps\n\n on the attorneys\u2019 fees that could be requested by Wolf Popper depending on what stage of the\n\n\n\n 2\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 411B368C-B2C4-4190-8BAD-44B10030DC55\n Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-2 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n litigation a resolution was reached, if any. I negotiated a maximum amount of attorneys\u2019 fees of\n\n 20% if the litigation resolved before the start of fact discovery, and a maximum amount of\n\n attorneys\u2019 fees of 24% if the litigation resolved after the start of fact discovery and before a motion\n\n for class certification was filed. There were three additional maximum amounts of attorneys\u2019 fees\n\n if the litigation resolved at a later point.\n\n 13. I have reached agreement with Lead Counsel that they are authorized to request an\n\n award of attorneys\u2019 fees of 20% of the Settlement Fund, or $3 million plus 20% of any Warrant\n\n Proceeds, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund. This is less than the 24%\n\n Wolf Popper could request under our retention agreement.\n\n 14. Lead Counsel has been paid nothing to date for the significant amount of time they\n\n have devoted to this matter. Their requested 20% fee is appropriate taking into account the\n\n complexity and risks associated with these types of cases. Accordingly, I support the requested\n\n fee award as fair and reasonable.\n\n 15. I also understand that Lead Counsel are requesting reimbursement of costs and\n\n expenses incurred in prosecution of the litigation amounting to $46,313.15, consisting primarily\n\n of mediation, legal research, expert, and investigation expenses. I believe that the expenses were\n\n necessary for the successful prosecution of this litigation, and I fully support Lead Counsel\u2019s\n\n request for reimbursement of these costs and expenses.\n\n 16. I have not received or been promised or offered any special compensation for\n\n serving as a plaintiff in this action or in achieving the Settlement.\n\n 17. I am informed by Lead Counsel that under the Private Securities Litigation Reform\n\n Act of 1995, a lead plaintiff is entitled to request reimbursement for \u201creasonable costs and expenses\n\n (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the Class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4).\n\n\n\n 3\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 411B368C-B2C4-4190-8BAD-44B10030DC55\n Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-2 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Any costs I have incurred, including lost wages, were insubstantial. Accordingly, I am not\n\n requesting separate compensation for myself.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n foregoing is true and correct.\n\n Executed on this 12th day of February, 2026.\n\n\n ______________________________\n Dr. Martin Dietrich\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:00.164743-07:00","document_number":"135","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063151","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - Dietrich Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479749082/","id":479749082,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/135/3/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:33:52.826194-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:41:00.867204-07:00","sha1":"fc31f14916d0f65a77cc376e3df6c17a806cc612","page_count":17,"file_size":433643,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.135.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 3\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 17\n 845 Third Avenue\n New York, NY 10022\n 212-759-4600\n wolfpopper.com\n\n\n\n\n BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF WOLF POPPER LLP\n\n Wolf Popper LLP (\u201cWolf Popper\u201d or \u201cthe Firm\u201d) is a nationally recognized law firm with decades of\n experience in the fields of securities, consumer, and ERISA class actions and securities derivative actions.\n Since the Firm was founded in 1945, Wolf Popper has been a leader in efforts to protect the interests of\n defrauded investors, consumers, and employees, prosecuting hundreds of actions under federal and state\n laws throughout the United States, and recovering billions for aggrieved parties.\n\n The Firm also has a substantial practice in corporate and commercial law. Wolf Popper\u2019s commercial\n litigation practice encompasses the representation of defendants as well as plaintiffs. The Firm\u2019s corporate\n practice includes business transactions, employer/employee relations, and the law of foreign missions.\n Among the Firm\u2019s clients are domestic and international individuals and businesses, and foreign missions to\n the United Nations.\n\n The Firm\u2019s members are active members in a variety of professional legal associations, including\n serving on or chairing a number of committees of such associations and they have written extensively on a\n variety of subjects for numerous professional associations and legal periodicals, including internationally.\n Many of the Firm\u2019s current and former members have held responsible positions in government both at the\n federal and the state level. For example, Benedict Wolf (now deceased) was the First Secretary and Chief\n Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and Martin Popper (now deceased) was a consultant to\n the U.S. Delegation to the Founding Conference of the United Nations and an observer at the Nuremberg war\n crimes trials.\n\n Wolf Popper has an exemplary record in its representation of plaintiffs, and the skill and experience of\n the attorneys at the Firm have been repeatedly recognized by Courts throughout the country and organizations\n around the world. In recognition of its high standing at the bar, Courts have frequently appointed Wolf Popper\n to serve as lead or co-lead counsel in complex, multi-party actions, including securities, consumer, and ERISA\n actions. Many of the Wolf Popper attorneys are regularly selected as New York \u201cSuper Lawyers\u201d\u00ae. This\n selection represents the top 5% of attorneys practicing in New York City. One Wolf Popper partner has been\n recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as one of the Top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area from 2014\n through 2020, and for 2022 through 2024. The Firm has also held Martindale-Hubbell\u2019s highest rating for\n legal ability and ethical standards for decades. Corporate LiveWire officially awarded its Global Awards\n Litigation Law Firm of the Year for 2023/2024 to Wolf Popper. These Awards, based on contributions invited\n from over 90,000 businesses, corporate professionals, and other subscribers, celebrate the success and\n achievements of leading professionals and companies who have stood out for being results driven, service\n focused and most importantly, taken an innovative approach to demonstrate exceptional business\n performance. The Firm has continued to be recognized for its exceptional accomplishments in securities\n fraud, consumer fraud, and corporate litigation, and as a global leader in class action litigation. In December\n 2024, the Firm was honored as one of the \u201cTop Innovative Companies to Watch 2025 by The CEO Viewpoint\n and in January 2025 was a recipient of its prestigious Business Excellence Award 2025. Biz Tech Outlook\n named it as a Top Law Firm to Watch 2025 and The CEO Vision magazine named the Firm as one of the Most\n Innovative Companies to Watch in 2025. In February 2025, Legal Insider announced Wolf Popper had been\n selected as the Healthcare Litigation Firm \u2013 New York of the year. In March 2025, Wolf Popper had three\n partners named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list. Most recently, Wolf\n Popper had eight of its attorneys named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list.\n\n Wolf Popper has achieved notable and significant successes over the years. Some of the\n outstanding recoveries achieved and decisions obtained by the Firm are described below.\n\n\n\n\nNew York | Puerto Rico | Washington, DC | Texas | Illinois | Massachusetts\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -2-\n\n Securities Actions:\n\n \u2022 In Martel et al. v. Fusion Sponsor LLC, C.A. No. 2024-0329-NAC (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor\nCook approved a $12.75 million settlement for the benefit of former stockholders of SPAC Fusion Acquisition\nCorp, now renamed MoneyLion Inc. (NYSE:ML), on July 24, 2024. The action arose from Fusion\u2019s\nSeptember 2021 \u201cde-SPAC\u201d merger with MoneyLion, a digital financial technology business. Shares of\nMoneyLion plummeted following the merger. The class action complaint followed extensive investigation into\nMoneyLion\u2019s and Fusion\u2019s corporate books and records and alleged that Fusion\u2019s directors and executive\nofficers and its sponsor (\u201cFusion Defendants\u201d) labored under conflicts of interest incentivizing them to merge\nwith MoneyLion, even if value-destructive to Fusion\u2019s public stockholders. Plaintiffs asserted, among other\nthings, that the Fusion defendants, aided and abetted by MoneyLion\u2019s CEO and co-founder Diwakar (Dee)\nChoubey and MoneyLion\u2019s financial advisor, Broadhaven Capital Partners, LLC, breached their fiduciary duties\nwhen disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement that discouraged Fusion stockholders from\nredeeming their shares. At the hearing, Vice Chancellor Cook remarked that the facts, as alleged by\nplaintiffs, \"reflect a poster-child scenario for the problems and malincentives associated with the de-SPAC\nform,\" and stated that the settlement reflected an \u201cexcellent\u201d and \u201cextremely positive\u201d result for the class and\nthat he had \u201cevery reason to approve\u201d it. Among other things, the Vice Chancellor found that counsel\n\u201cskillfully and vigorously litigated\u201d the lawsuit on behalf of stockholders and that the $12.75 million settlement\namount ranked among the highest recoveries when compared to class actions challenging similar transactions.\n\n \u2022 Kirkland v. WideOpenWest, Inc., No. 653248/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) was a securities class\naction in New York State Supreme Court alleging violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of\n1933 against Defendants WideOpenWest, Inc. (\u201cWOW\u201d), certain of its officers and directors, and the\nunderwriters for WOW\u2019s May 2017 initial public offering (\u201cIPO\u201d). The Complaint alleged that Registration\nStatement and Prospectus for WOW\u2019s IPO contained materially misleading statements and omissions\nconcerning (i) WOW\u2019s \u201ctechnologically advanced platform,\u201d and in particular, its much touted \u201cUltra DVR\u201d\nproduct offering; (ii) WOW\u2019s maintenance of its customer quality by using internal customer information,\nidentification verification tools, and credit bureau data; (iii) the status of WOW\u2019s build-out of its fiber network in\nChicago; and (iv) WOW\u2019s overstatement of its goodwill and franchise operating rights.\n\n Wolf Popper\u2019s client, the Employees Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority\n(\u201cERS-PREPA\u201d), was a co-Lead Plaintiff in the litigation, and Wolf Popper was Co-Lead Counsel to the Class\nof WOW investors. On May 18, 2020, the Court denied, in substantial part, the Defendants motion to dismiss.\nWhile Defendants\u2019 appeal of the Court\u2019s motion to dismiss order was pending and discovery was ongoing, the\nparties engaged in mediation and were able to agree to settle the litigation. On January 20, 2022, the Court\nheld a hearing in which it gave final approval of the $7,025,000 settlement.\n\n \u2022 In Martinek v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-8030 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), on\nAugust 14, 2020, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss a securities fraud\naction prosecuted by Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of preferred stockholders of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.,\na large insurance company. The complaint filed by Wolf Popper described how AmTrust and three of its\ndirectors falsely assured the investing public that, unlike AmTrust\u2019s common shares, which would be delisted\nas part of a merger in which these three directors would be taking the company private, AmTrust preferred\nstock would continue to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In rejecting the defendants\u2019 arguments,\nJudge Failla concluded that \u201c[t]he fact of the matter is that, prior to the Merger, Defendants repeatedly assured\ninvestors that the preferred stock would remain listed, and then, less than two months after the transaction\nclosed, decided to delist the preferred stock.\u201d The Court found that the \u201cprofessed reasons for delisting the\nstock\u2026were known to the Individual Defendants before the Merger,\u201d a fact \u201conly strengthen[ing] Plaintiff\u2019s\nargument this was a classic bait and switch.\u201d A $13 million settlement has been reached and was approved\nby the Court on November 16, 2022, with the Court stating that Wolf Popper \u201cconducted the Litigation and\nachieved the Settlement with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy; [and] Lead Counsel are highly\nexperienced in class action litigation and securities class action litigation\u2026.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., No. CV-18-02914-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), on March 11,\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -3-\n\n2020, Judge John J. Tuchi issued an order denying, in substantial part, defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss. The\nCourt concluded, inter alia, that the complaint properly alleges that the defendants\u2019 statements concerning the\nhistorical performance of a competitor acquired by Microchip were misleading given Microchip\u2019s use of differing\naccounting practices. The Court further concluded that the complaint properly alleges the defendants\u2019 intent\nto defraud investors. On February 22, 2021, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion for Class Certification,\nappointed the Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative, and appointed Wolf Popper as Lead Class Counsel.\nA settlement in the amount of $9 million has been approved by the Court.\n\n \u2022 In Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Case No.\n16-cv-10632 (N.D. Ill.), the Court, on November 16, 2021, approved a $27 million settlement in an action\nchallenging statements in which TreeHouse Foods overstated its success after buying a Conagra unit for $2.7\nbillion, wrongly inflating TreeHouse\u2019s stock price.\n\n \u2022 In Bach v. Amedisys, Inc., 10-CV-00395 (C.D. La.), Wolf Popper represents one of the Co-\nLead Plaintiffs, the Puerto Rico Teachers Retirement System. Plaintiffs allege that Amedisys, a home health\ncare company, engaged in Medicare fraud, misrepresenting its financial statements and history of compliance\nwith Medicare rules and regulations, and improperly securing revenue from Medicare billings. In essence\nAmedisys hid a Medicare fraud scheme by which Amedisys improperly inflated Medicare reimbursements by\npressuring and intimidating nurses and therapists to provide unnecessary treatment to trigger higher fees.\nThe District Court granted Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the Complaint. However, Co-Lead Plaintiffs\nsuccessfully appealed that dismissal to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case\nto the District Court for further proceedings. Following substantial discovery, the parties reached a settlement\nin the amount of $43.75 million. The Court granted final approval to the settlement on December 13, 2017.\n\n \u2022 In Flynn v. Sientra, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07548-SJO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Wolf Popper served\nas co-lead counsel for the class in an action asserting claims under both the Securities Act of 1933 (in\nconnection with a secondary public offering [\u201cSPO\u201d]) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of\npurchasers of Sientra, Inc. (\u201cSientra\u201d) common stock. Sientra sold breast implants made by a Brazilian\nmanufacturer in a single facility in Rio de Janeiro, Silimed Ind\u00fastria de Implantes Ltda. (\u201cSilimed\u201d), with whom\nSientra had extensive relationships. Plaintiffs alleged that, unbeknownst to the investing public, in the spring\nand summer 2015, European regulators discovered that the implants manufactured in that facility were\ncontaminated with foreign particulates, and that Silimed had performed its own inspection and reached the\nsame conclusion. Shortly thereafter, Sientra, which needed a cash infusion, announced a $65 million SPO.\nPlaintiffs alleged that the SPO\u2019s offering documents represented that Sientra, not Silimed, was \u201cprimarily\nresponsible for the manufacturing and quality assurance of [Sientra\u2019s] products,\u201d including inspections of all\nproducts from Silimed; and that the offering documents discussed the manufacturing of Sientra\u2019s products at\nthe Rio facility, including regulatory compliance and current good manufacturing practices (\u201ccGMP\u201d), without\ndisclosing that widespread contamination at that facility had been found by regulators, and confirmed by\nSilimed, well before the SPO. Plaintiffs alleged that, notwithstanding Defendants\u2019 knowledge of the regulatory\nand internal findings, they recklessly continued with the SPO, raising more than $65 million. Minutes after the\nSPO closed, the contamination was revealed by the European regulators, causing the price of Sientra\u2019s\ncommon stock to plummet. On June 9, 2016, Judge S. James Otero denied in substantial part defendants'\nmotions to dismiss the Section 10(b), Section 11 and 12(b)(2) claims. Flynn v. Sientra, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 83409 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2016), motion for reconsideration denied, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Aug 12, 2016).\nOn May 22, 2017, the court approved a settlement of the litigation for $10.9 million in cash.\n\n \u2022 In Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., No. 09-cv-0118 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Wolf Popper was co-\nlead counsel for investors in the multi-billion \u201cfeeder\u201d funds, managed by affiliates of the Fairfield Greenwich\nGroup (FGG). These funds lost virtually all of their assets in the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Bernard L.\nMadoff. The case included claims under both the federal securities laws and New York state common law.\nWolf Popper helped recover hundreds of millions of dollars for these Madoff victims.\n\n Based upon the strength of plaintiffs\u2019 arguments and briefing, in a groundbreaking decision Judge\nMarrero broke from substantial existing precedent in the New York courts and the district courts within the\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -4-\n\nSecond Circuit in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, concluding that the Martin Act did not preempt any\nexisting claims under New York law. Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 728 F. Supp. 2d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).\nThat decision was approved and substantially followed by the New York Court of Appeals in Assured Guar.\n(UK) Ltd. v J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgt. Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 341, 353 (N.Y. 2011). On March 22, 2013, the court\napproved a partial settlement in the amount of $80,250,000, including a minimum of $50,250,000 to be\ndistributed to the settlement class upon final approval, and an additional $30,000,000 to be distributed if not\nused to resolve other claims. An additional $5,000,000 partial settlement with defendant GlobeOp was\napproved by the Court on November 22, 2013. On November 20, 2015, the Court gave final approval to a\n$125 million settlement with the Citco Group defendants. In 2016, the Court approved a settlement with\nPricewaterhouseCoopers in the amount of $55 million. Thus, Wolf Popper\u2019s efforts helped recover up to $265\nmillion for these victims of the Madoff Ponzi-scheme scandal.\n\n \u2022 In Plumbers\u2019 & Pipefitters\u2019 Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust et al. v. J.P. Morgan\nAcceptance Corp. I et al., 2:09-cv-01713 (E.D.N.Y.) (PKC) (WDW), Wolf Popper represented the Public\nEmployees\u2019 Retirement System of Mississippi (\u201cMissPERS\u201d), as lead plaintiff, in an action against JPMorgan\nAcquisition Corp. (\u201cJPMAC\u201d), certain individuals employed by JPMAC or its affiliates, and JP Morgan\nSecurities, Inc. The class consisted of investors who purchased certain mortgage pass-through certificates\n(mortgage-backed securities) across 26 Offerings, with an initial face value of approximately $23 billion.\nMissPERS\u2019s consolidated complaint alleged that the offering documents pursuant to which the JPMAC\nsecurities were sold contained misrepresentations and omitted to disclose information concerning the\nunderwriting of the mortgage loans serving as collateral for the securities. The parties engaged in extensive\nmotion practice and discovery. In February 2012, Lead Plaintiff defeated Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in\nsubstantial part.\n\n On July 24, 2014, the Honorable Pamela K. Chen entered an order approving the settlement which\nresolved the action for a total of $280 million. It is one of the largest settlements in a class action against\nbanks that issued mortgage-backed securities. The Court found that \u201cthe representation of both sides was\nobviously very vigorous. The plaintiffs, I know, expended efforts in terms of pursuing the investigation, the\ntheories, the research and the advocacy.\u201d The Action \u201cwas a difficult case. Certainly in the beginning, at\nthe time when some of the principles, the legal principles that are applied in this case, in any cases related to\nmortgage-backed securities, was not well established. They did yeomen's work, I think, in trying to establish\nsome of those principles\u2026 [T]his is a good result in this particular case.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In the State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment v. Merrill Lynch &\nCo., Inc. and Bank of America Corp., Docket No. L-3855-09 (New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County),\nWolf Popper represented the State of New Jersey, Division of Investment (\u201cNJ\u201d) in an individual action against\nMerrill Lynch. On January 16, 2009, Bank of America Corp. (\u201cBAC\u201d) announced that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.\n(\u201cMerrill\u201d), BAC\u2019s subsidiary, reported a net loss after taxes for the fourth quarter of 2008 of $15.3 billion. In\nresearching potential claims against Merrill, Wolf Popper learned that NJ had invested $300 million in January\n2008 in a private placement of Merrill preferred stock and that NJ had converted those preferred shares to\ncommon stock pursuant to an exchange agreement in July 2008. Further investigation revealed that a\ndifferent investor, at that same time, had converted its preferred shares to a new series of preferred on terms\nthat were preferential to the terms Merrill had offered to NJ. Prior to filing the Complaint, Wolf Popper was\nable to obtain discovery with respect to a class action settlement of claims against Merrill then pending in the\nSouthern District of New York for purposes of advising NJ whether to opt out of the class action and file an\nindividual complaint. NJ, subsequent to that discovery, determined to opt out of the class settlement. Wolf\nPopper filed an individual complaint on NJ\u2019s behalf on July 28, 2009, in state court in New Jersey asserting\nclaims against Merrill Lynch for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and\nnegligent misrepresentation. After defendants removed the case to federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals\nfor the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the remand of the action back to the New Jersey state court on May\n18, 2011. The New Jersey Superior Court thereafter denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in its entirety.\nFollowing merits and expert discovery, the Court on September 29, 2012, denied in all material respects\nMerrill\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The action settled in April 2013 for $45 million, approximately one\nmonth before trial. New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa stated, in announcing the settlement, that\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -5-\n\n\u201cthis is a fair and equitable outcome, and we are pleased to be recovering a substantial amount of dollars on\nbehalf of New Jersey taxpayers.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Tsereteli, et ano., v. Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A8 et al., No. 08 Civ. 10637\n(LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (IndyMac), Wolf Popper is lead counsel, representing a British Virgin Islands corporation, on\nbehalf of investors who purchased mortgage pass-through certificates (RMBS) backed by IndyMac Bank, N.A.\n(\u201cIndyMac\u201d) loans. The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Credit Suisse Securities (USA)\nLLC, the underwriter that sold the mortgage-backed securities in the case. The claims alleged untrue\nstatements and omissions related to the origination, by IndyMac, of the home mortgage loans backing the\nsecurities sold in the offering. The court upheld plaintiff\u2019s allegations that IndyMac had abandoned the loan\norigination procedures and underwriting standards that were disclosed to investors in the offering. Plaintiff\u2019s\nclass certification motion, which addressed several novel issues, including whether a single class could include\nclaims brought on behalf of different certificate purchasers within a complex \u201cwaterfall\u201d capital structure, was\ngranted on June 29, 2012.\n\n On January 27, 2014, Judge Kaplan approved the parties\u2019 proposed settlement, which provides an\n$11 million benefit to the class. The settlement is believed to be one of the largest percentage recoveries to\ndate (as a function of statutory damages) in an RMBS Securities Act class action.\n\n \u2022 In In re Tycom Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 03-3540 (GEB) (D.N.J.), Wolf Popper, representing the\nLead Plaintiff, served as co-lead counsel for the class, securing a $79 million cash settlement for the class\nfollowing extensive motion practice and full discovery. At the August 25, 2010 hearing at which the Court\napproved the settlement, the Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the\nDistrict of New Jersey, praised the Firm for its \u201cvery extensive and professional representation of the class.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In the In re Motorola Sec. Litig., No. 03-C-287 (RRP) (N.D. Ill.), Wolf Popper represented the\nLead Plaintiff, the State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment. On the eve of trial,\nthe defendants paid $190,000,000 to the class to resolve the federal securities litigation. This recovery was\nobtained after more than four years of litigation. During the litigation, Wolf Popper, among other things,\ndefeated Motorola\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint (2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18250 (Sept. 9, 2004, N.D. Ill.))\nand Motorola\u2019s motions for summary judgment (2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9530 (Feb. 8, 2007, N.D. Ill.)).\n\n \u2022 In Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software, Inc., No. 06-06863-DOC (RNBx) (C.D.\nCal.), Wolf Popper was appointed lead counsel in a federal securities class action against Quest Software,\nInc. (\u201cQuest\u201d), a company that designs, develops, distributes and supports software products. The case is\nbased on allegations that Quest issued materially false and misleading statements to cover up its failure to\naccount properly for backdated stock options, causing Quest\u2019s operating and net income to be overstated and\nits stock price to be artificially inflated. Following comprehensive briefing opposing defendants\u2019 initial motion\nto dismiss, the Court denied virtually all of defendants\u2019 motion. Defendants filed subsequent motions to\ndismiss challenging the amended complaint which had added additional allegations. The Court denied\ndefendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the claims under \u00a7 10(b) and \u00a7 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\nSee Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2007); and\nAmended Order (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2008). After comprehensive discovery and the grant of plaintiff\u2019s motion\nto compel discovery and plaintiff\u2019s motion for class certification, see Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest\nSoftware, Inc., Order, CV 06-6863-DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2009), aff\u2019d, Order (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)\n(order granting Plaintiff\u2019s motion to compel); and Order, CV 06-6863-DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2009)\n(Granting Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Class Certification), the parties entered into a proposed settlement of the\naction for $29.4 million (plus the cost of providing notice of the settlement to the class). The Court preliminarily\napproved the settlement, stating \u201c[Y]ou really have the court\u2019s profound congratulations and compliments,\u201d\nand, on April 26, 2010, gave final approval to the settlement.\n\n \u2022 In Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific Inc., No. 2:05-cv-07352-R(Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Wolf Popper\nsuccessfully appealed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to defendants and the denial of class\ncertification. In addition to reversing summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed the\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -6-\n\ndistrict court\u2019s denial of class certification, and ordered the district court to certify the class. Huberman v. Tag-\nIt Pacific Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2780 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2009). The Court approved the subsequent\nsettlement of the litigation for an amount that was almost 50% of the court-appointed independent expert\u2019s\nestimate of maximum potential losses.\n\n \u2022 In Thurber v. Mattel, Master File No. CV-99-10368-MRP (CWx) (C.D. Cal.) (\u00a710(b) claims)\nand Dusek v. Mattel, Master File No. CV-99-10864-MRP (CWx) (C.D. Cal.) (\u00a714(a) claims), Wolf Popper was\na member of the Executive Committee of Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, but was also specifically appointed by the Federal\nCourt to have primary responsibility for the prosecution of the Dusek v. Mattel \u00a714(a) claims. After more than\nthree years of extremely hard-fought litigation, including two rounds of motions to dismiss, the production of\nmillions of documents, and the taking or defending of more than 40 depositions, both cases settled for the\naggregate sum of $122 million, with $61 million allocated for the Dusek v. Mattel \u00a714(a) claims, believed to be\nthe largest settlement of a \u00a7 14(a) case. Upon approving the settlement, the Judge complimented counsel\nsaying that the settlement was an \u201cawfully good result.\u201d The Judge also specifically found that \u201cWolf Popper\nLLP vigorously prosecuted the Dusek action and zealously represented the interests of the Dusek class\nmembers\u201d and that Wolf Popper zealously performed in a \u201cvery capable and professional manner.\u201d\n\n \u2022 Wolf Popper LLP was a co-lead settlement counsel for the plaintiff class in In re Service Corp.\nInt\u2019l, No. H-99-280 (S.D. Tex.). The action alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations in\nconnection with Service Corp.\u2019s January 1999 stock-for-stock acquisition of Equity Corp. International. Based\non the strength of the amended complaint, and presentation at mediation sessions, Wolf Popper recovered\n$65 million for the plaintiff class, 64.7% of the class\u2019 recognized losses. The settlement, approved in 2004,\nwas an extraordinary recovery inasmuch as there were no allegations of insider trading, a SEC investigation,\nor an accounting restatement, and the District Court had spent over four years deliberating over defendants\u2019\nmotion to dismiss the complaint, lessening plaintiffs\u2019 leverage in settlement negotiations.\n\n \u2022 In Stanley v. Safeskin, No. 99cv454-BTM (LSP) (S.D. Cal.), Wolf Popper served as Court-\nappointed Co-lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, in which the Court approved a $55 million settlement in favor of\nplaintiffs on March 20, 2003. The Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz thereafter complimented Plaintiffs\u2019 Co-Lead\nCounsel, noting his \u201cincredible respect for the work that the lawyers did.\u201d Describing Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel as\n\u201chighly skilled in these cases,\u201d Judge Moskowitz commented that he was \u201ckind of looking forward to trying this\ncase, because it would have the best lawyers in the country trying this case. . . .\u201d The Court subsequently\nfurther complimented Co-Lead Counsel, stating that \u201ccompetency is too weak of a word -- the extraordinary\nability of these firms * * * I really thought that the Plaintiffs\u2019 law firms in this case not only had extraordinary\nability to deal with the complicated factual issues -- and it certainly was a difficult case, and you should be\napplauded in that regard.\u201d Paying Plaintiffs\u2019 Co-Lead Counsel perhaps an ultimate compliment, the Court\nfurther said, \u201cFrom the plaintiffs\u2019 perspective -- and I say this for all the firms -- you handled it on a much higher\nplane, probably on a textbook or ideal plane. If they would teach people how it should be done in law school,\nthis would be the example of, how the lawyers handle this case.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Buxbaum v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., No. 98 Civ. 8460 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Wolf Popper\nrecovered $58 million as co-lead counsel in a major securities fraud action against Deutsche Bank, A.G. and\nits senior officer. The action alleged that Deutsche Bank defrauded Bankers Trust shareholders by\nmisrepresenting the status of takeover negotiations for Deutsche Bank to acquire Bankers Trust. The District\nCourt\u2019s opinion denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss is reported at Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u00b690,969\n(S.D.N.Y. 2000). The decision denying defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment is reported at 2002 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 1893 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2002). The $58 million recovery, obtained on the eve of trial, was\nequivalent to approximately 48% of the class\u2019 maximum possible recovery, and approximately 96% of the\nclass\u2019 most likely recovery.\n\n \u2022 In In re Sunbeam Sec. Litig., No. 98-8258-Civ.-Middlebrooks (S.D. Fl.), Wolf Popper was\nappointed co-lead counsel. The case was brought against Sunbeam, its auditors, and former officers and\ndirectors of the company, including \u201cChainsaw\u201d Al Dunlap. Plaintiffs reached a partial settlement with\nSunbeam\u2019s auditors, Arthur Andersen, for $110 million - one of the largest settlements ever with an accounting\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -7-\n\nfirm in a securities class action - and reached a separate settlement with the individual defendants that included\nmore than $18 million in cash plus a separate $13 million recovery from the company\u2019s excess insurance\npolicies.\n\n \u2022 In In re Providian Financial Sec. Litig., MDL No. 1301 (E.D. Pa.), Wolf Popper was co-lead\ncounsel for the plaintiff class and obtained a $38 million recovery from the defendants. The Court, in\napproving the settlement, remarked on the \u201cextremely high quality\u201d and \u201cskill and efficiency\u201d of plaintiffs\u2019\ncounsel\u2019s work, which the Court stated it had seen throughout the litigation. The Court also noted the\n\u201cextremely high quality\u201d of Wolf Popper\u2019s work is reflected in the result which it obtained and in the fact that it\nis a nationally prominent firm with extensive experience in the field.\n\n \u2022 Wolf Popper was the plaintiffs\u2019 co-lead counsel in a litigation that resulted in the then largest\nrecovery in the history of securities class actions. In In re The Standard Oil Company/British Petroleum Litig.,\nConsolidated Case No. 12676, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel negotiated\nand obtained a benefit for the class in excess of $600 million. The Court commented favorably on the quality\nof co-lead counsel:\n\n The professional skill required to achieve the resultant benefits to this Class has been\n evidenced on nearly a daily basis by this Court.\n\n As a result of this professional skill and excellent representation, these benefits to the Class\n would not have otherwise been achieved.\n\n The Court has fully weighed in its decision the benefits bestowed on the Class. At this\n juncture the Court finds that the benefit is unprecedented.\n\n \u2022 Wolf Popper was co-lead counsel in the case producing the then largest recovery in a\nsecurities class action prior to the Standard Oil litigation. In Joseph, et al v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,\nConsolidated Civil Action No. 7450 (Del. Ch., April 19, 1985), the plaintiff stockholders successfully petitioned\nthe Delaware Chancery Court to enjoin the proposed merger of Shell Oil Company and Royal Dutch Petroleum\nCompany, 482 A.2d 335, Del. Ch. 1984). In approving the $205 million recovery in the Shell Oil litigation,\nVice Chancellor Maurice Hartnett stated: \u201cThe results achieved in this case for the class are outstanding.\u201d\n\n \u2022 Wolf Popper played a major role in representing the rights of shareholders in the notorious\nBoesky/Drexel/Milken trading scandal involving Ivan F. Boesky, Dennis B. Levine, Kidder Peabody & Co.\nIncorporated, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Drexel, Michael R. Milken, and others. These actions arose from the\nillegal use by various individuals of non-public information about publicly traded corporations, conveyed to\nthem from high level executives at these large investment firms, to reap illicit profits for personal gain. Wolf\nPopper was co-lead counsel in several of these actions, including the Boesky insider trading class litigation\nbrought in the Southern District of New York, to represent classes of shareholders who suffered losses. In\nre Ivan F. Boesky Sec. Litig., MDL 732, MDL-21-45-MP (S.D.N.Y.). The Firm was also one of the lead\ncounsel in the Drexel/Milken litigation also brought in the Southern District of New York. In re Drexel Burnham\nLambert Group Inc., et al., Debtors, Nos. 90 Civ. 6954 (MP), 90-B-10421 (FGC) (S.D.N.Y.). After intensive\nlitigation, the Firm helped recover in excess of $800 million for investors. In the global settlement of these\nMilken related litigations, the Court specifically certified a worldwide class of investors after notice was given\nthroughout the world, in addition to publications in newspapers worldwide.\n\n \u2022 The Firm was co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in litigation involving the alleged \u201cgreenmail\u201d of\nWalt Disney Company by Saul Steinberg and his Reliance Group, Heckmann v. Ahmanson, C.A. 000851\n(Superior Court, Cal.) (Co-lead counsel for derivative actions). There the Los Angeles Superior Court in\nSeptember 1989 approved a settlement providing for a cash payment of $45 million plus the therapeutic benefit\nof the termination of certain defendants\u2019 claim for rescission which potentially would have cost the company in\nexcess of a billion dollars.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -8-\n\n The Firm acted as sole lead or co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases\nthroughout the United States, achieving recoveries which aggregated in the billions of dollars, many of which\nsettlements recovered well over 50% and, in several cases, 90-100% of the damages in such cases.\n\n\nConsumer Class Actions:\n\n Wolf Popper\u2019s strong presence in prosecuting class actions on behalf of defrauded consumers has\nsimilarly resulted in the return of millions of dollars to victims of unfair business practices. These litigations in\nwhich the Firm served as sole lead or co-lead counsel include, among others:\n\n \u2022 Leventhal v. Streamlabs LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231211 (N.D. Cal.), Patricia Avery and\nPhilip Black succeeded in defeating the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant. This lawsuit alleges that\nStreamlabs misleads consumers and fails to disclose that adding a GIF or effect to a onetime donation to a\nstreamer using Streamlabs results in enrollment in Streamlabs Pro, which charges consumers $5.99 per month\nautomatically, even if they do not have a Streamlabs account. The Firm successfully negotiated a $4.4 million\nsettlement which was approved by the Court on January 30, 2025.\n\n \u2022 Kaur v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02480 (S.D. Tex.), is a\nconsumer class action on behalf of patients who went to an in-network emergency department in Texas (over\n200 hospitals) and were charged inflated rates for out-of-network physician services. The complaint alleged\nthat defendants failed to disclose information that would allow patients to avoid\u2014or even know that they were\nreceiving\u2014out-of-network care at an in-network hospital, and then billed at rates far beyond the fair market\nvalue of the services. The court granted preliminary and final approval to a settlement which provided refunds\nor write-offs of amounts in excess of what class members\u2019 insurance companies determined was the \u201callowable\ncharge\u201d for the services, for class members who file valid proof of claim forms.\n\n \u2022 Kline v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, et al., CV 2019-003061 (Superior Court, Maricopa\nCounty, AZ), is a consumer class action on behalf of patients who had surgery at an in-network hospital in\nArizona where the anesthesia services were performed by an out-of-network provider affiliated with any of the\ndefendants and were charged inflated rates for these services. The complaint alleged that defendants failed\nto disclose information that would allow patients to avoid\u2014or even know that they were receiving\u2014out-of-\nnetwork care at an in-network hospital, and then billed at rates far beyond the fair market value of the services.\nOn February 3, 2021, the court granted final approval to a settlement which provided refunds or write-offs of\namounts in excess of what class members\u2019 insurance companies determined was the \u201callowable charge\u201d for\nthe services, for class members who file valid proof of claim forms.\n\n \u2022 Bozarth v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01935-FMO-SHK (C.D.\nCal.), is a consumer class action filed by the Firm on behalf of patients who went to an in-network emergency\ndepartment in California (40 hospitals) and were charged inflated rates for out-of-network physician services.\nThe complaint alleged that defendants failed to disclose information that would allow patients to avoid\u2014or\neven know that they were receiving\u2014out-of-network care at an in-network hospital, and then overcharged\npatients, billing at rates far beyond the fair market value of the services. On June 30, 2020, the court granted\nfinal approval to a settlement which provided refunds or write-offs of amounts in excess of what class members\u2019\ninsurance companies determined was the \u201callowable charge\u201d for the services, for class members who file valid\nproof of claim forms.\n\n \u2022 In a novel ruling under the Truth in Lending Act (\"TILA\")/Regulation Z in which the Firm\nrepresents the plaintiff, Jamison v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:16-cv-00422-KJM-AC, 2016 WL 3653456\n(E.D. Ca., July 7, 2016), the Court in the Eastern District of California found the reasoning of the McLaughlin\ncase prosecuted by the Firm and described below \u201cto be persuasive and consistent with TILA\u2019s remedial\npurpose. . . As a result, an 'accurate\u2019 payoff statement should have disclosed the [insurance] proceeds.\u201d\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -9-\n\n \u2022 McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., No. C 15-02904 WHA (N.D. Cal.), in a precedent setting\nOrder under the Truth in Lending Act\u2019s (\u201cTILA\u201d) Regulation Z, the Court in the Northern District of California, in\ndenying the motion to dismiss of Wells Fargo Bank, held that the bank is required under TILA to indicate the\namount of property insurance proceeds held by the bank on the plaintiff customer\u2019s payoff statement. The\nCourt noted that \u201c[n]o decision from our court of appeals has ever addressed the issue of whether TILA\ncompels lenders to include \u2018potential\u2019 credits in payoff statements.\u201d In holding for the plaintiff, the Court found,\n\u201c[a]s a matter of law, the bank is wrong on this one.\u201d McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., No. C 15-02904\nWHA, Order that TILA Required Insurance Proceeds to be Reflected in Payoff Statement (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29,\n2015). A settlement providing for recovery of 88% of the maximum statutory damages in a class action under\nTILA was approved by the Court in 2017.\n\n \u2022 Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 14-cv-4090 (E.D.N.Y.), a consumer class action\nlitigation, arises from Procter & Gamble\u2019s representations that its Charmin Freshmates flushable wipes\nproducts are \u201cflushable\u201d and \u201csafe for sewer and septic systems.\u201d The plaintiff alleges that, contrary to Procter\n& Gamble\u2019s representations, Freshmates do not break down sufficiently and, as a result, cause serious\nproblems for septic tanks and household plumbing. Judge Weinstein granted class certification for a class of\nNew York consumers after six days of evidentiary hearings with multiple expert witnesses. On July 23, 2020,\nJudge Chen approved the settlement on behalf of New York consumers, which included significant changes\nto the product\u2019s labels and a monetary component that allows consumers with proof of purchase to receive up\nto $50.20\u2014an amount that exceeds the actual and statutory damages potentially available at trial.\n\n \u2022 Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Company, No. 10-CV-1332-JBS (D.N.J.), in which four New Jersey\nconsumers sued Campbell Soup in a national class action charging that the labels on Campbell\u2019s more\nexpensive low sodium tomato soup products were misleading in that the \u201clow sodium\u201d soups actually contained\nas much sodium as Campbell\u2019s regular tomato soup. They claim they were misled into paying for more\nexpensive soup even though it did not contain less sodium than the less expensive alternative. Defendants\nmoved to dismiss the complaint and the United States District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied the motion\nin a precedent setting opinion decided under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Statute. In November 2011,\nthe Court approved a settlement creating a $1.05 million cash fund to reimburse class members and providing\nfor certain changes to Campbell\u2019s soup labels. The creation of the settlement fund was a substantial recovery\nfor the class, considering that it exceeded the proceeds that defendants received as a result of the premium\ncharged for their \u201clow sodium\u201d soups and provided a cash payment to class members after only a relatively\nshort period of litigation.\n\n \u2022 In re Coordinated Title Insurance Cases, No. 009600/03 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, NY), a\nNew York consumer fraud action brought against various Title Insurance Companies for their failure to charge\nthe discounted rate for title insurance premiums in qualified refinancing transactions and their failure to provide\nborrowers with notice of the discount. In approving the settlement of over $31 million, one of the largest\nconsumer class actions in the history of that court, at the hearing held on July 29, 2005, the court stated:\n\n And it\u2019s this Court\u2019s very strong opinion that what we have had before us on\n all sides \u2013 Plaintiffs\u2019 side, which involves two firms, and the Defendants, eight\n Defendants which involve five firms representing the eight different\n Defendants \u2013 was lawyering of the highest quality. It\u2019s always enjoyable for\n the Court to have high quality lawyering in front of it. It\u2019s always my opinion\n that it raises the level of the Bench when the lawyers before it proceed in a\n very high fashion, which has happened in this case.\n\n \u2022 Sims v. First Consumers National Bank, No. 01/604536 (Sup. Ct., New York Cnty.), this\nconsumer fraud action challenged the misleading disclosure of fees in fine print in connection with the issuance\nof the bank\u2019s credit cards. The lower court\u2019s dismissal of the action was unanimously reversed by the\nappellate court and the action was settled in 2005 with a recovery of 100% of the damages for the class.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -10-\n\n \u2022 Canning v. Concord EFS, Inc., No. L-6609-02 (Super. Ct., NJ, Law Division, Camden County),\na consumer fraud action brought in New Jersey on behalf of recipients of certain public assistance benefits\nwho were being illegally surcharged to access their benefits through ATM machines. The settlement,\napproved in May 2005, provided for a recovery of 90% of the surcharges and an injunction halting the illegal\nsurcharging.\n\n \u2022 Taylor v. American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc., 700 N.Y.S.2d 458 (App. Div., 1st Dept.\n1999), in which the Firm successfully defended against an appeal by defendants of the certification of a\nnationwide class on behalf of consumers who alleged that defendants had violated \u00a7\u00a7349 and 350 of the\nGeneral Business Law by misleading consumers about the purchase of insurance and improperly denying\ninsurance claims. The Firm achieved a complete recovery for class members as defendants agreed to pay\nclass members\u2019 disputed coverage claims in full, as well as revise their solicitations to prevent a recurrence.\n\n \u2022 Princeton Economics Group, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., No. L-91-3221\n(N.J. Super. Ct. 1995), the largest class action ever brought in New Jersey State Court. The action, based\nupon AT&T\u2019s marketing and sales of a telephone system that it advertised as well suited to small businesses\nbecause of its \u201cconference call\u201d features, revealed that the phone system did not function as advertised. The\nparticipants to calls could not hear each other because the conference feature lacked amplification. This\nlitigation resulted in a settlement valued by the Court at $85-90 million. At the conclusion of the case, the\nCourt noted the complexity and difficulty of the issues involved and favorably commented that, \u201c[i]f not for the\nskill and experience of class counsel, a settlement may not have been reached or, if it had been reached, may\nhave resulted in a significantly diminished recovery for the class.\u201d\n\n \u2022 Tanzer v. HIP, (1997 WL 773695), the New York Court of Appeals, New York\u2019s highest court,\nunanimously upheld a class action complaint on behalf of insureds who had been denied medical insurance\ncoverage. The Firm subsequently obtained partial summary judgment against HIP for breach of HIP\u2019s\ncontract with its insurance subscribers for failing to reimburse them for anesthesia-related expenses in\nconjunction with surgical procedures performed in New York State since June 7, 1993. Tanzer v. HIP, No.\n114263-95, slip op., January 27, 1999. Ultimately, a settlement was reached which paid members of the\nclass 100% of their damages.\n\nTransactional Litigation and Corporate Governance:\n\n Wolf Popper has represented plaintiffs in Delaware and other states\u2019 courts when in class and\nderivative actions, representing investors in companies where shareholders believe that officers, directors,\nand others have engaged in self-dealing actions or who, in the context of proposed mergers or tender offers,\nare offered inadequate compensation for their stock or are provided inadequate information to allow such\ninvestors to make informed decisions concerning whether to vote for such transactions. Wolf Popper has\nachieved significant corporate governance reforms and often recovered funds for shareholders victimized by\nsuch conduct. Examples where Wolf Popper acted as lead or co-lead counsel in such circumstances include:\n\n \u2022 In In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2018-0267-NAC (Del. Ch.),\nWolf Popper, together with the other lead counsel and class counsel to former stockholders of retail real estate\ncompany GGP Inc. (former NYSE ticker: \u201cGGP\u201d), reached a $42,500,000.00 settlement which was approved\nby the Delaware Chancery Court on July 16, 2024, The litigation arose from 2018 buyout of the publicly held\nshares of GGP by the company\u2019s largest stockholder, Brookfield Property Partners L.P., and followed an\ninvestigation into GGP\u2019s corporate books and records prosecuted by Wolf Popper and its client, whom the\nCourt of Chancery lauded as the \u201cquintessential main street investor\u201d who \u201cdid his homework.\u201d In this\nconsolidated breach of fiduciary action, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the proxy statement\nrecommending the buyout failed to provide full disclosure to stockholders evaluating the transaction\u2019s merits.\nOn July 19, 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed an earlier judgment of dismissal, finding that the\nproxy\u2019s representations concerning stockholders\u2019 entitlement to seek the fair value of their GGP shares in\nappraisal proceedings were \u201cat best, materially misleading.\u201d Moreover, it was \u201creasonably conceivable\u2026that\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -11-\n\nGGP\u2019s directors, aided and abetted by Brookfield, consciously crafted the transaction and the related\ndisclosures in such a way as to deter GGP\u2019s stockholders from exercising their appraisal rights.\u201d Upon remand\nto the Court of Chancery, the parties engaged in extensive document and deposition discovery. A settlement\nin principle was reached less than two months before the start of a trial on liability.\n\n \u2022 In Neil D. Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Case Number 2019-0822-LWW (Del. Ch.),\non February 8, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved a $10,650,000.00 settlement for the benefit\nof former stockholders of biotech company Asterias Biotherapeutics Inc. This class action arose arising from\nAsterias\u2019s 2019 merger into affiliated biotech company Lineage Cell Therapeutics Inc. (then known as BioTime,\nInc.). Wolf Popper\u2019s lawsuit, which followed an investigation into the Asterias board\u2019s books and records,\nalleged that Lineage and certain former directors of Asterias breached their fiduciary duties to Asterias\u2019s\nunaffiliated stockholders in negotiating and thereafter approving the merger, which undervalued Asterias, to\nAsterias\u2019s stockholders\u2019 detriment. At the settlement hearing, Vice Chancellor Lori Will applauded the\nsettlement, which reflects an approximate 42% premium over the cash value of Asterias\u2019s stockholders\u2019 merger\nconsideration, as a \u201creally fantastic result\u201d in light of the significant risks of continued litigation.\n\n \u2022 In In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. 2018-0396-AGB (Del.\nCh.), Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will approved a $40 million settlement of this breach of fiduciary duty action in\nwhich Wolf Popper serves as co-lead counsel. The action arose from a 2018 transaction whereby AmTrust\u2019s\ncontrolling stockholder family purchased all unaffiliated common stock for $14.75 per share. In a\nmemorandum dated February 26, 2020, the Court of Chancery largely denied the defendants\u2019 motions to\ndismiss, finding, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint \u201craise[s] significant questions\u201d about the\nfairness of the merger process. While discovery was proceeding the parties reach the settlement, which was\napproved by the Vice Chancellor on November 22, 2021.\n\n \u2022 In re PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 11-11049-PBS, in which Chief Judge Patti\nSaris in the U.S. District of Massachusetts certified a class of stockholders who voted against or did not vote\nin connection with the merger of PHC, Inc. and Acadia Healthcare Corp. After a two-week jury trial, the Court\nawarded $2,964,396 plus interest to the plaintiff class, which represented the full amount of the damages\nplaintiff\u2019s expert had calculated to have arisen from the controlling stockholder\u2019s breach of fiduciary duty in\nnegotiating a multi-million side-payment, almost all for himself, as part of the merger. Judge Saris\ncomplimented counsel for their skill and professionalism at the end of the trial. On July 2, 2018, the United\nStates Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the post-trial order. The First Circuit also complimented\ncounsel for their \u201cunusually good arguments,\u201d stating that \u201cIt\u2019s more of a pleasure to be a judge when we get\nsuch good arguments.\u201d Chris Villani, CEO Asks 1st Circ. To Nix $3M 'Little Red Hen' Payout,\nhttps://www.law360.com/articles/1042069/ceo-asks-1st-circ-to-nix-3m-little-red-hen-payout (last visited Mar.\n29, 2021). The First Circuit further noted that the issues on appeal were \u201cintricate, entangled, and in some\ninstances novel.\u201d MAZ Partners LP v. Shear (In re PHC, Inc. S'holder Litig.), Nos. 17-1821, 17-1904, 2018\nU.S. App. LEXIS 18035, *1 (1st Cir. July 2, 2018).\n\n \u2022 Frechter v. Zier (Nutrisystem), C.A. No. 12038-VCG (Del. Ch.), Wolf Popper, on behalf of the\npublic shareholders of Nutrisystem Inc., brought a class action lawsuit challenging the company\u2019s bylaw that\nrequired a two-thirds vote of the shareholders to remove a director. Wolf Popper argued that the bylaw\nprovision violated Delaware law and that only a simple majority should be required. In an eleven-page\ndecision, 2017 Del. Ch. LEXIS 14 (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2017), Delaware Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III\nagreed with Wolf Popper, concluding: \u201cSection 141(k) [of Delaware\u2019s General Corporation Law] unambiguously\nconfers on a majority the power to remove directors, and the contrary provision of the Company bylaws is\nunlawful.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In re: Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litig., Case 8922, (Del. Ch.), in which the\nFirm served as Co-Lead Counsel, on January 26, 2017, Vice Chancellor Glasscock approved a settlement\nthat established a gross settlement fund of $17.9 million for the benefit of Cornerstone\u2019s minority stockholders.\nThe Court stated that class attorneys achieved \u201calmost nothing short of the best result.\u201d The Court pointed\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -12-\n\nout that \u201c[t]here was a great deal of litigation done. Interesting and undetermined areas of law had to be\nexplored by counsel for both sides.\u201d Vice Chancellor Glasscock later said at the hearing that it was\n\u201cvanishingly unlikely\u201d that shareholders left any claims behind in the deal.\n\n \u2022 In re Venoco, Inc. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 6825-VCG (Del. Ch.), Wolf Popper, as Co-Lead\nCounsel, challenged the going private transaction led by Venoco\u2019s founder and controlling shareholder. After\nalmost five years of litigation, the Firm achieved a fund for the shareholders of $19 million. (Had the company\nnot filed for bankruptcy, the settlement would have also provided 25% of Venoco\u2019s founder\u2019s ownership interest\nin Venoco.) The Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement in October 2016.\n\n \u2022 In re: Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litig., Case No. 502011CA018111 (Circuit Court,\n15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Fl.), Wolf Popper, as Co-Lead Counsel, challenged the terms of a\nmerger pursuant to which Bluegreen was acquired by its majority shareholder through an allegedly unfair\nprocess and the allegedly unfair price of $10. After four years of intense litigation, the parties reached a\nsettlement of $36.5 million, which increased the payout to the shareholders by 25%. The settlement fund is\nthe largest for a lawsuit challenging a merger in Florida legal history, dwarfing the prior record by more than\n400%. According to the Court, \u201c[t]he recovery in the instant case stands in sharp contrast to Florida common\nfund recoveries and merger suits over the past few years. The success of this resolution is well above the\nnorm.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In re Yongye International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, consolidated Case No. A-12-670468-\nB (Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, NV), in which as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, Wolf Popper\nlitigated the acquisition of Yongye International, Inc. on behalf of its public shareholders, securing not only an\ninitial increase in the acquisition price, but an additional settlement fund in the amount of $6 million, as well as\nsubstantial additional public disclosures in conjunction with the deal. According to Cornerstone Research,\nfewer than 8% of such cases result in settlement funds. The Court in Nevada approved the proposed\nsettlement at a hearing held on March 3, 2016.\n\n \u2022 Semon and Meister v. Swenson, No. 5:10-cv-143 (D. Vt. March 11, 2013) (cash settlement\nincreasing the buyout price paid to minority shareholders of Rock of Ages Corporation (\u201cROAC\u201d) by 14.5%,\nafter having initially increased the offer price after plaintiff filed suit and having made significant additional\npublic disclosures of previously undisclosed information; Court described case as \u201ctenacious\u201d litigation by Wolf\nPopper LLP, with the Judge stating that she will \u201cpay the compliment of tenaciousness\u201d to Wolf Popper, that\nthe Firm \u201cstuck with the litigation, continued to vigorously pursue it, and convince[d] [her], through that, that\nthey were willing to stick with the class through thick and thin \u2026\u201c)\n\n \u2022 In re Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders Litig., C. A. No. 5632-VCN (Del. Ch.)(in class\naction challenging the buyout of the minority stockholders of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. by the majority\nstockholder, at a March 19, 2013 hearing, Vice Chancellor John W. Noble approved the $5.25 million post-\nmerger closing settlement, further increasing the price to be paid to shareholders in the buyout by\napproximately 4% and included other, non-monetary benefits; (Defendants had earlier published the\ndisclosures that plaintiffs had complained were missing, and had previously increased the buyout price after\nplaintiffs had filed suit). The Vice Chancellor recognized \u201cthat a common fund of $5.25 million was created\nas a direct result of the efforts of plaintiffs\u2019 counsel. That is as concrete a metric as one can hope for.\u201d He\nalso stated that \u201c[t]he standing and ability of counsel may not be questioned.\u201d)\n\n \u2022 In re Atheros Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 6124-VCN (Del. Ch. Mar. 4,\n2011) ($3.1 billion merger enjoined pending material disclosures ordered by the Court).\n\n \u2022 In re FTD.com, Inc. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 19458-NC (Del. Ch.), Wolf Popper was co-\nlead counsel in an action that alleged that members of the board of directors of FTD.com abused their control\nof the company by taking FTD.com private under terms advantageous to them but not to FTD.com\u2019s public\nshareholders. After mediation, co-lead counsel obtained a recovery which came to more than 99% of the\ndamages claimed by members of the class.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -13-\n\n\n \u2022 Ehrenhaus v. Baker (Wachovia Corp.), No: 08-CVS-22632 (N.C. Super. Ct.)\n\n \u2022 Rice v. Lafarge North America, Inc., Civ. No. 268974-V (Md. Cir.) ($383 million aggregate\nbenefit)\n\n \u2022 In re Aramark Corp. Shareholders Litig., C.A. No. 2117-N (Del. Ch.) ($222 million aggregate\nbenefit)\n\n \u2022 Cuti v. Anthony, et al., 24-c-06-008163 (Md. Cir.)\n\n \u2022 In re Nortek, Inc. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 19538-NC (Del. Ch.) ($63 million aggregate\nbenefit)\n\n \u2022 In re New Valley Corp. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 1678-N (Del. Ch.) ($28 million aggregate\nbenefit)\n\n \u2022 In re The Topps Co. Shareholder Litig., 926 A.2d 58 (Del. Ch. 2007) (enjoining transaction\npending release of standstill agreement and disclosures)\n\n \u2022 In re Net2Phone, Inc. Shareholders Litig., C.A. No. 1467-N (Del. Ch.)\n\n \u2022 In re William Lyon Homes Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 2015-N (Del. Ch.)\n\n Wolf Popper has served as lead or co-lead counsel in other cases challenging transactions involving,\namong many others: American Surgical Holdings, Inc., Venoco, Inc., KSW, Inc., OpenTV Corp., EDO Corp.,\nJames River Group, Inc., CentraCore Properties Trust, Bioenvision, Inc., Mossimo, Inc., Centerpoint Inc.,\nGenencor International Inc., Uni-Marts, Inc., Nassda Corp., and Chaparral Steel, Co.\n\nTrial Experience:\n\n One of the reasons Wolf Popper maintains a favorable, formidable reputation is because of the Firm\u2019s\ndemonstrated willingness to prosecute cases through trial in order to achieve a favorable result for our clients.\nThe Firm\u2019s trial (and arbitration) experience includes, among other cases:\n\n \u2022 In re PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litig., C.A. No. 11-11049-PBS, Chief Judge Patti Saris, who\noversaw the two-week jury trial in federal court in Boston in February-March 2017, entered a post-trial judgment\nordering the former chief executive officer of PHC to disgorge $2,964,396, plus interest, which the United\nStates Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed on July 2, 2018, noting that the issues on appeal were\n\u201cintricate, entangled, and in some instances novel.\u201d MAZ Partners LP v. Shear (In re PHC, Inc. S\u2019holder Litig.),\nNos. 17-1821, 17-1904, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18035, *1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 489 (2018). The\nDistrict Court Chief Judge complimented counsel for their skill and professionalism, stating:\n\n I think you all [ ] did a great job trying this case. I was telling my law clerks you\n don't often see commercial litigation actually go to trial so [this is] a great example \u2026.\n\n \u2022 Zuckerman v. FoxMeyer Health Corp., 3-96-CV 2258-L (N.D. Tex. 2002), where Wolf Popper\nsuccessfully prosecuted a mini-trial before a former Magistrate Judge in the context of an ADR Proceeding to\ndetermine a binding fair value of a settlement of the action. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant\ncompany was on the brink of insolvency (and subsequently filed for bankruptcy), the company providing the\ninitial layer of insurance coverage was in liquidation, and the individual defendants were not wealthy, after\npresentation of the evidence, the neutral arbiter determined in plaintiffs\u2019 favor.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -14-\n\n \u2022 In an arbitration before a court appointed arbitrator in Retsky Family Limited Partnership v.\nPrice Waterhouse LLP, No. 97 C 7694 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2001), after a full hearing and several days of\ntestimony, the arbitrator awarded plaintiffs the total damages claimed.\n\n \u2022 Plaintiffs\u2019 co-trial counsel in Abzug, et ano. v. Kerkorian, et al., CA 000981, Superior Court,\nLos Angeles, California, which was settled during trial for $35 million.\n\n \u2022 The Firm was co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in litigation involving the alleged \u201cgreenmail\u201d of\nWalt Disney Company by Saul Steinberg and his Reliance Group, Heckmann v. Ahmanson, C.A. 000851\n(Superior Court, Cal.) (Co-lead counsel for derivative actions). There the Los Angeles Superior Court in\nSeptember 1989 approved a settlement at trial providing for a cash payment of $45 million plus the therapeutic\nbenefit of the termination of certain defendants\u2019 claim for rescission which potentially would have cost the\ncompany in excess of a billion dollars.\n\n \u2022 Citron v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Del. Ch. (Civil Action No. 6219), in Delaware\nChancery Court in which the Vice-Chancellor complimented plaintiffs\u2019 counsel \u201cfor the able way in which they\npresented the case,\u201d their \u201cwell-done\u201d pre-trial briefs, and the \u201cgood job\u201d done.\n\n \u2022 The Firm also has tried several other actions on behalf of plaintiffs and plaintiff classes in\nsecurities and other actions in other federal courts, as well as in Delaware Chancery Court and elsewhere.\n\nCourt Commentary On The Firm:\n\n Throughout the history of the Firm, the Courts before whom Wolf Popper has appeared have\ncommented favorably and repeatedly on the ability and performance of the Firm and its members. A sampling\nof some of the praise the Firm has consistently received over the course of its practice include the following\ncases:\n\n \u2022 Judge Josephine Stanton of the Central District of California granted preliminary approval of\na consumer class action settlement in Casey v. Doctor\u2019s Best, Inc., (Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE) (Feb.\n28, 2022). In so doing, the Court stated, \u201cWolf Popper LLC has focused on representing plaintiffs in class\nactions for a significant portion of its 75-year history, and the individual attorneys from Wolf Popper have a\nwealth of experience in class actions in general, as well as, in litigating dietary supplement labelling class\nactions in particular.\u201d Order, at 18.\n\n \u2022 Judge Sandra L. Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted the\nquality of the Firm\u2019s oral argument in In re PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, MAZ Partners LP v. Bruce A.\nShear, Nos. 17-1821, 17-1904 (1st Cir., May 9, 2018), stating \u201cI\u2019d just like to say, this was an unusually good\nargument from both sides. It\u2019s more of a pleasure to be a judge when we get good arguments from counsel.\nThank you.\u201d Chris Villani, CEO Asks 1st Circ. To Nix $3M 'Little Red Hen' Payout,\nhttps://www.law360.com/articles/1042069/ceo-asks-1st-circ-to-nix-3m-little-red-hen-payout (last visited Mar.\n29, 2021). Judge Raul R. Torruella, who also sat on the First Circuit panel, agreed: \u201cI join Judge Lynch\u2019s\nstatement.\u201d (The Firm ultimately prevailed on appeal). Chief Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts,\nwho had presided at trial, remarked that counsel \u201cdid a great job trying this case\u201d and that \u201csomeone should\nstudy the case in terms of how attorneys should treat one another.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In certifying the class in a comprehensive consumer class action against, inter alia, the Procter\n& Gamble Company and other manufacturer and retailer defendants for defects in labeling \u201cflushable toilet\nwipes\u201d, the Court in Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Company, 14-CV-4090 (E.D.N.Y. March 27, 2017),\nstated that \u201cCounsel for plaintiff have handled the case with great skill and full attention.\u201d\n\n \u2022 At a settlement hearing before the Delaware Chancery Court on January 26, 2017, in In re:\nCornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case 8922, (Del. Ch.), in which the Firm served as Co-\nLead Counsel, Vice Chancellor Glasscock approved a settlement that established a gross settlement fund of\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -15-\n\n$17.9 million for the benefit of Cornerstone\u2019s minority stockholders. The Court stated that class attorneys\nachieved \u201calmost nothing short of the best result.\u201d The Court pointed out that \u201c[t]here was a great deal of\nlitigation done. Interesting and undetermined areas of law had to be explored by counsel for both sides.\u201d\nVice Chancellor Glasscock later said at the hearing that it was \u201cvanishingly unlikely\u201d that shareholders left any\nclaims behind in the deal.\n\n \u2022 In Plumbers\u2019 & Pipefitters\u2019 Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust, et al., v. J.P. Morgan\nAcceptance Corp., et al., No. 08-cv-1713 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2014), in preliminarily approving a $280\nmillion settlement on behalf of persons who acquired mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed\npass-through certificates pursuant and/or traceable to certain registration statements and prospectus\nsupplements, Judge Pamela K. Chen stated \u201cit\u2019s very clear that this has been a hard fought and well\nnegotiated, seemingly well negotiated, result. So I think that\u2019s kudos to you all certainly better than any kinds\nof trial I would say.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Semon and Meister v. Swenson, No. 5:10-cv-143 (D. Vt. March 11, 2013), following what\nthe Court described as \u201ctenacious\u201d litigation by Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of the minority stockholders of Rock\nof Ages Corporation (\u201cROAC\u201d) in this class action challenging the buyout of the stockholders by ROAC\u2019s\nmajority stockholder, Judge Christina Reiss approved the $3.2 million settlement and certified the case as a\nclass action. The settlement further increased the price to be paid to shareholders in the buyout by 14.5%\nand included other, non-monetary benefits (including Defendants earlier publication of extensive disclosures\nthat plaintiffs had complained were lacking in the defendants\u2019 public filings about the buyout, and that\nDefendants had also increased the buyout price after plaintiffs had brought suit.) The Judge said that she\nwill \u201cpay the compliment of tenaciousness\u201d to Wolf Popper, noting that Wolf Popper \u201cstuck with the litigation,\ncontinued to vigorously pursue it, and convince[d] [her], through that, that they were willing to stick with the\nclass through thick and thin \u2026\u201c The Judge further found that the firm was \u201cexperienced, competent, zealous,\u201d\nand that \u201cit\u2019s been an interesting case for me and very professionally handled. . . .\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Tsereteli, et ano., v. Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A8 et al., No. 08 Civ.\n10637 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2012), the Court granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for class certification over the\nvigorous objections of defendants, commenting that \u201c. . . lead counsel Wolf Popper is qualified and capable of\nprosecuting this action. It has conducted discovery, engaged in motion practice, and protected the interests of\nVazurele and the prospective class throughout the more than three years this case has been before the Court.\nIt has done so diligently and professionally. . . .\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software, Inc., No. CV 06-6863 DOC (RNBx) (C.D.\nCal. Dec. 7, 2009), in which Wolf Popper had been appointed by the Court as Lead Counsel and Class\nCounsel, the Court stated in preliminarily approving the $29.4 million (plus cost of providing notice) proposed\nsettlement of the action, \u201conce again on the record . . .I want to compliment counsel for working extraordinarily\nhard; . . .this appears to be an extraordinarily fair settlement for all parties concerned. * * * [Y]ou really have\nthe court\u2019s profound congratulations and compliments.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In approving the $190,000,000 recovery for the Class in the Motorola Sec. Litig., No. 03C287\n(N.D. Ill.), where Wolf Popper represented the lead plaintiff, the Court stated as follows \u201cYou did a great very\nprofessional job here. This was a hard fought, but extremely professionally fought battle and I appreciate it.\nThank you.\u201d\n\n \u2022 Wolf Popper served as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in Conolly v. Universal American Financial\nCorp., No. 13422/07 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty.). At the final hearing in the action, Transcript Dec. 9, 2008\nat 74-75, Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman complimented plaintiffs\u2019 co-lead counsel, stating: \u201cThe Court has had the\nopportunity to see these lawyers on numerous occasions and read their submissions, not just those relating\nto fees but those relating to the merits of the case and the Court has become familiar with counsel and is\nimpressed with their skill and knowledge and their professionalism.\u201d\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 135-3 Filed 02/12/26 Page 17 of 17\n\n\n\n\nPage -16-\n\n \u2022 On October 7, 2008, the Court approved the settlement reached by Wolf Popper LLP and its\nco-counsel, on behalf of former and current employees of AIG, in the amount of $24.2 million in In re AIG\nERISA Litig., No. 04 Civ. 9387 (JES)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y.), stating that \u201cwithout the work of these [plaintiffs\u2019]\nattorneys there would be nothing.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litig., Master Docket No. 07-10162, MDL\nDocket No. 1838 (D. Mass.), in which Wolf Popper was Co-Lead Counsel, the Court in approving the\nsettlement on July 15, 2008, stated that Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel achieved an \u201cexcellent settlement\u201d for the consumer\nclass, that they \u201chave been very creative\u201d and performed \u201ca wonderful job.\u201d\n\n \u2022 In Dusek v. Mattel, Master File No. CV-99-10864-MRP (CWx) (C.D. Cal.), in approving the\nsettlement of the action along with a companion action, for $122 million, the Judge, in her Findings of Fact and\nConclusions of Law entered on November 6, 2003, complimented counsel saying that \u201cWolf Popper LLP\nvigorously prosecuted the Dusek action and zealously represented the interests of the Dusek Class members,\u201d\nand that Wolf Popper performed in a \u201cvery capable and professional manner.\u201d\n\n \u2022 The Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in Stanley v. Safeskin, No. 99cv454-BTM\n(LSP) (S.D. Cal.), in which the Judge noted in approving a $55 million settlement that \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 counsel are\nhighly skilled in these cases\u201d and that he was \u201ckind of looking forward to trying this case, because it would\nhave the best lawyers in the country trying this case. . . .\u201d The Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz subsequently\nfurther complimented Co-Lead Counsel at a hearing on November 20, 2003, stating:\n\n I think I learned more about the honorability of the firms and the competency -- and\n competency is too weak of a word -- the extraordinary ability of these firms in handling the\n cost aspects of it, and expenses aspect of it, . . .I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve seen lawyers so honest with\n the Court . . . .I really thought that the Plaintiffs\u2019 law firms in this case not only had\n extraordinary ability to deal with the complicated factual issues -- and it certainly was a difficult\n case, and you should be applauded in that regard.\n ***\n And it\u2019s not usual that the court sees lawyers behave -- we usually see them behave well, but\n this is extraordinarily positive. And I wanted to make that notation. . . I can -- come out of it\n having incredible respect for the work that the lawyers did in this case.\n ***\n From the plaintiffs\u2019 perspective -- and I say this for all the firms -- you handled it on a much\n higher plane, probably on a textbook or ideal plane. If they would teach people how it should\n be done in law school, this would be the example of, how the lawyers handle this case.\n\n ___________________\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:03.559034-07:00","document_number":"135","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127039063152","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Wolf Popper Resume","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-12T17:10:18.012279-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.529297-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-12","time_filed":"18:29:46","entry_number":135,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-12.003","pacer_sequence_number":526,"description":"DECLARATION of Joshua W. Ruthizer in Support re: 133 MOTION to Approve Class Action Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses . MOTION for Attorney Fees .. Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Cody Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Dietrich Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Wolf Popper Resume).(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 02/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/452600039/","id":452600039,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467471199/","id":467471199,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/132/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-03T15:07:47.180312-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:51:11.956682-07:00","sha1":"57b97ac21f78ea61e25eda09f0b1c72523ed600a","page_count":1,"file_size":213677,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\nFebruary 3, 2026 Tamar Kaplan-Marans\n +1 212 230 8809 (t)\n +1 212 230 8888 (f)\n tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com\nVIA ECF\n\nHon. Denise Cote\nUnited States District Judge\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St., Courtroom 18B\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n Re: In re Applied Therapeutics Sec. Litig., Case No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC\n\nDear Judge Cote:\n\n We represent Defendant Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (\u201cApplied\u201d) in the above-captioned\nsecurities class action. We respectfully submit this letter to provide a status update to the Court.\n\n As noted in a prior letter to the Court (ECF No. 130), Applied announced on December\n11, 2025 that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Cycle Group\nHoldings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) would acquire Applied. Ex. A. Pursuant to that agreement, Cycle\nextended a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of Applied\u2019s common stock. After a\nmajority of those shares were validly tendered, Cycle acquired all remaining untendered shares\nthrough a second-step merger for the same consideration. See id., at 1. On February 3, 2026,\nCycle announced that \u201cit has completed the acquisition of\u201d Applied. Ex. B, at 1.\n\n We are available at the Court\u2019s convenience should Your Honor have any questions.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Tamar Kaplan-Marans\n Michael G. Bongiorno\n Tamar Kaplan-Marans\n WILMER CUTLER PICKERING\n HALE AND DORR LLP\n 7 World Trade Center\n 250 Greenwich Street\n New York, NY 10007\n (t) (212) 230-8800\n michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com\n tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com\n\n Counsel for Applied Therapeutics, Inc.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:07.291086-07:00","document_number":"132","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039006162","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467641206/","id":467641206,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/132/1/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-04T19:35:09.833961-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:33:56.342819-07:00","sha1":"8c64f4f254bab91952b781e29e2d99911d431701","page_count":4,"file_size":148687,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-1 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-1 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nCycle Pharmaceuticals to Acquire Applied Therapeutics\nDecember 11, 2025\n\nApplied Therapeutic\u2019s lead drug candidate, govorestat, is a novel central nervous system penetrant Aldose Reductase Inhibitor for the\ntreatment of CNS rare metabolic diseases\n\nNEW YORK, Dec. 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: APLT; \u201cApplied\u201d), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical\ncompany dedicated to creating transformative treatments for rare diseases, today announced a definitive agreement for Cycle Group Holdings Limited\n(\u201cCycle\u201d) to acquire Applied Therapeutics.\n\nApplied Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed to the development of novel drug candidates against validated\nmolecular targets in rare diseases. Applied\u2019s lead drug candidate, govorestat, is a novel central nervous system (CNS) penetrant Aldose Reductase\nInhibitor (ARI) for the treatment of CNS rare metabolic diseases, including Classic Galactosemia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Sorbitol Dehydrogenase\nDeficiency (CMT-SORD) and phosphomannomutase 2 congenital disorder of glycosylation (PMM2-CDG).\n\n\u201cWe are confident that Cycle has the resources and capabilities to move govorestat forward towards the ultimate goal of bringing a life-changing\ntreatment to the patients suffering from Classic Galactosemia, CMT-SORD and PMM2-CDG, who have always been at the center of everything we do\nat Applied,\u201d said Les Funtleyder, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Applied. \u201cI want to thank the entire Applied team for their\nperseverance and commitment. We are also grateful to the investigators and patients who have contributed to the development of govorestat.\u201d\n\nUnder the terms of the merger agreement, Cycle will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock for a\nper share price of $0.088 per share in cash payable at closing plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (CVR) that entitles the holder to\nreceive potential additional payments.\n\nThe CVR provides payments based on the following:\n\n Up to $0.10 per CVR in cash payable upon FDA approval of a new drug application for any galactosemia indication prior to\n the eighth anniversary of closing.\n Up to $0.10 per CVR in cash payable upon FDA approval of a new drug application for the CMT-SORD indication prior to\n the eighth anniversary of closing.\n\n Up to $0.20 per CVR in cash payable upon the first achievement of worldwide net sales of any product covered by the\n CVR by Cycle, its affiliates or licensees equal to or exceeding $200 million dollars in any four-quarter fiscal period prior to\n the tenth anniversary of closing.\n Each CVR holder will also be entitled to receive their pro rata share of any cash of Applied in excess of $500,000 at\n closing (capped at $1.5 million) (\u201cClosing Cash Payment\u201d).\n Each such CVR and Closing Cash Payment will be paid only once, if at all.\n\nThe transaction is subject to customary closing conditions contained in the merger agreement that will be filed with the SEC, including the tender of a\nmajority of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock. The merger agreement does not include a financing condition. The transaction is\nexpected to close in the first quarter of 2026, subject to satisfaction of the closing conditions. If the tender offer closes, then Cycle would acquire\nuntendered shares of Applied through a second-step merger for the same consideration.\n\nApplied also issued a Promissory Note (the \u201cPromissory Note\u201d) to Cycle. The Promissory Note is unsecured and enables Applied to receive loans\naggregating up to $8.5 million from Cycle, to fund Applied\u2019s working capital needs under an approved budget. Cycle\u2019s funding obligations cease, and\namounts borrowed immediately becomes repayable, if the transaction is terminated for certain reasons. Absent funds provided by Cycle under the\nPromissory Note or from another source, Applied would be unable to continue to fund its activities for more than a limited number of days and Applied\nwould anticipate proceeding to wind down operations.\n\nThe transaction was unanimously approved by the Applied Board of Directors following an extensive evaluation of strategic alternatives. This\nevaluation process included numerous discussions with potential counterparties. The Applied Board of Directors determined that entering into the\nmerger agreement with Cycle represented the path that best advanced the interests of Applied and its stockholders.\n\nFor Cycle, Goodwin Procter LLP is acting as legal counsel. For Applied, Aquilo Partners, L.P. provided a fairness opinion, and Ropes & Gray LLP is\nacting as legal counsel.\n\nAbout Cycle Pharmaceuticals\n\nCycle was founded in 2012 with the sole aim of delivering drug treatments and product support to the underserved rare disease community. Cycle\nfocuses on rare genetic conditions in metabolic, immunology, urology, and oncology. In neurology, Cycle focuses on multiple sclerosis. Cycle is\nheadquartered in Cambridge, UK and has offices in Detroit, Michigan. For more information, please visit www.cyclepharma.com and follow us on X,\nLinkedIn and Facebook.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-1 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 4\nAbout Applied Therapeutics\n\nApplied Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed to the development of novel drug candidates against validated\nmolecular targets in rare diseases. The Company\u2019s lead drug candidate, govorestat, is a novel central nervous system (CNS) penetrant Aldose\nReductase Inhibitor (ARI) for the treatment of CNS rare metabolic diseases, including Classic Galactosemia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Sorbitol\nDehydrogenase Deficiency (CMT-SORD) and phosphomannomutase 2 congenital disorder of glycosylation (PMM2-CDG).\n\nAdditional Information and Where to Find it\n\nThe tender offer referred to in this document has not yet commenced. This document is for informational purposes only and is neither an offer to\npurchase nor a solicitation of an offer to sell shares, nor is it a substitute for the tender offer materials that Cycle Group Holdings Limited (\u201cParent\u201d) and\nAT2B, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (\u201cPurchaser\u201d) will file with the SEC upon commencement of the tender offer. At the time the\ntender offer is commenced, Parent and Purchaser will cause to be filed a tender offer statement on Schedule TO with the SEC, and Applied\nTherapeutics will file a solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 with respect to the tender offer.\n\nTHE TENDER OFFER MATERIALS (INCLUDING AN OFFER TO PURCHASE, A RELATED LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND CERTAIN OTHER\nOFFER DOCUMENTS) AND THE SOLICITATION/RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT ON SCHEDULE 14D-9 WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT\nINFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION AND THE PARTIES THERETO. INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF APPLIED\nTHERAPEUTICS ARE URGED TO READ THESE DOCUMENTS CAREFULLY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE (AND EACH AS IT MAY BE\nAMENDED OR SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME) BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT INVESTORS AND\nSTOCKHOLDERS SHOULD CONSIDER BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISION REGARDING TENDERING THEIR SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN\nTHE OFFER.\n\nBoth the tender offer statement and the solicitation/recommendation statement will be mailed to Applied Therapeutics\u2019 stockholders free of charge. A\nfree copy of the tender offer statement and the solicitation/recommendation statement will also be made available to all stockholders of Applies\nTherapeutics by accessing https://ir.appliedtherapeutics.com/ or by contacting Investor Relations at appliedtherapeutics@argotpartners.com. In\naddition, the tender offer statement and the solicitation/recommendation statement (and all other documents filed with the SEC) will be available at no\ncharge on the SEC\u2019s website: www.sec.gov, upon filing with the SEC.\n\nAPPLIED THERAPEUTICS\u2019 STOCKHOLDERS ARE ADVISED TO READ THE SCHEDULE TO AND THE SCHEDULE 14D-9, AS EACH MAY BE\nAMENDED OR SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY\nBECOME AVAILABLE BEFORE THEY MAKE ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE TENDER OFFER, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND THE PARTIES THERETO.\n\nCautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements\n\nThis document includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ\nmaterially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding the proposed\nacquisition of Applied Therapeutics by Parent, the expected timetable for completing the transaction, and Applied Therapeutics\u2019 future financial or\noperating performance. These forward-looking statements typically can be identified by words such as \u201cbelieve,\u201d \u201cexpect,\u201d \u201cestimate,\u201d \u201cpredict,\u201d\n\u201ctarget,\u201d \u201cpotential,\u201d \u201clikely,\u201d \u201ccontinue,\u201d \u201congoing,\u201d \u201ccould,\u201d \u201cshould,\u201d \u201cintend,\u201d \u201cmay,\u201d \u201cmight,\u201d \u201cplan,\u201d \u201cseek,\u201d \u201canticipate,\u201d \u201cproject\u201d and similar\nexpressions, as well as variations or negatives of these words. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the\nproposed acquisition of Applied Therapeutics by Parent, similar transactions, prospective performance, future plans, events, expectations, objectives,\nopportunities, and the outlook for Applied Therapeutics; the expected timing of the completion of the transaction; the ability to complete the transaction\nconsidering the various closing conditions; and the accuracy of any assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. Investors are cautioned that any\nsuch forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties; accordingly, investors are cautioned\nnot to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially due to several factors. Factors that could cause future\nresults to differ materially include: risks associated with the timing of the closing of the proposed transaction, including the risks that a condition to\nclosing would not be satisfied within the expected timeframe or at all or that the closing of the proposed transaction will not occur; uncertainties as to\nhow many of Applied Therapeutics\u2019 stockholders will tender their shares in the offer; the possibility that competing offers will be made; the occurrence\nof any event, change, or other circumstance that could give rise to the termination of the Merger Agreement, including circumstances requiring the\nCompany to pay a termination fee pursuant to the Merger Agreement; the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against the parties\nand others related to the merger agreement; unanticipated difficulties or expenditures relating to the proposed transaction; the response of business\npartners to the announcement of the proposed transaction, and/or potential difficulties in employee retention as a result of the announcement and\npendency of the proposed transaction; the possibility that the milestone payments related to the CVR will never be achieved and that no milestone\npayment may be made or if made the amount of such milestone payment made; the risk that any equityholder litigation in connection with the\nproposed transactions may result in significant costs of defense, indemnification and liability; Applied Therapeutics\u2019 ability to successfully demonstrate\nthe efficacy and safety of its drug or drug candidates, and the preclinical or clinical results for its product candidates, which may not support further\ndevelopment of such product candidates; comments, feedback and actions of regulatory agencies; Applied Therapeutics\u2019 dependence on the\nsuccessful clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization of its product candidates; the inherent uncertainties associated with\ndeveloping new products or technologies and operating as clinical stage company; the Company\u2019s obligations under the Promissory Note and its\nability to satisfy such obligations; the Company\u2019s ability to receive loans from Parent under the Promissory Note; the Company\u2019s cash sufficiency and\nrunway; and other risks identified in Applied Therapeutics\u2019 SEC filings, including Applied Therapeutics\u2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year\nended December 31, 2024, Quarterly Reports for the quarters ended March 31, 2025, June 30, 2025 and September 30, 2025 and subsequent filings\nwith the SEC. Applied Therapeutics cautions you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they\nare made. The forward-looking statements in this document speak only as of the date of this document. Applied Therapeutics undertakes no obligation\nto update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise, except as may be required by\napplicable law.\n\nContacts\n\nInvestors:\nJulie Seidel / Andrew Vulis\n(212) 600-1902\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-1 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 4\nappliedtherapeutics@argotpartners.com\n\nMedia:\nmedia@appliedtherapeutics.com\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:05.271767-07:00","document_number":"132","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127039006163","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - 12/11/2025 Press Release","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467641209/","id":467641209,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/132/2/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-04T19:35:09.940967-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:33:48.970588-07:00","sha1":"7cba810327f9df2228f71bb80c999fed3c5809f1","page_count":2,"file_size":384551,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.132.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-2 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f \u2022\n Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 132-2 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2\n Company \" Products ,., Cycle VitaTM Patient Advocacy ... News Investors Careers ... f W in\n\n\n\n\n 3rd February 2026 \u2022 2 Minutes\n\n Cycle Pharmaceuticals Completes\n Acquisition of Applied Therapeutics\n\n\n\n\n CAMBRIDGE, UK and DETROIT, MICHIGAN - 3rd February 2026 - Cycle Group Holdings Limited (~Cycle\") is delighted to Recent Posts\n announce it has completed the acquisition of NASDAQ-listed Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: APLT; \"Applied}, a\n clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.\n Cycle PharmaceLiticals Completes Acquisition of Applied\n Applied's lead drug candidate, govorestat, is a novel central nervous system (CNS) penetrant Aldose Reductase Therapeutics\n Inhibitor (ARI) for the treatment of CNS rare metabolic diseases, including Classic Galactosemia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Cycle PharmaceLiticals Announces Additional Extension of\n Sorbitol Dehydrogenase Deficiency (GMT-SORO) and phosphomanoomutase 2 congenital disorder of glycosylation Applied Therapeutics Tender Offer\n (PMM2-CDG), for which there are currently no FDA approved treatment options available.\n Cycle Pharmaceuticals Announces Further Extension of\n Applied Therapeutics Tender Offer\n ~Cycle was founded with a commitment to support patients living with rare metabolic diseases. From our beginnings\n with NITYR\u00ae, we have grown to offer three therapies for this community. With Applied Therapeutics now a part of the\n Cycle group, we can look to expand further in this area. Our focus remains the same: to bring meaningful, reliable\n Archives\n treatments to the patients and families who need them mose says James Harrison, CEO of Cycle.\n\n The transaction is to be funded from cash on hand.\n Select Month\n For Cycle, Goodwin Procter LLP acted as legal counsel. For Applied, Aquilo Partners, L.P. provided a fairness opinion,\n and Ropes & Gray LLP acted as legal counsel.\n\n \u00a9 2026 Cycle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. All rights reserved. NITYR is a registered trademark of Cycle Pharmaceuticals Ltd in\n the United States.\n\n -ENDS-\n\n About Cycle Pharmaceuticals\n\n Cycle was founded in 2012 w ith the sole aim of delivering drug treatments and product support to the underserved rare\n disease community. Cycle focuses on rare genetic conditions in metabolic, immunology, urology, and oncology. In\n neurology, we focus on multiple sclerosis. Cycle is headquartered in Cambridge, UK and has offices in Detroit, Michigan,\n Boston, Massachusetts and High Point, North Carolina. For more information, please visit www.cyclepharma.com and\n follow us on X, Linkedln and Facebook.\n\n FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT\n\n marketing@cyclepharma.com\n Cycle Pharmaceuticals Ltd\n Tel: 1-44 1223 354 118\n\n\n\n\n\u2022\ninfo@cydepharma.com\n\nCYCLE Pharmaceuticals Limited is registered in England an d Wales.\nRegistration number 07933058.\n\nModem Slavery Statement\n Head Office (UK}\n\n Cycle Pharmaceuticals,\n The Broers Building,\n 21 JJ Thomson Ave,\n Cambridge, CB3 OFA\n United Kingdom\n\n 1-44 1223 354118\n Head Office (US)\n\n Cycle Pharmaceuticals,\n WeWork Space 11 O\n 19 Clifford St,\n Detroit, M l 48226\n United States\n\n 1-1 8009031793\n Our company\n\n Our com pany\n Executive Team\n Board of Directors\n Corporate Social Responsibility\n Compliance & ethics\n Contact\n Careers\n Support & products\n\n Products\n Pipeline\n Reporting an Adverse Event\n Cycle Vita\n Pati ent Stories\n Free Goods Programme\n\n\n\n\nC 2026 Cycle Pharmaceuticals Limited. Al nghts reserved Gl-CC-25000261 June 2025 Followus f ti in\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:09.604975-07:00","document_number":"132","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127039006164","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B - 2/3/2026 Press Release","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-03T15:07:47.154367-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.231005-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-03","time_filed":"17:59:21","entry_number":132,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":517,"description":"LETTER addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Tamar Kaplan-Marans dated February 3, 2026 re: Status Update. Document filed by Applied Therapeutics, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 12/11/2025 Press Release, # 2 Exhibit B - 2/3/2026 Press Release).(Kaplan-Marans, Tamar) (Entered: 02/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447468217/","id":447468217,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462221589/","id":462221589,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/131/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-12-17T07:09:54.963982-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:41:07.139199-07:00","sha1":"8a793b700f1709c0fe08a7a971dd537faa3d8eeb","page_count":3,"file_size":127720,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.131.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.131.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:10.351708-07:00","document_number":"131","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038745465","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-17T07:09:54.852739-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.118623-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":131,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":515,"description":"ORDER granting 130 Letter Motion for Conference. Approved. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/16/2025) (tg) (Entered: 12/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447290477/","id":447290477,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462037581/","id":462037581,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/130/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-12-15T15:08:18.557867-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:40:45.416044-07:00","sha1":"e673c1c2878e826c466f0e62fd06bcd4f4957c56","page_count":3,"file_size":224733,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:13.521125-07:00","document_number":"130","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038734787","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Conference","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467641219/","id":467641219,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/130/1/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-04T19:35:41.167031-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:35:15.560581-07:00","sha1":"7f5e2b3987d699f053b0d8354c135ebf94d9564a","page_count":4,"file_size":514221,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-1 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n E X HI BI T 1\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-1 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nC y cl e P h ar m a c e uti c al s t o A c q uir e A p pli e d T h er a p e uti c s\nD e c e m b er 1 1, 2 0 2 5\n\nA p pli e d T h er a p e uti c\u2019 s l e a d dr u g c a n di d at e, g o v or e st at, i s a n o v el c e ntr al n er v o u s s y st e m p e n etr a nt Al d o s e R e d u ct a s e I n hi bit or f or t h e\ntr e at m e nt of C N S r ar e m et a b oli c di s e a s e s\n\nN E W Y O R K, D e c. 1 1, 2 0 2 5 ( G L O B E N E W S WI R E) -- A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s, I n c. ( N a s d a q: A P L T; \u201c A p p e d\u201d), a c n c a - st a g e b o p h ar m a c e ut c a\nc o m p a n y d e d c at e d t o cr e at n g tr a n sf or m at v e tr e at m e nt s f or r ar e d s e a s e s, t o d a y a n n o u n c e d a d ef n t v e a gr e e m e nt f or C y c e Gr o u p H o d n g s L m t e d\n(\u201c C y c e\u201d) t o a c q u r e A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s.\n\nA p p e d T h er a p e ut c s s a c n c a - st a g e b o p h ar m a c e ut c a c o m p a n y c o m m tt e d t o t h e d e v e o p m e nt of n o v e dr u g c a n d d at e s a g a n st v a d at e d\nm o e c u ar t ar g et s n r ar e d s e a s e s. A p p e d\u2019 s e a d dr u g c a n d d at e, g o v or e st at, s a n o v e c e ntr a n er v o u s s y st e m ( C N S) p e n etr a nt A d o s e R e d u ct a s e\nI n h b t or ( A RI) f or t h e tr e at m e nt of C N S r ar e m et a b o c d s e a s e s, n c u d n g C a s s c G a a ct o s e m a, C h ar c ot- M ar e- T o ot h S or b t o D e h y dr o g e n a s e\nD ef c e n c y ( C M T- S O R D) a n d p h o s p h o m a n n o m ut a s e 2 c o n g e n t a d s or d er of g y c o s y at o n ( P M M 2- C D G).\n\n\u201c W e ar e c o nf d e nt t h at C y c e h a s t h e r e s o ur c e s a n d c a p a b t e s t o m o v e g o v or e st at f or w ar d t o w ar d s t h e u t m at e g o a of br n g n g a f e- c h a n g n g\ntr e at m e nt t o t h e p at e nt s s uff er n g fr o m C a s s c G a a ct o s e m a, C M T- S O R D a n d P M M 2- C D G, w h o h a v e a w a y s b e e n at t h e c e nt er of e v er yt h n g w e d o\nat A p p e d,\u201d s a d L e s F u nt e y d er, I nt er m C h ef E x e c ut v e Off c er a n d C h ef F n a n c a Off c er of A p p e d. \u201cI w a nt t o t h a n k t h e e nt r e A p p e d t e a m f or t h e r\np er s e v er a n c e a n d c o m m t m e nt. W e ar e a s o gr at ef u t o t h e n v e st g at or s a n d p at e nt s w h o h a v e c o ntr b ut e d t o t h e d e v e o p m e nt of g o v or e st at.\u201d\n\nU n d er t h e t er m s of t h e m er g er a gr e e m e nt, C y c e w c o m m e n c e a t e n d er off er t o a c q u r e a of t h e o ut st a n d n g s h ar e s of A p p e d c o m m o n st o c k f or a\np er s h ar e pr c e of $ 0. 0 8 8 p er s h ar e n c a s h p a y a b e at c o s n g p u s o n e n o n-tr a n sf err a b e c o nt n g e nt v a u e r g ht ( C V R) t h at e nt t e s t h e h o d er t o\nr e c e v e p ot e nt a a d d t o n a p a y m e nt s.\n\nT h e C V R pr o v d e s p a y m e nt s b a s e d o n t h e f o o w n g:\n\n U p t o $ 0. 1 0 p er C V R i n c a s h p a y a bl e u p o n F D A a p pr o v al of a n e w dr u g a p pli c ati o n f or a n y g al a ct o s e mi a i n di c ati o n pri or t o\n t h e ei g ht h a n ni v er s ar y of cl o si n g.\n\n U p t o $ 0. 1 0 p er C V R i n c a s h p a y a bl e u p o n F D A a p pr o v al of a n e w dr u g a p pli c ati o n f or t h e C M T- S O R D i n di c ati o n pri or t o\n t h e ei g ht h a n ni v er s ar y of cl o si n g.\n\n U p t o $ 0. 2 0 p er C V R i n c a s h p a y a bl e u p o n t h e fir st a c hi e v e m e nt of w orl d wi d e n et s al e s of a n y pr o d u ct c o v er e d b y t h e\n C V R b y C y cl e, it s affili at e s or li c e n s e e s e q u al t o or e x c e e di n g $ 2 0 0 milli o n d oll ar s i n a n y f o ur- q u art er fi s c al p eri o d pri or t o\n t h e t e nt h a n ni v er s ar y of cl o si n g.\n\n E a c h C V R h ol d er will al s o b e e ntitl e d t o r e c ei v e t h eir pr o r at a s h ar e of a n y c a s h of A p pli e d i n e x c e s s of $ 5 0 0, 0 0 0 at\n cl o si n g ( c a p p e d at $ 1. 5 milli o n) (\u201c Cl o si n g C a s h P a y m e nt\u201d).\n\n E a c h s u c h C V R a n d Cl o si n g C a s h P a y m e nt will b e p ai d o nl y o n c e, if at all.\n\nT h e tr a n s a ct o n s s u bj e ct t o c u st o m ar y c o s n g c o n d t o n s c o nt a n e d n t h e m er g er a gr e e m e nt t h at w b e f e d w t h t h e S E C, n c u d n g t h e t e n d er of a\nm aj or t y of t h e o ut st a n d n g s h ar e s of A p p e d c o m m o n st o c k. T h e m er g er a gr e e m e nt d o e s n ot n c u d e a f n a n c n g c o n d t o n. T h e tr a n s a ct o n s\ne x p e ct e d t o c o s e n t h e f r st q u art er of 2 0 2 6, s u bj e ct t o s at sf a ct o n of t h e c o s n g c o n d t o n s. If t h e t e n d er off er c o s e s, t h e n C y c e w o u d a c q u r e\nu nt e n d er e d s h ar e s of A p p e d t hr o u g h a s e c o n d- st e p m er g er f or t h e s a m e c o n s d er at o n.\n\nA p p e d a s o s s u e d a Pr o m s s or y N ot e (t h e \u201c Pr o m s s or y N ot e\u201d) t o C y c e. T h e Pr o m s s or y N ot e s u n s e c ur e d a n d e n a b e s A p p e d t o r e c e v e o a n s\na g gr e g at n g u p t o $ 8. 5 m o n fr o m C y c e, t o f u n d A p p e d\u2019 s w or k n g c a p t a n e e d s u n d er a n a p pr o v e d b u d g et. C y c e\u2019 s f u n d n g o b g at o n s c e a s e, a n d\na m o u nt s b orr o w e d m m e d at e y b e c o m e s r e p a y a b e, f t h e tr a n s a ct o n s t er m n at e d f or c ert a n r e a s o n s. A b s e nt f u n d s pr o v d e d b y C y c e u n d er t h e\nPr o m s s or y N ot e or fr o m a n ot h er s o ur c e, A p p e d w o u d b e u n a b e t o c o nt n u e t o f u n d t s a ct v t e s f or m or e t h a n a m t e d n u m b er of d a y s a n d A p p e d\nw o u d a nt c p at e pr o c e e d n g t o w n d d o w n o p er at o n s.\n\nT h e tr a n s a ct o n w a s u n a n m o u s y a p pr o v e d b y t h e A p p e d B o ar d of D r e ct or s f o o w n g a n e xt e n s v e e v a u at o n of str at e g c a t er n at v e s. T h s\ne v a u at o n pr o c e s s n c u d e d n u m er o u s d s c u s s o n s w t h p ot e nt a c o u nt er p art e s. T h e A p p e d B o ar d of D r e ct or s d et er m n e d t h at e nt er n g nt o t h e\nm er g er a gr e e m e nt w t h C y c e r e pr e s e nt e d t h e p at h t h at b e st a d v a n c e d t h e nt er e st s of A p p e d a n d t s st o c k h o d er s.\n\nF or C y c e, G o o d w n Pr o ct er L L P s a ct n g a s e g a c o u n s e . F or A p p e d, A q u o P art n er s, L. P. pr o v d e d a f a r n e s s o p n o n, a n d R o p e s & Gr a y L L P s\na ct n g a s e g a c o u n s e .\n\nA b o ut C y cl e P h ar m a c e uti c al s\n\nC y c e w a s f o u n d e d n 2 0 1 2 w t h t h e s o e a m of d e v er n g dr u g tr e at m e nt s a n d pr o d u ct s u p p ort t o t h e u n d er s er v e d r ar e d s e a s e c o m m u n t y. C y c e\nf o c u s e s o n r ar e g e n et c c o n d t o n s n m et a b o c, m m u n o o g y, ur o o g y, a n d o n c o o g y. I n n e ur o o g y, C y c e f o c u s e s o n m u t p e s c er o s s. C y c e s\nh e a d q u art er e d n C a m br d g e, U K a n d h a s off c e s n D etr o t, M c h g a n. F or m or e nf or m at o n, p e a s e v s t w w w. c y c e p h ar m a. c o m a n d f o o w u s o n X,\nL n k e dI n a n d F a c e b o o k.\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-1 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 4\nA b o ut A p pli e d T h er a p e uti c s\n\nA p p e d T h er a p e ut c s, I n c. s a c n c a - st a g e b o p h ar m a c e ut c a c o m p a n y c o m m tt e d t o t h e d e v e o p m e nt of n o v e dr u g c a n d d at e s a g a n st v a d at e d\nm o e c u ar t ar g et s n r ar e d s e a s e s. T h e C o m p a n y\u2019 s e a d dr u g c a n d d at e, g o v or e st at, s a n o v e c e ntr a n er v o u s s y st e m ( C N S) p e n etr a nt A d o s e\nR e d u ct a s e I n h b t or ( A RI) f or t h e tr e at m e nt of C N S r ar e m et a b o c d s e a s e s, n c u d n g C a s s c G a a ct o s e m a, C h ar c ot- M ar e- T o ot h S or b t o\nD e h y dr o g e n a s e D ef c e n c y ( C M T- S O R D) a n d p h o s p h o m a n n o m ut a s e 2 c o n g e n t a d s or d er of g y c o s y at o n ( P M M 2- C D G).\n\nA d diti o n al I nf or m ati o n a n d W h er e t o Fi n d it\n\nT h e t e n d er off er r ef err e d t o n t h s d o c u m e nt h a s n ot y et c o m m e n c e d. T h s d o c u m e nt s f or nf or m at o n a p ur p o s e s o n y a n d s n e t h er a n off er t o\np ur c h a s e n or a s o c t at o n of a n off er t o s e s h ar e s, n or s t a s u b st t ut e f or t h e t e n d er off er m at er a s t h at C y c e Gr o u p H o d n g s L m t e d (\u201c P ar e nt\u201d) a n d\nA T 2 B, I n c., a n n d r e ct w h o y o w n e d s u b s d ar y of P ar e nt (\u201c P ur c h a s er\u201d) w f e w t h t h e S E C u p o n c o m m e n c e m e nt of t h e t e n d er off er. At t h e t m e t h e\nt e n d er off er s c o m m e n c e d, P ar e nt a n d P ur c h a s er w c a u s e t o b e f e d a t e n d er off er st at e m e nt o n S c h e d u e T O w t h t h e S E C, a n d A p p e d\nT h er a p e ut c s w f e a s o c t at o n/r e c o m m e n d at o n st at e m e nt o n S c h e d u e 1 4 D- 9 w t h r e s p e ct t o t h e t e n d er off er.\n\nT H E T E N D E R O F F E R M A T E RI A L S (I N C L U DI N G A N O F F E R T O P U R C H A S E, A R E L A T E D L E T T E R O F T R A N S MI T T A L A N D C E R T AI N O T H E R\nO F F E R D O C U M E N T S) A N D T H E S O LI CI T A TI O N/ R E C O M M E N D A TI O N S T A T E M E N T O N S C H E D U L E 1 4 D- 9 WI L L C O N T AI N I M P O R T A N T\nI N F O R M A TI O N A B O U T T H E P R O P O S E D A C Q UI SI TI O N A N D T H E P A R TI E S T H E R E T O. I N V E S T O R S A N D S T O C K H O L D E R S O F A P P LI E D\nT H E R A P E U TI C S A R E U R G E D T O R E A D T H E S E D O C U M E N T S C A R E F U L L Y W H E N T H E Y B E C O M E A V AI L A B L E ( A N D E A C H A S I T M A Y B E\nA M E N D E D O R S U P P L E M E N T E D F R O M TI M E T O TI M E) B E C A U S E T H E Y WI L L C O N T AI N I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A TI O N T H A T I N V E S T O R S A N D\nS T O C K H O L D E R S S H O U L D C O N SI D E R B E F O R E M A KI N G A N Y D E CI SI O N R E G A R DI N G T E N D E RI N G T H EI R S H A R E S O F C O M M O N S T O C K I N\nT H E O F F E R.\n\nB ot h t h e t e n d er off er st at e m e nt a n d t h e s o c t at o n/r e c o m m e n d at o n st at e m e nt w b e m a e d t o A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 st o c k h o d er s fr e e of c h ar g e. A\nfr e e c o p y of t h e t e n d er off er st at e m e nt a n d t h e s o c t at o n/r e c o m m e n d at o n st at e m e nt w a s o b e m a d e a v a a b e t o a st o c k h o d er s of A p p e s\nT h er a p e ut c s b y a c c e s s n g htt p s:// r. a p p e dt h er a p e ut c s. c o m/ or b y c o nt a ct n g I n v e st or R e at o n s at a p p e dt h er a p e ut c s @ ar g ot p art n er s. c o m . I n\na d d t o n, t h e t e n d er off er st at e m e nt a n d t h e s o c t at o n/r e c o m m e n d at o n st at e m e nt ( a n d a ot h er d o c u m e nt s f e d w t h t h e S E C) w b e a v a a b e at n o\nc h ar g e o n t h e S E C\u2019 s w e b s t e: w w w. s e c. g o v, u p o n f n g w t h t h e S E C.\n\nA P P LI E D T H E R A P E U TI C S\u2019 S T O C K H O L D E R S A R E A D VI S E D T O R E A D T H E S C H E D U L E T O A N D T H E S C H E D U L E 1 4 D- 9, A S E A C H M A Y B E\nA M E N D E D O R S U P P L E M E N T E D F R O M TI M E T O TI M E, A N D A N Y O T H E R R E L E V A N T D O C U M E N T S FI L E D WI T H T H E S E C W H E N T H E Y\nB E C O M E A V AI L A B L E B E F O R E T H E Y M A K E A N Y D E CI SI O N WI T H R E S P E C T T O T H E T E N D E R O F F E R, B E C A U S E T H E Y WI L L C O N T AI N\nI M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A TI O N A B O U T T H E P R O P O S E D T R A N S A C TI O N A N D T H E P A R TI E S T H E R E T O.\n\nC a uti o n ar y St at e m e nt R e g ar di n g F or w ar d- L o o ki n g St at e m e nt s\n\nT h s d o c u m e nt n c u d e s f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s t h at ar e s u bj e ct t o r s k s, u n c ert a nt e s, a n d ot h er f a ct or s t h at c o u d c a u s e a ct u a r e s u t s t o d ff er\nm at er a y fr o m t h o s e e x pr e s s e d or m p e d b y t h e f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s, n c u d n g, w t h o ut m t at o n, st at e m e nt s r e g ar d n g t h e pr o p o s e d\na c q u s t o n of A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s b y P ar e nt, t h e e x p e ct e d t m et a b e f or c o m p et n g t h e tr a n s a ct o n, a n d A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 f ut ur e f n a n c a or\no p er at n g p erf or m a n c e. T h e s e f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s t y p c a y c a n b e d e nt f e d b y w or d s s u c h a s \u201c b e e v e,\u201d \u201c e x p e ct,\u201d \u201c e st m at e,\u201d \u201c pr e d ct,\u201d\n\u201ct ar g et,\u201d \u201c p ot e nt a ,\u201d \u201c k e y,\u201d \u201c c o nt n u e,\u201d \u201c o n g o n g,\u201d \u201c c o u d,\u201d \u201c s h o u d,\u201d \u201c nt e n d,\u201d \u201c m a y,\u201d \u201c m g ht,\u201d \u201c p a n,\u201d \u201c s e e k,\u201d \u201c a nt c p at e,\u201d \u201c pr oj e ct\u201d a n d s m ar\ne x pr e s s o n s, a s w e a s v ar at o n s or n e g at v e s of t h e s e w or d s. F or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s n c u d e, w t h o ut m t at o n, st at e m e nt s r e g ar d n g t h e\npr o p o s e d a c q u s t o n of A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s b y P ar e nt, s m ar tr a n s a ct o n s, pr o s p e ct v e p erf or m a n c e, f ut ur e p a n s, e v e nt s, e x p e ct at o n s, o bj e ct v e s,\no p p ort u n t e s, a n d t h e o ut o o k f or A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s; t h e e x p e ct e d t m n g of t h e c o m p et o n of t h e tr a n s a ct o n; t h e a b t y t o c o m p et e t h e tr a n s a ct o n\nc o n s d er n g t h e v ar o u s c o s n g c o n d t o n s; a n d t h e a c c ur a c y of a n y a s s u m pt o n s u n d er y n g a n y of t h e f or e g o n g. I n v e st or s ar e c a ut o n e d t h at a n y\ns u c h f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s ar e n ot g u ar a nt e e s of f ut ur e p erf or m a n c e a n d n v o v e r s k s a n d u n c ert a nt e s; a c c or d n g y, n v e st or s ar e c a ut o n e d\nn ot t o p a c e u n d u e r e a n c e o n f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s. A ct u a r e s u t s m a y d ff er m at er a y d u e t o s e v er a f a ct or s. F a ct or s t h at c o u d c a u s e f ut ur e\nr e s u t s t o d ff er m at er a y n c u d e: r s k s a s s o c at e d w t h t h e t m n g of t h e c o s n g of t h e pr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n, n c u d n g t h e r s k s t h at a c o n d t o n t o\nc o s n g w o u d n ot b e s at sf e d w t h n t h e e x p e ct e d t m efr a m e or at a or t h at t h e c o s n g of t h e pr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n w n ot o c c ur; u n c ert a nt e s a s t o\nh o w m a n y of A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 st o c k h o d er s w t e n d er t h e r s h ar e s n t h e off er; t h e p o s s b t y t h at c o m p et n g off er s w b e m a d e; t h e o c c urr e n c e\nof a n y e v e nt, c h a n g e, or ot h er c r c u m st a n c e t h at c o u d g v e r s e t o t h e t er m n at o n of t h e M er g er A gr e e m e nt, n c u d n g c r c u m st a n c e s r e q u r n g t h e\nC o m p a n y t o p a y a t er m n at o n f e e p ur s u a nt t o t h e M er g er A gr e e m e nt; t h e o ut c o m e of a n y e g a pr o c e e d n g s t h at m a y b e n st t ut e d a g a n st t h e p art e s\na n d ot h er s r e at e d t o t h e m er g er a gr e e m e nt; u n a nt c p at e d d ff c u t e s or e x p e n d t ur e s r e at n g t o t h e pr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n; t h e r e s p o n s e of b u s n e s s\np art n er s t o t h e a n n o u n c e m e nt of t h e pr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n, a n d/ or p ot e nt a d ff c u t e s n e m p o y e e r et e nt o n a s a r e s u t of t h e a n n o u n c e m e nt a n d\np e n d e n c y of t h e pr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n; t h e p o s s b t y t h at t h e m e st o n e p a y m e nt s r e at e d t o t h e C V R w n e v er b e a c h e v e d a n d t h at n o m e st o n e\np a y m e nt m a y b e m a d e or f m a d e t h e a m o u nt of s u c h m e st o n e p a y m e nt m a d e; t h e r s k t h at a n y e q u t y h o d er t g at o n n c o n n e ct o n w t h t h e\npr o p o s e d tr a n s a ct o n s m a y r e s u t n s g n f c a nt c o st s of d ef e n s e, n d e m n f c at o n a n d a b t y; A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 a b t y t o s u c c e s sf u y d e m o n str at e\nt h e eff c a c y a n d s af et y of t s dr u g or dr u g c a n d d at e s, a n d t h e pr e c n c a or c n c a r e s u t s f or t s pr o d u ct c a n d d at e s, w h c h m a y n ot s u p p ort f urt h er\nd e v e o p m e nt of s u c h pr o d u ct c a n d d at e s; c o m m e nt s, f e e d b a c k a n d a ct o n s of r e g u at or y a g e n c e s; A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e\ns u c c e s sf u c n c a d e v e o p m e nt, r e g u at or y a p pr o v a a n d c o m m er c a z at o n of t s pr o d u ct c a n d d at e s; t h e n h er e nt u n c ert a nt e s a s s o c at e d w t h\nd e v e o p n g n e w pr o d u ct s or t e c h n o o g e s a n d o p er at n g a s c n c a st a g e c o m p a n y; t h e C o m p a n y\u2019 s o b g at o n s u n d er t h e Pr o m s s or y N ot e a n d t s\na b t y t o s at sf y s u c h o b g at o n s; t h e C o m p a n y\u2019 s a b t y t o r e c e v e o a n s fr o m P ar e nt u n d er t h e Pr o m s s or y N ot e; t h e C o m p a n y\u2019 s c a s h s uff c e n c y a n d\nr u n w a y; a n d ot h er r s k s d e nt f e d n A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 S E C f n g s, n c u d n g A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s\u2019 A n n u a R e p ort o n F or m 1 0- K f or t h e y e ar\ne n d e d D e c e m b er 3 1, 2 0 2 4, Q u art er y R e p ort s f or t h e q u art er s e n d e d M ar c h 3 1, 2 0 2 5, J u n e 3 0, 2 0 2 5 a n d S e pt e m b er 3 0, 2 0 2 5 a n d s u b s e q u e nt f n g s\nw t h t h e S E C. A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s c a ut o n s y o u n ot t o p a c e u n d u e r e a n c e o n a n y f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s, w h c h s p e a k o n y a s of t h e d at e t h e y\nar e m a d e. T h e f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt s n t h s d o c u m e nt s p e a k o n y a s of t h e d at e of t h s d o c u m e nt. A p p e d T h er a p e ut c s u n d ert a k e s n o o b g at o n\nt o u p d at e a n y f or w ar d- o o k n g st at e m e nt, w h et h er a s a r e s u t of n e w nf or m at o n, f ut ur e d e v e o p m e nt s, or ot h er w s e, e x c e pt a s m a y b e r e q u r e d b y\na p p c a b e a w.\n\nC o nt a ct s\n\nI n v e st or s:\nJ u e S e d e / A n dr e w V u s\n( 2 1 2) 6 0 0- 1 9 0 2\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-1 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 4\na p p e dt h er a p e ut c s @ ar g ot p art n er s. c o m\n\nM e di a:\nm e d a @ a p p e dt h er a p e ut c s. c o m\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:15.873918-07:00","document_number":"130","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127038734789","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Applied Therapeutics Press Release","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467641220/","id":467641220,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/130/2/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-02-04T19:35:41.242945-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:47:30.044594-07:00","sha1":"b667fef3a29c72d8c11bc897472eee68e8c6532f","page_count":11,"file_size":471826,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.130.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\fCase 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 11\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 11\n SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE\nStatement of Class Recovery\n Subject to Court approval, Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, has agreed to settle the Litigation in exchange for a payment of $15,000,000\nin cash and the issuance of Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied common stock, with an exercise price of $0.48 per share (the\n\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d). The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Class Members according to the Court-approved plan of allocation (the \u201cPlan\nof Allocation\u201d). The proposed Plan of Allocation is set forth on pages 8-10.\nEstimate of Average Recovery Per Share\n Based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8 million shares of Applied common stock eligible to recover under the\nSettlement, the average distribution from the cash portion of the Settlement Fund under the Plan of Allocation is estimated to be approximately $0.15\nper share before deduction of any Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Warrant Exercise Expenses, and the Fee and Expense\nAward as determined by the Court. In addition to any cash recovery, each Authorized Claimant will be eligible to receive a proportionate share of the\nproceeds from the Warrants, which will be distributed either in cash or in securities.\n Class Members should note, however, that these are only estimates. A Class Member\u2019s actual recovery will be a proportion of the Net\nSettlement Fund (cash plus proceeds from the Warrants) determined by that claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim as compared to the total Recognized Claims\nof all Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim. An individual Class Member may receive more or less than this estimated average\namount. See the Plan of Allocation set forth and discussed at pages 8-10 below for more information on the calculation of your claim.\nStatement of Potential Outcome of Case\n Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert estimates that if Plaintiff and the Class were completely successful on all claims, and Plaintiff and the Class\u2019s\ndamages theories and evidence were accepted in full by the Court and the jury, then the maximum recoverable damages for the Class would be\napproximately $377.5 million, or approximately $3.86 per share based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8 million shares of Applied\ncommon stock eligible to recover under the Settlement.\n Defendants deny that they are liable to the Class and deny that the Class has suffered any damages. The issues on which the parties disagree\nare many, but include: (1) whether Defendants engaged in conduct that would give rise to any liability to the Class under the federal securities laws, or\nany other laws; (2) whether Defendants have valid defenses to any such claims of liability; (3) the appropriate economic model for determining the\namount by which the prices of Applied common stock were allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Class Period; (4) the amount, if any, by\nwhich the prices of Applied common stock were allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Class Period; (5) the effect of various market forces\non the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the Class Period; (6) the extent to which external factors influenced the prices of Applied\ncommon stock at various times during the Class Period; (7) the extent to which the various matters that Plaintiff alleged were materially false or\nmisleading influenced (if at all) the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the Class Period; and (8) the extent to which the various\nallegedly adverse material facts that Plaintiff alleged were omitted influenced (if at all) the prices of Applied common stock at various times during the\nClass Period.\nStatement of Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses Sought\n Since the action\u2019s inception, Lead Counsel have expended considerable time and effort in the prosecution of this Litigation on a wholly\ncontingent basis and have advanced the expenses of the Litigation in the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the Class,\nthey would be paid from such recovery. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of\nthe Settlement Amount, plus expenses not to exceed $50,000, plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund.\nIf the amounts requested are approved by the Court, the average cost per share of Applied common stock eligible to participate in the Settlement against\nthe cash portion of the Settlement Fund is estimated to be approximately $0.03 per share, based on Plaintiff\u2019s estimate of the maximum number of 97.8\nmillion shares of Applied common stock eligible to recover under the Settlement.\nFurther Information\n For further information regarding the Litigation, this Notice or to review the Stipulation, please contact the Claims Administrator toll-free at\n1-833-703-4229, or visit the website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n You may also contact a representative of counsel for the Class: Joshua W. Ruthizer, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor. New\nYork, NY 10022, 1-877-370-7703, www.wolfpopper.com.\n Please do not call the Court or Defendants with questions about the Settlement.\nReasons for the Settlement\n Plaintiff\u2019s principal reason for entering into the Settlement is the benefit to the Class now, without further risk or the delays inherent in\ncontinued litigation. The cash benefit under the Settlement must be considered against the significant risk that a smaller recovery \u2013 or, indeed, no\nrecovery at all \u2013 might be achieved after contested motions, trial, and likely appeals, a process that could last several years into the future. For the\nDefendants, who have denied and continue to deny, all allegations of liability, fault, or wrongdoing whatsoever, the principal reason for entering into\nthe Settlement is to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, costs, and burdens inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as this Litigation. The\nSettling Parties agree that further conduct of this Litigation could be protracted and distracting, would dissipate the insurance currently available to\nresolve Plaintiff\u2019s claims, and further diminish Applied\u2019s financial condition.\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 2 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 11\n BASIC INFORMATION\n1. Why did I get this Notice?\n You or someone in your family or an investment account for which you serve as custodian may have purchased or otherwise acquired publicly\ntraded Applied common stock on a U.S. based exchange during the period between January 3, 2024 through and including December 2, 2024 (the\n\u201cClass Period\u201d).\n This Notice explains the class action lawsuit, the Settlement, Class Members\u2019 legal rights in connection with the Settlement, what benefits\nare available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.\n The Court directed that this Notice be made publicly available on www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com to inform Class Members of the\nterms of the proposed Settlement and about all of their options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement at the upcoming hearing to\nconsider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and Lead Counsel\u2019s application for attorneys\u2019\nfees and expenses (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d).\n The Court in charge of the Litigation is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the case is known as In\nre Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC-VF. The case has been assigned to the Honorable Denise Cote. The\nindividual representing the Class is the Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich, and the Company, and individuals he sued and who have now settled are called\nthe Defendants.\n\n2. What is this lawsuit about?\n Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (the \u201cComplaint\u201d), filed on June 13, 2025, alleges that Defendants violated Sections\n10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. \u00a7\n240.10b-5. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period (January 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024, inclusive), Defendants\nmade materially false and misleading statements to investors and the Class in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 concerning, among other\nthings, the viability of Applied\u2019s New Drug Application (\u201cNDA\u201d) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\u201cFDA\u201d) for govorestat to treat Classic\nGalactosemia (\u201cGalactosemia\u201d), a rare genetic metabolic disorder that can be fatal if untreated; Defendants\u2019 interactions with the FDA concerning the\nNDA; the reliability of the data underlying the NDA; and alleged known material deficiencies with the NDA.\n The Complaint alleges that (a) between March and June 2021, as part of Applied\u2019s ACTION-Galactosemia Kids Study (the \u201cPediatric\nStudy\u201d), 19 of the 47 subjects enrolled at a clinical site\u2014over 40% of the study population\u2014received only approximately 80% of the intended dose of\ngovorestat due to a labeling error (the \u201cDosing Errors\u201d); (b) the Dosing Errors were a violation of the clinical trial protocol that Applied agreed to with\nthe FDA for the conduct of the Pediatric Study; (c) Defendants knew (i) about the Dosing Errors and that they constituted a violation of the clinical\ntrial protocol for the Pediatric Study, (ii) that information about the Dosing Errors and the clinical data recorded for patients who received the Dosing\nErrors (the \u201cDosing Errors Clinical Data\u201d) was required by FDA regulation and guidance to be included in the NDA, (iii) that the NDA failed to include\nthis information, and instead reported clinical data as if the patients received the full, correct dose, and (iv) as a result, the NDA was materially deficient\nand failed to comply with FDA regulations.\n In addition, the Complaint alleges that (a) on March 27, 2024, one of Applied\u2019s vendors for the Pediatric Study deleted clinical source data\nfor all 47 patients enrolled in the study (the \u201cStudy Data Deletion\u201d), (b) between April 23 and May 3, 2024, the FDA conducted an inspection of a\nclinical test site and discovered the Study Data Deletion, (c) the Study Data Deletion was a violation of the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric Study;\n(d) at the conclusion of the inspection, on May 3, 2024, the FDA issued a FDA Form 483 to Applied that detailed the Study Data Deletion and two\nother objectionable conditions (the \u201cForm 483\u201d), and also discussed the Form 483 with Defendant Shendelman; (e) on May 9, 2023, Applied responded\nto the Form 483 and informed the FDA that deleted source data for 11 subjects could not be recovered; and (f) therefore, by May 9, 2024, the Defendants\nknew (i) about the Study Data Deletion, (ii) that the FDA knew Applied had violated FDA regulations and the clinical trial protocol for the Pediatric\nStudy, and (iii) that the FDA could not verify clinical results of the Pediatric Study as part of its NDA review.\n The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the failure to disclose the facts summarized in the preceding two paragraphs rendered\nDefendants\u2019 statements materially false and misleading.\n The Complaint also alleges that these alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of Applied\u2019s common stock to trade at\nartificially inflated levels during the Class Period, until the market learned the truth through, among other things, the November 27, 2024 disclosure of\na complete response letter (\u201cCRL\u201d) from the FDA to Applied rejecting the NDA and the December 3, 2024 publication by the FDA of a Warning Letter\nfrom the FDA to Applied that identified the Study Data Deletion and failure to include information about the Dosing Errors and Dosing Errors Clinical\nData in the NDA. The Complaint alleges that these disclosures resulted in a sharp decline in Applied\u2019s share price.\n\n3. Why is there a settlement?\n The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or of the Plaintiff and the Class. Instead, both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid the\ndistraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and Plaintiff agreed to the Settlement in order to ensure that Class Members will receive compensation.\n\n WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT\n4. How do I know if I am a Member of the Class?\n The Court directed that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly\ntraded common stock of Applied on a U.S. based exchange during the period from January 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024, inclusive, except those\nPersons and entities that are excluded.\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 3 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 11\n Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the current and former officers, directors, and employees of Applied (the \u201cExcluded\nPersons\u201d); (iii) any person or entity that purchased Applied securities in the March 1, 2024 Private Placement (the \u201cPrivate Placement Investors\u201d); (iv)\nmembers of Defendants\u2019, Excluded Persons\u2019, or Private Placement Investors\u2019 immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns;\nand (v) any entity in which Defendants, the Excluded Persons, or the Private Placement Investors have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded\nfrom the Class are those Persons who timely and validly exclude themselves therefrom by submitting a request for exclusion in accordance with the\nrequirements set forth in question 11 below.\n Please Note: Receipt of this Notice or the Postcard Notice does not mean that you are a Class Member or that you will be entitled to receive\na payment from the Settlement. Please check your records or contact your broker to see if you are a Class Member. If you are a Class Member and you\nwish to be eligible to participate in the distribution of proceeds from the Settlement, you are required to submit the Claim Form available on the\nSettlement Website, www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and the required supporting documentation as set forth therein postmarked or submitted\nonline on or before April 8, 2026.\n\n5. What if I am still not sure if l am included?\n If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. You can contact the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229,\nvia email at Info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you can submit a Claim Form online or via US Mail, to see if you qualify.\n\n THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS \u2013 WHAT YOU GET\n6. What does the Settlement provide?\n The Settlement provides that, in exchange for the release of the Released Claims (defined below) and dismissal of the Litigation, Defendants\nhave agreed to provide consideration consisting of $15,000,000 cash and the issuance of Warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Applied\ncommon stock, with a term of one year from the Effective Date of the Settlement an exercise price of $0.48 per share (together, the \u201cSettlement\nAmount\u201d).\n The Warrants will be held and administered by the Securities Escrow Agent on behalf of the Class. The Securities Escrow Agent, under the\nsupervision of Lead Counsel, will determine whether and when to exercise the Warrants. Warrant Proceeds may be paid in cash or in Applied common\nstock or other securities (in the event Applied is acquired or merges with another company, pursuant to the terms of the Warrants). No Class Member\nwill receive an interest in the Warrants themselves. The Securities Escrow Agent, under the supervision of Lead Counsel, will decide whether to sell\nthe Warrant Proceeds paid in the form of Applied common stock or other securities and to distribute the resulting cash proceeds, or to distribute the\nApplied common stock or other securities to Class Members.\n Any Warrant Proceeds realized from the exercise of the Warrants and/or and sale of Warrant Proceeds paid in the form of Applied common\nstock or other securities shall be added to the Net Settlement Fund and distributed to Authorized Claimants pursuant to this Plan of Allocation. The\nPlan of Allocation is described in more detail on pages 8-10. No Class Member will receive individual warrant certificates. In the event the Warrants\nexpire unexercised or proves to have no realizable value, no additional distribution will be made on account of the Warrants.\n On Thursday, December 11, 2025, Applied issued a press release announcing that it had entered into a merger agreement with Cycle Group\nHoldings Limited (\u201cCycle\u201d) pursuant to which Cycle will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Applied common stock\nfor a per share price of $0.088 per share in cash payable at closing plus one non-transferrable contingent value right (\u201cCVR\u201d) that entitles the holder to\nreceive potential additional payments (the \u201cTransaction\u201d). The Transaction is subject to the tender of a majority of the outstanding shares of Applied\ncommon stock and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026.\n\n7. How much will my payment be?\n Your share of the Net Settlement Fund (as defined and described in the Plan of Allocation on pages 8-10 below) will depend on several\nthings, including the total claims for Applied common shares represented by the valid Claim Forms that Class Members send in, compared to the value\nof your claim, all as calculated under the Plan of Allocation discussed below.\n\n HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT \u2013 SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM\n8. How can I get a payment?\n To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a timely and valid Claim Form. You can request a Claim Form be\nmailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229, or download a Claim Form from www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\nRead the instructions carefully, fill out the Claim Form, include all the documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail or submit it online through\nwww.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com so that it is postmarked or received no later than April 8, 2026.\n\n9. When would I get my payment?\n The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., EDT, to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the\nCourt approves the Settlement, there might be appeals. It is always uncertain whether appeals can be resolved, and if so, how long it would take to\nresolve them. It also takes time for all the Claim Forms to be processed. Please be patient.\n\n10. What am I giving up to get a payment or to stay in the Class?\n Unless you timely and validly exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of\nany other lawsuit against Defendants or their Related Parties about the Released Claims (as defined below) in this case. It also means that all of the\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 4 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 11\nCourt\u2019s orders will apply to you and legally bind you. If you remain a Class Member, and if the Settlement is approved, you will give up all \u201cReleased\nClaims\u201d (as defined below), including \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d (as defined below), against the \u201cReleased Persons\u201d (as defined below):\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Claims\u201d means any and all rights, liabilities, suits, debts, obligations, demands, damages, losses, judgment, matters, issues, claims\n (including \u201cUnknown Claims,\u201d as defined below), and causes of action, of every nature and description whatsoever, in law, equity, or otherwise,\n whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether arising under\n federal, state, local, statutory, common, or foreign law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether class and/or individual in nature, that (a)\n Lead Plaintiff or any other Class Member asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation, or could in the future assert in any court or forum based\n upon, relating to, in connection with, or arising from the allegations, transactions, facts, matters or occurrences, errors, representations,\n misrepresentations, actions, failures to act, or omissions that were alleged, set forth, or referred to in the Litigation, and (b) also relate to the\n purchase of publicly traded shares of Applied common stock on a U.S. based exchange during the Class Period. \u201cReleased Claims\u201d does not\n include: (i) derivative claims; (ii) ERISA claims; and (iii) claims to enforce the Settlement.\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Defendants\u2019 Claims\u201d means any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, including both\n known claims and Unknown Claims, against Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel or any Class Member that arise out of or relate in any way to the\n institution, prosecution, or settlement of the claims against Defendants in the Litigation. Released Defendants\u2019 Claims do not include claims\n relating to the enforcement of the Settlement.\n \u2022 \u201cReleased Defendant Parties\u201d means each and all of Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel, and any of their Related Parties means each and all\n of the Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel and their Related Parties.\n \u2022 \u201cRelated Parties\u201d means any Person\u2019s former, present or future parents, subsidiaries, divisions, controlling persons, associates, related\n entities and affiliates, any entity in which a Person has a controlling interest, and each and all of their respective present and former employees,\n members, partners, principals, officers, directors, controlling shareholders, agents, attorneys, advisors (including financial or investment advisors),\n accountants, auditors, consultants, underwriters, investment bankers, commercial bankers, entities providing fairness opinions, general or limited\n partners or partnerships, limited liability companies, members, joint ventures and insurers and reinsurers or co-insurers of each of them; as well\n as the predecessors, successors, estates, immediate family members, spouses, heirs, executors, trusts, trustees, administrators, agents, legal or\n personal representatives, assigns, and assignees of each of them, in their capacity as such..\n \u2022 \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d means: (a) any and all Released Claims, which any of the Lead Plaintiff, Members of the Class, or Lead Counsel do\n not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties, which, if known by them, might have\n affected their settlement with and release of the Released Defendant Parties, or might have affected their decision(s) with respect to the Settlement,\n including, but not limited to, whether or not to object to this Settlement; and (b) any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims that any of the Defendants\n or Defendants\u2019 Counsel do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of Released Plaintiff Parties, which, if known by\n them might have affected their settlement and release of Released Plaintiff Parties. With respect to (a) any and all Released Claims against the\n Released Defendant Parties, and (b) any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against Released Plaintiff Parties, the Settling Parties stipulate and\n agree that, upon the Effective Date, the Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant Party\n shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived the provisions, rights, and benefits of California Civil\n Code \u00a7 1542, which provides:\n A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist\n in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his\n or her settlement with the debtor or released party.\n The Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each Released Plaintiff Party and Released Defendant Party shall be deemed to have, and by\n operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory\n of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code \u00a7 1542. The Released\n Plaintiff Parties and Released Defendant Parties acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts, legal theories or authorities in addition to or\n different from those which he, she, it or their counsel now knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims\n or Released Defendants\u2019 Claims, but (a) the Released Plaintiff Parties shall expressly fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle,\n discharge, extinguish and release, and each Released Plaintiff Party shall be deemed to have waived, compromised, settled, discharged,\n extinguished, and released, and, upon the Effective Date, and by operation of the Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged,\n extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, known or unknown,\n suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, accrued or unaccrued, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore\n have existed, or may hereafter exist, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not\n limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent\n discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities, and (b) the Released Defendant Parties shall expressly\n fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle, discharge, extinguish and release, and, upon the Effective Date, and by operation of the\n Judgment, shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged, extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released\n Defendants\u2019 Claims against the Released Plaintiff Parties, the Class and Lead Counsel, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent\n or non-contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing\n or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of\n any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities.\n The Settling Parties acknowledge, and the Released Plaintiff Parties and Released Defendant Parties shall be deemed by operation of the Judgment\n to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and is an essential element of the Settlement of which this release\n is a part.\n The Settlement also bars any and all claims for contribution or indemnity against any of the Released Defendant Parties arising out of, relating\nto or concerning any acts, facts, statements, or omissions that were or could have been alleged in the Litigation.\n\n EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 5 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 11\n If you do not want to participate in this Settlement, and you want to keep the right to potentially sue the Defendants and the other Released\nPersons, on your own, about the claims being released by the Settlement, then you must take steps to remove yourself from the Settlement. This is\ncalled excluding yourself \u2013 or is sometimes referred to as \u201copting out.\u201d If you are requesting exclusion because you want to bring your own lawsuit\nbased on the matters alleged in this Litigation, you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any individual claim that you may wish to\npursue would be time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or repose.\n\n11. How do I get out of the Class and the proposed Settlement?\n To exclude yourself from the Class and the Settlement, you must send a letter or other document by First-Class Mail stating that you \u201crequest\nexclusion from the Class in the Applied Therapeutics Settlement.\u201d The request for exclusion must include (i) the name, address, and telephone number\nof the Person requesting exclusion; (ii) the caption of the Action; (iii) a list identifying all transactions in Applied common stock during the Class\nPeriod by the Person requesting exclusion, the date of each transaction, and the price of each transaction; (iv) documentation sufficient to evidence\neach listed transaction in Applied common stock during the Class Period by the Person requesting exclusion and the date of each transaction; and (v)\na statement that the Person wishes to be excluded from the Class. Any request for exclusion must be in writing and signed under penalty of perjury by\nthe beneficial owner(s) of the shares of Applied common stock that are the subject of the request for exclusion. You must submit your exclusion request\nso that it is received no later than February 26, 2026 to:\n Applied Therapeutics Securities Settlement\n c/o Claims Administrator\n 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not be legally\nbound by anything that happens in this lawsuit, and you may be able to sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons about the Released Claims\nin the future.\n\n12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons for the same thing later?\n No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any rights you may potentially have to sue the Defendants and the other Released Persons for\nany and all Released Claims. If you have a pending lawsuit against the Released Persons, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You must\nexclude yourself from the Class in this Litigation to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is February 26, 2026.\n\n13. If I exclude myself, can I get money from the proposed Settlement?\n No. If you exclude yourself, you should not send in a Claim Form to ask for any money. But you may have the right to potentially sue or be\npart of a different lawsuit against the Defendants and the other Released Persons.\n\n OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT\n You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement or any part of it.\n\n14. How do I tell the Court that I object to the proposed Settlement?\n If you are a Class Member, you can comment on or object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or Lead Counsel\u2019s\nFee and Expense Application. You can write to the Court setting out your comment or objection. The Court will consider your views. To comment or\nobject, you must send a letter or other document saying that you wish to comment on or object to the proposed Settlement in the Applied Therapeutics\nSettlement. Any objection must be signed personally under penalty of perjury by the Class Member submitting the objection and include (i) the name,\naddress and telephone number of the Class Member objecting; (ii) the caption of the Action; (iii) a statement of the Class Members\u2019 objection or\nobjections, and the specific reasons for each objection, including any legal and evidentiary support the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court\u2019s\nattention and whether the objections apply only to the objector, a specific subset of the Class, or to the entire Class; (iv) a list identifying all transactions\nin Applied common stock during the Class Period by the Class Member objecting, the date of each transaction, and the price of each transaction; and\n(v) documents sufficient to prove membership in the Class, including the objecting Class Member\u2019s purchases, and/or sales of Applied common stock\nduring the Class Period, the dates, the number of shares purchased or sold, and the price paid or received for such purchase or sale. Your comments or\nobjection must be filed with the Court and mailed or delivered to each of the following addresses such that it is received no later than February 26, 2026:\n COURT LEAD COUNSEL\n Clerk of Court WOLF POPPER LLP\n United States District Court Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.\n Southern District Of New York 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor\n 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10022\n New York, NY 10007\n\n\nPLEASE NOTE that all objections will be filed publicly with the Court. You should redact any personally identifiable information before\nsubmitting your objection, such as account numbers or social security numbers.\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 6 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 11\n15. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?\n Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class.\n Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to recover money from the Settlement and do not want to release any claims you\nthink you may have against Defendants and their Related Parties. If you exclude yourself, you cannot object to the Settlement because it does not affect you.\n THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU\n\n16. Do I have a lawyer in this case?\n The Court ordered that the law firm of Wolf Popper LLP represent the Class Members, including you. These lawyers are called Lead Counsel.\nIf you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.\n\n17. How will the lawyers be paid?\nLead Counsel will apply to the Court for a Fee and Expense Award for (a) an award of attorneys\u2019 fees not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the\nSettlement Amount and (b) expenses, costs and charges in an amount not to exceed $50,000 in connection with prosecuting the Litigation, plus interest\non such fees and expenses at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from the\nSettlement Fund. Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application will ask that it be awarded attorneys\u2019 fees in a percent of the cash settlement\nconsideration and any Warrant Proceeds that result from exercise of the Warrants.\n\n THE COURT\u2019S SETTLEMENT HEARING\n The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do\nnot have to.\n\n18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement?\n The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at 11:00 a m., EDT on March 19, 2026, at the United States District Court for the Southern District\nof New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18B, New York, NY 10007. At the hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement and the Plan of\nAllocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them, even if you do not ask to speak at the hearing. The\nCourt will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Lead Counsel and Plaintiff. After\nthe Settlement Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation. We do not know how long these decisions\nwill take. You should be aware that the Court may change the date and time of the Settlement Hearing without another notice being sent to Class\nMembers. If you want to attend the hearing, you should check with Lead Counsel or the Settlement Website www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\nbeforehand to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed.\n\n19. Do I have to come to the hearing?\n No. Lead Counsel will answer questions the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection,\nyou do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as your written objection was received by the deadline stated herein and otherwise complies\nwith the requirements set forth herein, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary. Class Members\ndo not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.\n\n20. May I speak at the hearing?\n If you object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense Application, you may ask the Court for permission to\nspeak at the Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must include in your written objection (see question 14 above) a written statement of your intention to\nappear at the hearing and to include in your written objections the identity of any witnesses you may call to testify and copies of any exhibits you intend\nto introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. Your notice of intention to appear must be received with your written objection and be received\nno later than February 26, 2026, and addressed to the Clerk of Court, Lead Counsel, and Defendants\u2019 Counsel, at the addresses listed above in\nquestion 14.\n You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Class.\n\n IF YOU DO NOTHING\n21. What happens if I do nothing?\n If you do nothing, you will not receive any money from this Settlement. In addition, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start\na lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Defendants and their Related Parties about the Released Claims in this case.\n\n GETTING MORE INFORMATION\n22. How do I get more information?\n For even more detailed information concerning the matters involved in this Litigation, you can obtain answers to common questions regarding\nthe proposed Settlement by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-833-703-4229. Reference is also made to the Settlement Agreement, to\nthe documents filed in support of the Settlement, to the Orders entered by the Court and to the other Settlement related papers filed in the Litigation,\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 7 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 9 of 11\nwhich are posted on the Settlement Website at www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com, and which may also be inspected at the Office of the Clerk of the\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York, during regular business hours. For a fee, all papers filed in this Litigation are\navailable at www.pacer.gov.\n\n\n\n PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND AMONG CLASS MEMBERS\n Each Class Member\u2019s share of the Settlement Fund will depend on several factors, including, but not limited to, how many Class Members\ntimely send in valid Claim Forms; the amount of Applied common stock you purchased during the Class Period; the prices and dates of those purchases;\nand the prices and dates of any sales you made. The Plan of Allocation below will provide more detail on your potential recovery.\n The Settlement Amount (together with any interest earned thereon) constitutes the \u201cSettlement Fund.\u201d The \u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d means the\nSettlement Fund less: (i) any Court-awarded Fee and Expense Award to Lead Counsel, and interest thereon; (ii) Notice and Administration Expenses\nthat are paid, incurred, or due and owing; (iii) Taxes and Tax Expenses that are paid, incurred, or due and owing; (iv) any Warrant Exercise Expenses\nthat are paid, incurred, or due and owing; and (v) any other Court-approved deductions that are paid, incurred, or due and owing. If the Settlement is\napproved by the Court, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to eligible members of the Class who timely submit valid Claim Forms (\u201cAuthorized\nClaimant(s)\u201d) in accordance with the Plan of Allocation.\n The Plan of Allocation is intended to distribute the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund equitably among all Class Members who are alleged\nto have suffered economic losses as a proximate result of Defendants\u2019 conduct. The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant\u2019s\npro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Loss.\u201d The Recognized Loss formula will be the\nAuthorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Loss divided by the total of the Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the total amount in\nthe Net Settlement Fund. The Recognized Loss formula is not a formal damage analysis, and the calculations made in accordance with the formula are\nnot intended to be estimates, or indicative, of the amount of what a Class member lost or might have been able to recover after a trial; nor is it an\nestimate of the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement.\n In order to have recoverable damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, disclosure of the alleged\nmisrepresentation and/or omission must be the cause of the decline in the price of the security. In this Litigation, Lead Plaintiff alleges that the truth\nconcerning Defendants\u2019 materially false and misleading statements (corrective disclosures) was revealed to the market after the close of trading on\nWednesday November 27, 2024 (the day before the Thanksgiving Holiday, when U.S. trading markets were closed), when Applied announced it had\nreceived the CRL and the FDA had rejected the NDA, and during the trading day on December 3, 2024, when the FDA published the Warning Letter\non its website disclosing reasons for the rejection of the NDA, and that those disclosures allegedly caused statistically significant declines in the price\nof Applied\u2019s common stock and removed the alleged artificial inflation in Applied common stock. Accordingly, for a Class member to have a\ncompensable loss in this Settlement, the Applied common stock must have been purchased during the Class Period and (i) held through at least the\nopening of trading on November 29, 2024 (the first trading day after November 27, 2024) to be eligible for loss associated with the first disclosure,\nand (ii) held through at least the close of the trading day on December 2, 2024 to be eligible for loss associated with the second disclosure.\nTHE COURT MAY APPROVE THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, OR MODIFY IT, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO THE CLASS.\nANY ORDER MODIFYING THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION WILL BE POSTED ON THE SETTLEMENT WEBSITE,\nwww.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com.\n\n CALCULATION OF RECOGNIZED LOSS AND RECOGNIZED GAIN AMOUNTS\n The premise of the Plan of Allocation is that the true value of Applied common shares during the Class Period was allegedly $1.69 per share, the\nclosing price on December 3, 2024, after the disclosure of the CRL and the Warning Letter. A Recognized Loss shall be calculated by the Claims\nAdministrator for shares of Applied common stock purchased during the Class Period as follows:\n 1. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold prior to November 29, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be zero.\n 2. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold on November 29, 2024 or December 2, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser\n of (i) the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, (ii) the difference between the purchase price and $1.75 per share (the\n closing price on December 2, 2024), or (iii) $6.82 per share (the combined share price decline on November 29, 2024 and December 2, 2024).\n 3. For shares purchased during the Class Period and sold on December 3, 2024, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser of (i) the difference\n between the purchase price and the sale price, (ii) the difference between the purchase price and $1.69 per share (the closing price on December\n 3, 2024), or (iii) $6.88 per share (the combined share price decline on November 29, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 3, 2024).\n 4. For shares purchased during the Class Period and still held at the close of trading on December 3, 2024 the Recognized Loss will be the lesser\n of (i) the difference between the purchase price and $1.69 per share (the closing price on December 3, 2024), or (ii) $6.88 per share (the\n combined share price decline on November 29, 2024, December 2, 2024, and December 3, 2024).\n 5. Gains on shares both purchased and sold from November 29, 2024 through December 3, 2024 will offset a class member\u2019s Recognized Loss.\n ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS\n 1. Calculation of Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Claim\u201d: A Claimant\u2019s \u201cRecognized Claim\u201d will be the sum of his, her, or its Recognized Loss Amounts\n as calculated above with respect to all Applied common stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period.\n 2. Purchase/Sale Dates: Purchases and sales of Applied common stock will be deemed to have occurred on the \u201ccontract\u201d or \u201ctrade\u201d date as opposed\n to the \u201csettlement\u201d or \u201cpayment\u201d date. The receipt or grant by gift, inheritance or operation of law of Applied common stock during the Class\n Period will not be deemed a purchase, acquisition or sale of publicly traded Applied common stock for the calculation of Recognized Loss, unless\n (i) the donor or decedent purchased such shares of Applied common stock on the open market on a U.S. based exchange during the Class Period;\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 8 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 10 of 11\n (ii) no Proof of Claim was submitted by or on behalf of the donor, on behalf of the decedent, or by anyone else with respect to such shares of\n Applied common stock; and (iii) it is specifically so provided in the instrument of gift or assignment.\n 3. The purchase price of Applied common stock will be the price paid on the open market and will not include any commissions or fees.\n 4. Any transactions executed outside of regular trading hours for the U.S. financial markets shall be deemed to have occurred during the next\n regular trading session.)\n 5. FIFO Matching: If a Class Member made multiple purchases, acquisitions, or sales of Applied common stock during the Class Period, the Applied\n common stock sold will be matched, in chronological order, against the first Applied common stock purchased or acquired during the Class Period\n (First-in, First-Out, or \u201cFIFO\u201d).\n 6. Short Sales: The date of covering a \u201cshort sale\u201d is deemed to be the date of purchase or acquisition of Applied common stock. The date of a\n \u201cshort sale\u201d is deemed to be the date of sale of Applied common stock. Under the Plan of Allocation, however, the Recognized Loss Amount\n on \u201cshort sales\u201d is zero.\n 7. If a claimant has an opening short position in Applied common stock, his, her, or its earliest Class Period purchases or acquisitions of Applied\n common stock will be matched against the opening short position, and not be entitled to a recovery, until that short position is fully covered.\n 8. Shares Purchased/Sold Through the Exercise of Options: Option contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the Settlement. With\n respect to shares of Applied common stock purchased or sold through the exercise of an option, the purchase/sale date of the Applied common\n stock is the exercise date of the option, and the purchase/sale price of the Applied common stock is the exercise price of the option.\n 9. Market Gains and Losses: The Claims Administrator will determine whether the Claimant had a \u201cMarket Gain\u201d or a \u201cMarket Loss\u201d with\n respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period. For purposes of making this calculation, the\n Claims Administrator will determine the difference between (i) the Claimant\u2019s Total Purchase Amount2 and (ii) the sum of the Claimant\u2019s\n Total Sales Proceeds3 and the Claimant\u2019s Holding Value.4 If the Claimant\u2019s Total Purchase Amount minus the sum of the Claimant\u2019s Total\n Sales Proceeds and the Holding Value is a positive number, that number will be the Claimant\u2019s Market Loss; if the number is a negative\n number or zero, that number will be the Claimant\u2019s Market Gain.\n 10. If a Claimant had a Market Gain with respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period, the\n value of the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim will be zero, and the Claimant will in any event be bound by the Settlement. If a Claimant suffered\n an overall Market Loss with respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Applied common stock during the Class Period but that Market\n Loss was less than the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, then the Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim\n will be limited to the amount of the Market Loss.\n 11. Determination of Distribution Amount: The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis based on\n the relative size of their Recognized Claims. Specifically, a \u201cDistribution Amount\u201d will be calculated for each Authorized Claimant, which\n shall be the Authorized Claimant\u2019s Recognized Claim divided by the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the\n total amount in the Net Settlement Fund.\n 12. Class Members who do not incur a Recognized Loss as defined in the Plan of Allocation, will not receive a cash distribution from the Net\n Settlement Fund, but will be bound by all determinations and judgments of the Court in connection with the Settlement, including being\n barred from asserting any of the Released Claims against the Released Parties.\n 13. If the sum total of Recognized Loss of all Authorized Claimants who are entitled to receive payment out of the Net Settlement Fund is greater than\n the Net Settlement Fund, each Authorized Claimant shall receive their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund.\n 14. If the Net Settlement Fund exceeds the sum total amount of the Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants entitled to receive payment\n out of the Net Settlement Fund, the excess amount in the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to all Authorized Claimants entitled\n to receive payment.\n 15. Given the costs of distribution, the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated among only those Authorized Claimants whose distributable share of Net\n Settlement Fund is $10.00 or greater or more than ten whole shares of Warrant Proceeds, calculated on an adjusted basis.\n 16. Class Members who do not submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim and Release form will not share in the Settlement proceeds, but will\n nevertheless be bound by the Settlement, the Judgment of the Court dismissing this Litigation, and the releases provided therein.\n 17. After the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Claims Administrator will make reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized\n Claimants cash their distribution checks. To the extent any monies remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the initial distribution, if Lead Counsel,\n in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determine that it is cost-effective to do so, the Claims Administrator, six (6) months after the initial\n distribution, will conduct a re-distribution of the funds remaining after payment of any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering the\n Settlement, including for such re-distribution, to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their initial distributions and who would receive at least\n $10.00 from such re-distribution. Additional re-distributions to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their prior checks and who would receive\n\n2\n The \u201cTotal Purchase Amount\u201d is the total amount the claimant paid (excluding commissions and other charges) for Applied common stock purchased or acquired\nduring the Class Period.\n3\n The Claims Administrator will match any sales of Applied common stock from the start of the Class Period through and including the close of trading on\nDecember 2, 2024, first against the claimant\u2019s opening position (the proceeds of those sales will not be considered for purposes of calculating market gains or losses).\nThe total amount received (excluding commissions and other charges) for the remaining sales of Applied common stock sold from the start of the Class Period through\nand including the close of trading on December 2, 2024, will be the \u201cTotal Sales Proceeds.\u201d\n4\n The Claims Administrator will ascribe a value of $1.69 per share for Applied common stock purchased or acquired during the Class Period and still held as of the\nclose of trading on December 2, 2024 (the \u201cHolding Value\u201d).\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 9 of 10\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 130-2 Filed 12/15/25 Page 11 of 11\n at least $10.00 on such additional re-distributions may occur thereafter if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determine\n that additional re-distributions, after the deduction of any additional fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement, including for such\n re-distributions, would be cost-effective. At such time as it is determined that the re-distribution of funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is\n not cost-effective, the remaining balance will be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization(s), to be recommended by Lead\n Counsel and approved by the Court.\n 18. Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, or such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court, will be conclusive against all\n Claimants. No person shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel, Defendants, Defendants\u2019 counsel, or any of the other Released\n Person or the Claims Administrator or other agent designated by Lead Counsel, arising from distributions made substantially in accordance with\n the Stipulation, the plan of allocation approved by the Court, or further Orders of the Court. Lead Plaintiff, Defendants, and their respective counsel,\n and all other Released Persons, shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the investment or distribution of the Settlement Fund or the\n Net Settlement Fund; the plan of allocation; the determination, administration, calculation, or payment of any Claim or nonperformance of the\n Claims Administrator; the payment or withholding of taxes owed by the Settlement Fund; or any losses incurred in connection therewith.\n\n SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES\n If you hold Applied common stock pursuant to a transaction that took place within the United States within the Class Period as nominee for\na beneficial owner, then you must either: (a) provide to the Claims Administrator the name, last known address, and email address of each beneficial\nowner for whom they are nominee or custodian; (b) request copies of the Postcard Notice for the Claims Administrator sufficient to send to all beneficial\nowners for whom they are nominee or custodian, which will be provided to nominees or custodians free of charge, and WITHIN SEVEN (7)\nCALENDAR DAYS of receipt, mail the Postcard Notice directly to all such persons or entities, or (c) request the link to the Postcard Notice and Proof\nof Claim and Release form from the Claims Administrator, and WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt, email the link directly to all\nbeneficial owners for whom they are nominee or custodian.\n Nominees who elect to follow procedure (b) or (c), MUST send a statement to the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing/emailing\nwas made as directed and keep a record of the names and mailing/emailing addresses used. Upon receipt by the Claims Administrator of proper\ndocumentation, nominees may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred, not to exceed (a) $0.03 per name, mailing address\nand email address (to the extent available) provided to the Claims Administrator; (b) $0.03 per postcard, plus postage at the pre-sort rate used by the\nClaims Administrator, for mailing the Postcard Notice; or (c) $0.03 per email for emailing the Postcard Notice and Proof of Claim and Release. Any\ndisputes with respect to the reasonableness or documentation of expenses incurred shall be subject to review by the Court.\n\n\n\nDATED: December 19, 2025 ___________________________________________________\n BY ORDER OF THE COURT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n Questions? Visit www.APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com\n Email info@APLTSecuritiesSettlement.com or call 1-833-703-4229\n Page 10 of 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:18.492109-07:00","document_number":"130","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127038734790","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Redline of Longform Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-15T15:08:18.476068-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:04.034130-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-15","time_filed":"16:57:33","entry_number":130,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":513,"description":"JOINT LETTER MOTION for Conference or for Approval of Addition to Longform Notice Based on Recent Events addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Joshua Ruthizer dated December 15, 2025. Document filed by Dr. Martin Dietrich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Applied Therapeutics Press Release, # 2 Exhibit Redline of Longform Notice).(Ruthizer, Joshua) (Entered: 12/15/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446691910/","id":446691910,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461423144/","id":461423144,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/128/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-12-09T17:09:51.741913-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:48:12.358731-07:00","sha1":"c914b94cdcefcb3565c7cb5ace118790b8b1f1db","page_count":13,"file_size":74040,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.128.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.128.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 13 1\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n2 ------------------------------x\n\n3 IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS\n SECURITIES LITIGATION.\n4 24 Civ. 9715 (DLC)\n\n5\n Conference\n6\n ------------------------------x\n7 New York, N.Y.\n November 19, 2025\n8 11:00 a.m.\n\n9 Before:\n\n10 HON. DENISE COTE,\n\n11 District Judge\n\n12 APPEARANCES\n\n13 WOLF POPPER LLP\n Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich\n14 BY: JOSHUA W. RUTHIZER\n ROBERT C. FINKEL\n15\n WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP\n16 Attorneys for Defendant Applied Therapeutics, Inc.\n BY: TAMAR B. KAPLAN-MARANS\n17 -and-\n WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR\n18 BY: CHARLES BRIDGE\n\n19 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP\n Attorneys for Defendant Shoshana Shendelman\n20 BY: RACHEL M. FRITZLER\n JULES H. CANTOR\n21\n MCGUIRE WOODS LLP\n22 Attorney for Defendant Riccardo Perfetti\n BY: JEFFREY J. CHAPMAN\n23 LOUIS D. GREENSTEIN\n LAUREN H. MANN\n24\n\n25\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 13 2\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 (Case called)\n\n2 THE COURT: I'll take appearances.\n\n3 Who will be speaking for the lead plaintiff?\n\n4 MR. RUTHIZER: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n5 Joshua Ruthizer on from Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of\n\n6 lead plaintiff Dr. Martin Dietrich and the proposed class.\n\n7 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n8 And who will be speaking for Applied Therapeutics?\n\n9 MS. KAPLAN-MARANS: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n10 This is Tamar Kaplan-Marans, from Wilmer Hale, on\n\n11 behalf of Applied Therapeutics.\n\n12 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n13 And for Defendant Shendelman.\n\n14 MS. FRITZLER: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n15 This is Rachel Fritzler, from Kirkland & Ellis, on\n\n16 behalf of Dr. Shendelman.\n\n17 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n18 And for Defendant Perfetti.\n\n19 MR. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon, your Honor.\n\n20 Jeff Chapman, of McGuire Woods, on behalf of\n\n21 Dr. Perfetti.\n\n22 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n23 Is there anyone else who wishes to make an appearance?\n\n24 Thank you.\n\n25 I have received the proposed papers for the\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 13 3\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 preliminary approval of this class action settlement, and I\n\n2 wanted to review a few items with counsel. Generally things\n\n3 look in good order. Among other things, I reviewed the scope\n\n4 of the release. I have one question about a reference to\n\n5 sanctions there, and we'll get to that in a moment. I reviewed\n\n6 the notice for the class, and I have some minor suggestions or\n\n7 questions that I'll review with the parties in a few moments.\n\n8 I thought about the class period based on what I know about\n\n9 this litigation, and the class period appears to be the right\n\n10 length of time, the right dates for beginning and ending.\n\n11 I have a question about allocation among class\n\n12 members. And let me ask you, Mr. Ruthizer. Is there any basis\n\n13 to distinguish among class members over the course of the\n\n14 roughly 11 months of the class period, in terms of the damages\n\n15 calculation or how any settlement funds should be allocated?\n\n16 MR. RUTHIZER: Your Honor, this is Mr. Ruthizer.\n\n17 As currently drafted, the plaintiff allocation does\n\n18 not differentiate between the class members based upon when\n\n19 they purchased. Given the changes in stock price during the\n\n20 class period, there will be sort of differences in the\n\n21 recognized lost amount based upon when class members purchased\n\n22 during the class period. And the price of the stock did\n\n23 increase more towards the end of the class period.\n\n24 THE COURT: Yes. I saw that that will have an effect\n\n25 on each individual's calculation of the damages. I am not\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 13 4\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 aware of any basis to distinguish among class members, but I\n\n2 wanted to make sure, Mr. Ruthizer, to question you with respect\n\n3 to that issue and whether we need subclasses or different in\n\n4 the allocation formula, anything that would separate class\n\n5 members from each other.\n\n6 MR. RUTHIZER: No, your Honor. I'm not aware of any\n\n7 basis to differentiate between the class members.\n\n8 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n9 There's a proposed schedule for notice, then opt-out\n\n10 periods, and ultimately a fairness hearing, and I'm going to\n\n11 ask counsel to coordinate and make a proposal. I know you need\n\n12 from me the date in which I might preliminarily approve, and so\n\n13 why don't we say that hopefully by this Friday I can get a\n\n14 turnaround on the papers that have been submitted to me and\n\n15 preliminarily approved, and therefore I'd ask plaintiff's\n\n16 counsel to submit a list of proposed dates that will be filled\n\n17 in to the preliminary approval order and in other locations, of\n\n18 course, in the notice, assuming preliminary approval by this\n\n19 Friday, the 21st.\n\n20 Can you do that, Mr. Ruthizer?\n\n21 MR. RUTHIZER: Yes, your Honor.\n\n22 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n23 Can you also send me to my chambers email box a Word\n\n24 version of the order for preliminary approval? I think that\n\n25 will be helpful to me in making some revisions to the proposed\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 13 5\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 order.\n\n2 MR. RUTHIZER: Certainly, your Honor.\n\n3 May I ask two question on that point?\n\n4 THE COURT: Yes.\n\n5 MR. RUTHIZER: First, can you provide me just the\n\n6 proper email address to send it to? And also, would you like\n\n7 us to fill in those proposed dates into the Word version or\n\n8 would you like us to leave those blank for your chambers to\n\n9 fill in?\n\n10 THE COURT: Oh. You could fill in the dates into the\n\n11 Word version you send. That would be very helpful.\n\n12 And you can talk to my law clerk or deputy after this\n\n13 call is over with respect to our email box address.\n\n14 MR. RUTHIZER: Thank you, your Honor.\n\n15 THE COURT: Yes.\n\n16 Let's turn then to the notice and we'll walk through\n\n17 some issues, and again there are only a few.\n\n18 Mr. Ruthizer, is there only one warrant that is being\n\n19 issued in connection with this settlement?\n\n20 MR. RUTHIZER: Your Honor, one form of warrant, one\n\n21 warrant document, but that warrant document is warrants to\n\n22 purchase one million shares. Like, the warrant does not have\n\n23 to be executed in total, it can be executed -- a part of the\n\n24 one million shares could be purchased.\n\n25 THE COURT: Yes.\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 6 of 13 6\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 MR. RUTHIZER: So it's technically warrants to\n\n2 purchase one million shares.\n\n3 THE COURT: Yes, I see that. And I'm on page two of\n\n4 the notice to the class. And it, under the statement of class\n\n5 recovery, about two-thirds down the page, refers to the warrant\n\n6 as a single warrant. And from what I understood, it might be\n\n7 better to describe this as the issuance of warrants to purchase\n\n8 up to one million shares, but I leave that to counsel to\n\n9 discuss with each other. There may be implications here I'm\n\n10 not aware of, whether it's singular or plural.\n\n11 MR. RUTHIZER: Thank you, your Honor.\n\n12 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n13 Let's turn to page three of the proposed notice, and\n\n14 the first full paragraph in the third line there is capitalized\n\n15 term \"recognized claim,\" and I think that should be plural the\n\n16 second time, so it would read to \"the total recognized claims\n\n17 of all class members.\"\n\n18 MR. RUTHIZER: We will make that change.\n\n19 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n20 In the next section, statement of potential outcome of\n\n21 case, strike the first sentence. And the last sentence in that\n\n22 first full paragraph begins with the words \"defendants deny,\"\n\n23 et cetera, and make that the first sentence of the next\n\n24 paragraph, which describes many of the parties' agreements.\n\n25 Minor point, but I don't use the middle initial, and\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 7 of 13 7\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 that pops up at various points.\n\n2 Page four, the bottom half of the page, what is this\n\n3 lawsuit about, section two. I would like counsel to explain in\n\n4 more detail what action the FDA took and the dates of those\n\n5 actions.\n\n6 Towards the bottom of the first paragraph there is a\n\n7 reference to the FDA's discovery of the deletion of clinical\n\n8 trial records, and I think it's important for class members to\n\n9 understand the relationship between this class action and what\n\n10 was publicly disclosed as to the FDA's investigation and its\n\n11 activities.\n\n12 Stay with that same section of the notice, the last\n\n13 line of the first paragraph begins \"undisclosed facts,\" and I\n\n14 think the word \"undisclosed\" should be stricken. There may be\n\n15 some other minor edits. I'll wait for the turnaround on\n\n16 Friday, or Thursday if you can get it to me, with respect to\n\n17 the description about the FDA.\n\n18 Turning to page five, and this is the last paragraph\n\n19 in section two, you can strike that entire paragraph. It's\n\n20 repetition of the defendant's denial, but we've already\n\n21 indicated in an earlier page that the defendants deny\n\n22 wrongdoing.\n\n23 MR. RUTHIZER: Your Honor, this is Mr. Ruthizer.\n\n24 I'd just like to confirm that my notes are correct.\n\n25 It was to strike the entire last paragraph of section two of\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 8 of 13 8\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 the notice on page five of the notice; correct?\n\n2 THE COURT: Yes.\n\n3 MR. RUTHIZER: Thank you, your Honor.\n\n4 THE COURT: The paragraph that begins with the phrase\n\n5 \"defendants deny each and all.\"\n\n6 Okay. Let's turn to page seven, and the first full\n\n7 paragraph there recites something that appears in the\n\n8 settlement agreement, and that is a definition of what are the\n\n9 released claims, and I think it's very important for the notice\n\n10 to include that, and I have only one question, and it's about\n\n11 that reference to claims for sanction, and I don't understand\n\n12 what that is a reference to. I don't think -- I just don't\n\n13 understand.\n\n14 So, Mr. Ruthizer?\n\n15 MR. RUTHIZER: Well, your Honor, that was language\n\n16 that we've included in other agreements, but if it's something\n\n17 that the Court is uncomfortable with, we can take that out.\n\n18 There's been no demand for sanctions by any party in the\n\n19 litigation.\n\n20 THE COURT: Yeah. Unless a class member is going to\n\n21 understand it or it has some legal implication here, which I'm\n\n22 not aware of yet, I don't think it should be part of this.\n\n23 Okay. So that'll be stricken.\n\n24 MR. RUTHIZER: And that's from the definition of the\n\n25 claims. Yes, your Honor.\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 9 of 13 9\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 THE COURT: Okay. So, let's turn to the proposed\n\n2 order. That's all I have on the proposed notice for the class.\n\n3 I will make minor edits as I think appropriate when I\n\n4 have the Word document, but I had a question on page seven,\n\n5 paragraph 13. It says \"all class members shall be bound.\"\n\n6 Well, that's not true if you've opted out, but perhaps you're\n\n7 reading the definition of \"class member\" to exclude those who\n\n8 have opted out.\n\n9 So can you walk me through that, Mr. Ruthizer?\n\n10 MR. RUTHIZER: Yes, your Honor.\n\n11 I'm just confirming the definition of \"class member\"\n\n12 right now. Your Honor, the definition of \"class\" in\n\n13 paragraph 1.8 of the settlement agreement states that \"also\n\n14 excluded from the class is any person who would otherwise be a\n\n15 member of the class but who validly and timely excludes\n\n16 himself, herself, or itself,\" and then it continues,\n\n17 \"therefrom, pursuant to the terms of the stipulation and the\n\n18 preliminary approval order,\" and then class member or member of\n\n19 the class in the next paragraph, 1.9, is defined to be a person\n\n20 who is the member of the class. So, those who opted out would\n\n21 not be included in the definition of \"class.\"\n\n22 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n23 And if you could go to paragraph 28 on page 12 of the\n\n24 proposed order. Can you describe to me how the number of\n\n25 $480,000 was arrived at, and how that works in connection with\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 10 of 13 10\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 the exercise of warrants?\n\n2 MR. RUTHIZER: Certainly, your Honor.\n\n3 The warrant allows for either cash, cash exercise, or\n\n4 cashless exercise. For a cash exercise it's 48 cents per\n\n5 warrant, and there are one million warrants, 48 cents times one\n\n6 million is the 480,000 number.\n\n7 And the reason why we included this was if for some\n\n8 reason there is some sort of corporate action prior to the\n\n9 final approval where there needed to be some sort of cash\n\n10 exercise, that the money would be able to be paid in order to\n\n11 get the profit from the warrant back for the class.\n\n12 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n13 I still don't understand why this is described as a\n\n14 warrant exercise expense of up to $480,000.\n\n15 MR. RUTHIZER: Well, your Honor, the warrant exercise\n\n16 expense is the cost that would need to be paid in order to\n\n17 exercise the warrant. The warrant can be exercised either on a\n\n18 cashless basis where the cost would be netted out or by paying\n\n19 the cash. The warrant exercise expense, I believe, is a\n\n20 defined term in the settlement agreements of the amount of\n\n21 money paid from the settlement fund to exercise the warrants up\n\n22 to a maximum of $480,000. So, if for some reason there needed\n\n23 to be cash to be paid to exercise the warrants, the settlement\n\n24 agreement contemplates that that money would come from the\n\n25 settlement fund under --\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 11 of 13 11\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 THE COURT: I have lost you if you're still speaking.\n\n2 MR. RUTHIZER: I am not still speaking, your Honor. I\n\n3 just mumbled. I apologize.\n\n4 THE COURT: That's okay.\n\n5 So, essentially, this depends upon a class counsel\n\n6 judgment. And I believe under the terms of what you're asking\n\n7 me to approve here, it's your sole judgment, you don't have to\n\n8 come to the Court for approval, as to whether or not it makes\n\n9 financial sense for the class to exercise the warrants, both\n\n10 the time at which the exercise would take place and the\n\n11 expenditure of this sum of money.\n\n12 Do I understand that correctly?\n\n13 MR. RUTHIZER: Yes, your Honor.\n\n14 We drafted the settlement agreement believing that\n\n15 there could be a need to exercise the warrant on an expedited\n\n16 basis and that may not -- while we understand your Honor does\n\n17 work very quickly, that there might be a delay in exercising\n\n18 the warrant if court approval to exercise the warrant was\n\n19 necessary.\n\n20 As I said earlier, the warrant also can be exercised\n\n21 on a cashless basis, and it is -- if it could be exercised on a\n\n22 cashless basis, which would mean that the cost of exercising\n\n23 the warrant would just be subtracted from the number of shares\n\n24 that are paid out upon exercise of the warrant, it would be\n\n25 done that way. However, if for some reason cash did need to be\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 12 of 13 12\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 paid to exercise the warrant, that's where the $480,000 comes\n\n2 in.\n\n3 And yes, the agreement is drafted to give lead counsel\n\n4 that authority to exercise on the timing and the amount of the\n\n5 warrant to exercise.\n\n6 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n7 So I think I've reviewed all the issues that I\n\n8 spotted. I just want to give everyone a chance to raise any\n\n9 other issue with me.\n\n10 Mr. Ruthizer, is there anything else that you felt we\n\n11 should discuss during this conference?\n\n12 MR. RUTHIZER: The only question I had, your Honor,\n\n13 was once these edits are made to the document, per your\n\n14 request, to the notice and the settlement agreement, would you\n\n15 like us to refile those on the docket or would you like us to\n\n16 email them to chambers? What is your preference for those\n\n17 changes?\n\n18 THE COURT: They should be filed on the docket so that\n\n19 everyone has the ability to look at what you're submitting to\n\n20 me, but you should also send me a Word version of the\n\n21 preliminary approval order so that I can revise it as I wish.\n\n22 MR. RUTHIZER: Does your Honor also prefer a red-line\n\n23 showing the changes that have been made? And should we email\n\n24 that or file that on the docket?\n\n25 THE COURT: A red-line would be lovely, and you can\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 128 Filed 12/09/25 Page 13 of 13 13\n PBJEADRC\n\n1 email that.\n\n2 MR. RUTHIZER: Thank you, your Honor.\n\n3 Other than speaking with your clerk to obtain the\n\n4 correct email address, those are all of our questions.\n\n5 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n6 Ms. Kaplan-Marans, anything?\n\n7 MS. KAPLAN-MARANS: No. Thank you, your Honor.\n\n8 THE COURT: Ms. Fritzler?\n\n9 MS. FRITZLER: Nothing from us, your Honor.\n\n10 THE COURT: Mr. Chapman?\n\n11 MR. CHAPMAN: Nothing. Thank you, your Honor.\n\n12 THE COURT: Thank you all. Appreciate it.\n\n13 And have a happy Thanksgiving if we don't need to talk\n\n14 again before that wonderful day arrives.\n\n15 Thanks so much.\n\n16 (Adjourned)\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:21.032402-07:00","document_number":"128","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038701551","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-09T17:09:51.719193-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:03.776758-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-09","time_filed":"18:59:01","entry_number":128,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":509,"description":"TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 11/19/2025 before Judge Denise L. Cote. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carly Davis, (212) 805-0320. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/30/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/9/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2026.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-09715-DLC, 1:24-cv-09973-DLC.(Moya, Goretti) (Entered: 12/09/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446691906/","id":446691906,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461423140/","id":461423140,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69475190/129/in-re-applied-therapeutics-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-12-09T17:09:51.229943-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T07:47:28.129211-07:00","sha1":"dde5572beec2e84b3f8296bd4d3ba0037a106475","page_count":1,"file_size":409766,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.129.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671/gov.uscourts.nysd.633671.129.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:24-cv-09715-DLC Document 129 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION.\n )\n ______________________________________ )\n USA / Plaintiff(s) )\n )\n v. ) 24 Civ. 9715\n Case No.: _________________________\n )\n )\n ______________________________________ )\n Defendant(s) )\n )\n )\n\n\n NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT\n\n CONFERENCE November 19, 2025\n Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ________________ held on __________________\nhas been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.\n\n Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting\nthe transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.\n\n The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court\nany NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also\nbe served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically\navailable to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.\n\n This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security\n numbers; dates of birth; minors\u2019 names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information\n may proceed by motion.\n\n I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-\nentitled matter.\n\n\n_________________________ _________________________\nCourt Reporter/Transcriber Date\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-19T12:34:21.356809-07:00","document_number":"129","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038701560","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-09T17:09:51.199285-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:03.918578-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-09","time_filed":"19:00:12","entry_number":129,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":511,"description":"NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 11/19/2025 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...Filed In Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-09715-DLC, 1:24-cv-09973-DLC.(Moya, Goretti) (Entered: 12/09/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444905543/","id":444905543,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69475190/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459585793/","id":459585793,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-20T23:22:14.524649-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:03.741564-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-20T23:22:14.470386-08:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T09:26:03.697889-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-20.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 3/19/2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Denise L. Cote. (rro)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69475190&page_size=40"}