{"cached_at":"2026-11-02T11:48:51.760927+00:00","cl_docket_id":"63219959","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","id":63219959,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nvd/","court_id":"nvd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/338/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9410/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-04-07T09:09:48.101568-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:52:01.962561-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Richard F. Boulware II","referred_to_str":"Nancy J. Koppe","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2023-09-17T20:18:41.820603-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2022-02-18","date_terminated":"2022-11-23","date_last_filing":"2022-11-23","case_name_short":"Bernard","case_name":"Bernard v. Theil","case_name_full":"","slug":"bernard-v-theil","docket_number":"2:22-cv-00305","docket_number_core":"2200305","docket_number_raw":"2:22-cv-00305","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"RFB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"NJK","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"154891","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"160 Stockholders Suits","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2022-04-07T09:09:48.098036-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717507/","id":11717507,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Nominal Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"formerly known as\nMarathon Patent Group, INC.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.439050-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.439062-07:00","name":"Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717506/","id":11717506,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.391377-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.391389-07:00","name":"Simeon Salzman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717505/","id":11717505,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.319376-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.319388-07:00","name":"Merrick D. Okamoto","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717504/","id":11717504,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.246778-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.246792-07:00","name":"Said Ouissal","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717503/","id":11717503,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.199292-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.199303-07:00","name":"Jay Leupp","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717502/","id":11717502,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.128376-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.128388-07:00","name":"Sarita James","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717501/","id":11717501,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.080840-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.080851-07:00","name":"Kevin Denuccio","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717500/","id":11717500,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.032425-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:24.032437-07:00","name":"Georges Antoun","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717499/","id":11717499,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760964/","attorney_id":7760964,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760965/","attorney_id":7760965,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760966/","attorney_id":7760966,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760967/","attorney_id":7760967,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760968/","attorney_id":7760968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760969/","attorney_id":7760969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.870619-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.870636-07:00","name":"Fred Theil","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717498/","id":11717498,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760962/","attorney_id":7760962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760962/","attorney_id":7760962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8070663/","attorney_id":8070663,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8070663/","attorney_id":8070663,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760963/","attorney_id":7760963,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760963/","attorney_id":7760963,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.802037-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.802050-07:00","name":"Roy Strassman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11717497/","id":11717497,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8070663/","attorney_id":8070663,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760960/","attorney_id":7760960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760960/","attorney_id":7760960,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7760961/","attorney_id":7760961,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","docket_id":63219959,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"on behalf of\nMarathon Digital Holdings, INC.\nformerly known as\nMarathon Patent Group, INC.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.643565-07:00","date_modified":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.643577-07:00","name":"Kimberly Bernard","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/215698554/","id":215698554,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371982634/","id":371982634,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-09-17T20:18:40.803459-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.934593-07:00","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":"Terminated Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-01-05T12:04:00.128763-08:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.926066-07:00","date_filed":"2022-11-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-11-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Civil Case Terminated per 50 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (KF)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/215698553/","id":215698553,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/221701381/","id":221701381,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/50/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2023-01-05T12:04:00.122313-08:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:52:01.858887-07:00","sha1":"f09ec5868a4a7ca9622dda9174265d94743bab03","page_count":3,"file_size":99443,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.50.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.50.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 50 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n Nevada Bar No. 4746\n 2 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 432 Ridge Street\n 3 Reno, NV 89501\n (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 5 [Additional Co-counsel on signature page]\n 6\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n 7\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 8\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n 9\n10 In Re: Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. Lead Case No. 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NUK\n11 Stockholder Derivative Litigation Consolidated With Case No.:\n12 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n\n13 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY\n DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE\n14\n15\n16 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n17 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Kimberly Bernard and Roy Strassman (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), hereby\n\n18 voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned action, without prejudice. As grounds thereof,\n\n19 Plaintiffs state that no opposing party has either served an answer or a motion for summary\n\n20 judgment. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel has or will take anything from the dismissal of\n\n21 this action without prejudice.\n\n22 Dated: November 22, 2022\n\n23 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n\n24\n /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n25 Matthew L. Sharp\n Nevada Bar No. 4746\n26 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n27 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n matt@mattsharplaw.com\n28\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 50 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.\n Admitted Pro Hac Vice\n 2 GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n 3 New York, New York 10017\n Phone: (212) 983-1300\n 4 Fax: (212) 983-0383\n Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com\n 5\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n 6\n 7\n ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n 8 & ALBRIGHT\n\n 9\n /s/ G. Mark Albright\n10 G. Mark Albright, Bar No. 1394\n Daniel R. Ormsby, Bar No. 14595\n11 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89106\n12\n Telephone: (702) 384-7111\n13 gma@albrightstoddard.com\n dormsby@albrightstoddard.com\n14\n15 Mark C. Rifkin\n WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n16 FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n17 New York, New York 10016\n18 Telephone: (212) 545-4600\n rifkin@whafh.com\n19\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Strassman\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 50 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using\n 4 the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.: Jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n 8 Stephen A. Radin, Esq.: Stephen.radin@weil.com\n 9 Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n10 DATED this 22nd day of November 2022.\n11\n12 /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-06-23T03:52:01.855031-07:00","document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509733668","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-01-05T12:04:00.115110-08:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.897153-07:00","date_filed":"2022-11-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-11-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":235,"description":"NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. . (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 11/22/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563206/","id":199563206,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292052/","id":205292052,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/49/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.627856-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.883808-07:00","sha1":"626570b7a5e6b5345ae9145a9b780a52abe851ca","page_count":2,"file_size":62275,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.49.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.49.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"|\n\ni\n\nCase 2:22-cv}00305-RFB-NJK Document 49 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 2\n\nioe sa seu is\n\nBC: 89101706934\n\n~ \u2014 ao \u2014 7 ws \u2014_\u2014\n. TN ee\nCLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT : quadient\nDISTRICT OF NEVADA ~ FIRST-CLASS MAIL\nLLOYD D. GEORGE U.S. COURTHOUSE a FLED PaCENED : # 32\n333 LAS VEGAS BLVD. SO. \u2014 RM 1334 __ __ENTEP ) SERVED ON 000.7 >\nLAS VEGAS, NV 89101 err mADTEe ne men 2 ZIP 89101\nVEGAS, NV 8 COU ELPARTIES OF RECORD O4M17\nOFFICIAL BUSINESS iy ~ oe \\ \\ 043M31229339\nSTH JUN 27 2022 |\nyy reteRK US bisTRICT COURT\nFRICT OF NEVADA\n+ (BY: DEPUTY\nFT =~ TT \u2014\u2122\n| wexre 171 FEL 9886/22/22\n| mae Rifkin | NOT D EL TVER ABLE ee. ODD RESSED\nLancaster Avenue E\nLes Haverford PA 19044. UNASLE TO FORWARD\n\n*9914-00298-13-46\nLEE eR UU Ue getpeg UA PPR ef LENE fof pt bace eT tfy ag ype\n\nUS POSTAGE ,\n\n\u2018\n\n\fCMIECF - nvd - District dgtsign$33.cy-00305-RFB-NJK Document 49bpsidey derasresion/qeighje/Bisgatch.pl?217963436664284\n\nJudgments, Minute Orders/Orders & Writs\n\n2:22-Cv-00305-RFB-NJK Bernard\nv. Theil et al\n\nCONSOL\n\nUnited States District Court\nDistrict of Nevada\n\nNotice of Electronic Filing\n\nThe following transaction was entered on 6/13/2022 at 2:17 PM PDT and filed on 6/13/2022\n\nCase Name: Bernard v. Theil et al\nCase Number: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\nFiler:\n\nDocument Number: 47\nDocket Text: .\nORDER Granting [46] Stipulation Resolving Pending Motions and Setting Schedule for Filing\nConsolidated Complaint and Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint. See Order for\n\nfurther details. Signed by Judge Richard F, Boulware, II on 6/13/2022. (Copies have been\ndistributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)\n\n2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 nS\n\nMark-Albright * gitia@albrightstoddard. com, abrebbia@albrightstoddard. com, cgrey@albrightstoddard.com,\ndormsby @albrightstoddard.com, icrosby @albrightstoddard. com, jalvarez@albrightstoddard. com\n\nJames J. Pisanelli lit@pisanellibice.com, kap@pisanellibice.com\nMatthew L. Sharp matt@mattsharplaw.com, cristin@mattsharplaw.com, suzy@mattsharplaw.com\n\nDebra Spinelli DLS@pisanellibice.com, cct@pisanellibice.com, kap@pisanellibice.com,\nlit@pisanellibice.com, sd@pisanellibice.com\n\nThomas J. McKenna \u2014 tjmlaw2001@yahoo.com, gmelawny@gmail.com, timckenna@gme-law.com\nMaria M Mercera mmm@pisanellibice.com, cct@pisanellibice.com, lit@pisanellibice.com\n\nDaniel Reed Ormsby dormsby@albrightstoddard.com, abrebbia@albrightstoddard.com,\ncgrey@albrightstoddard. com, gma@albrightstoddard.co com, icrosby @albrightstoddard.c com, .\nkmonks@albrightstoddard.com 7\nJonathan D. Polkes jonathan.polkes@weil.com, amanda.pooler@weil.com, dylan.ruffi@weil.com,\nelizabeth.kerwin-miller@weil.com, jonathan-polkes-2906@ecf.pacerpro.com, mco.ecf@weil.com,\n\nseth.massey@vweil.com\n\nCaroline Hickey Zalka _caroline.zalka@weil.com\n\n1 of 2 6/13/2022, 2:17 PM\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:56:46.087784-07:00","document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509509257","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Mail Returned","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.620000-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.873044-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":227,"description":"Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 47 Order, addressed to Mark C Rifkin. (KF) (Entered: 06/27/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563205/","id":199563205,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292051/","id":205292051,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/48/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.613260-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.859678-07:00","sha1":"69803cde5a8e8ae3f2f656c7218081df466391f7","page_count":2,"file_size":67451,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.48.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.48.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 48 Fifecd06/13/22\u2014Page 1 of 2\n\n: ue PPBCST\u2014-TEOSt\nANT UUIPPRE TEU EEL pty heady i to at taf 698 Z L. = =e\ndYVMYO 4 .\nqassaudaay. sv LVO6L Vd \u2018ploysaeyy\nMSONES\n\nSNusAy Jajseouey A, Pre\n\n22/30/9000 7\u201c UBYRY \u201cD Wey\n\njuaponb JURA HALe GS. AN SVDSA SVT\n\n* ne &\nCoun \u00a3 | WO | \u201cVow\nb.- 3\nPAA IA ae titimenc Ud\nGudede $0 Osu sees ng\nS __eecezziewev0 NOG3AN3S\" \"ayn \u201csec\n\u00ae \\o168 diz ZZ0z/10/90 G3N39 3\n; 34 \u2014 LOL68 AN \u2018SVOFA SV71\n9 3 \u20acsg 000$ Bs iW ond } PEEL WY \"OS \u2018CATE SVSSASV1EECE\n. oh elt d: J ne . . . .\nm\n\nLYHNOD LIILSIa *s'n \u2018MYa1D\n\nEe\n\n\fCM/ECF - nvd - DistricVgtsion 6353 cy-00305-RFB-NJK Document 48 htBawave@hESyRden/Peihie/Digfafh.pl?132091091711546\n\nJudgments, Minute Orders/Orders & Writs\n2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Bernard v. Theil et al\n\nUnited States District Court\nDistrict of Nevada\n\nNotice of Electronic Filing\n\nThe following transaction was entered on 6/1/2022 at 9:17 AM PDT and filed on 5/25/2022\n\nCase Name: Bernard v. Theil et al\nCase Number: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\nFiler:\n\nDocument Number: 41\n\nDocket Text:\n\nORDER to Consolidate Cases. It is ORDERED that 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY is consolidated\nunder 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Case No. 2:22-cv-00724-\nART-EJY is reassigned to District Judge Richard F. Boulware, Il, and Magistrate Judge Nancy\nJ. Koppe, and all future pleadings must bear case number 2:22-cv-00305- RFB-NJK. Signed by\nJudge Richard F. Boulware, II and Anne R. Traum on 5/25/2022. (Copies have been distributed\npursuant to the NEF - KF)\n\n2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Notice has been electronically mailed to:\n\nMark Albright \u201cgma@albrightstoddard.com, abrebbia@albrightstoddard.com, cgrey@albrightstoddard.com,\ndormsby @albrightstoddard.com; icrosby@albrightstoddard.com, jalvarez@albrightstoddard.com\n\nJames J. Pisanelli _lit@pisanellibice.com, kap@pisanellibice.com\nMatthew L. Sharp matt@mattsharplaw.com, cristin@mattsharplaw.com, suzy@mattsharplaw.com\n\nDebra Spinelli DLS@pisanellibice.com, cct@pisanellibice.com, kap@pisanellibice.com,\nlit@pisanellibice.com, sd@pisanellibice.com\n\nMaria M Mercera mmm@pisanellibice.com, cct@pisanellibice.com, lit@pisanellibice.com\nDaniel Reed Ormsby dormsby@albrightstoddard.com, abrebbia@albrightstoddard.com,\negrey@albrightstoddard.com, gma@albrightstoddard.com, icrosby@albrightstoddard.com,\nkmonks@albrightstoddard.com\n\nJonathan D. Polkes jonathan.polkes@weil.com, amanda.pooler@weil.com, dylan.ruffi@weil.com,\nelizab\u00e9th:kerwin-miller@weil.com, jonathan-polkes-2906@ecf.pacerpro.com, mco.ecf@weil.com,. .\n\n7 eee\n\nseth.massey@weil.com tah,\n\nCaroline Hickey Zalka _ caroline.zalka@weil.com\nStephen A. Radin \u2014 stephen.radin@weil.com, mco.ecf@weil.com, stephen-radin-3209@ecf.pacerpro.com\n2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Notice has been delivered by other means to:\n\n1 of 2 6/1/2022, 9:17 AM\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:56:31.601560-07:00","document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509490985","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Mail Returned","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.605230-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.848872-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":221,"description":"Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 41 Order to Consolidate Cases, addressed to Mark C. Rifkin. (KF) (Entered: 06/13/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563204/","id":199563204,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292050/","id":205292050,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/46/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.582800-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.794395-07:00","sha1":"0ee114bfd68bd674faab7543423b0ef4fa21b746","page_count":5,"file_size":44772,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.46.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 46 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 4 Telephone: 702.214.2100\n Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n 5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 9 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 10 Telephone: 212.310.8770\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n 11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n 12 Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n 14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n 15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n 18 Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n 19 PATENT GROUP, INC.), STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]\n ORDER RESOLVING PENDING\n 20 Plaintiff, MOTIONS AND SETTING SCHEDULE\n v. FOR FILING CONSOLIDATED\n 21 COMPLAINT AND MOTIONS TO\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN DISMISS CONSOLIDATED\n 22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, COMPLAINT\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n 23 and SIMEON SALZMAN, (First Request)\n 24 Defendants,\n -and-\n 25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 26 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 27 Nominal\n Defendant.\n 28\n\n 1\n WEIL:\\98664780\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 46 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-RFB-NJK\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 3 Plaintiff,\n v.\n 4\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n 6 and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7 Defendants,\n 8 -and-\n 9 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 10\n Nominal\n 11 Defendant.\n 12 WHEREAS on February 18, 2022, Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard commenced Action\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 No. 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK (the \u201cBernard Action\u201d) (Bernard ECF No. 1);\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 WHEREAS on April 4, 2022, Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin DeNuccio,\n 15 Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred Thiel,\n 16 and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (\u201cMarathon\u201d) moved to dismiss the\n 17 Bernard Action (Bernard ECF No. 11);\n 18 WHEREAS on April 11, 2022, the parties agreed to a May 31, 2022 due date for\n 19 plaintiff\u2019s opposition, and on April 18, 2022, the Court so-ordered the schedule (Bernard ECF\n 20 Nos. 18, 26);\n 21 WHEREAS on May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Roy Strassman commenced Action No. 2:22-\n 22 cv-00724-RFB-NJK (the \u201cStrassman Action\u201d) (Strassman ECF No. 1);\n 23 WHEREAS on May 11, 2022, Defendants and Marathon moved to dismiss the\n 24 Strassman Action (Strassman ECF No. 11);\n 25 WHEREAS on May 18, 2022, Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel informed counsel for Defendants\n 26 and Marathon that Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated complaint;\n 27 WHEREAS on May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the Bernard\n 28 and Strassman Actions, to appoint their counsel, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP\n\n 2\n WEIL:\\98664780\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 46 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n 1 and Gainey McKenna & Egleston, as co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs, and to stay briefing on motions\n\n 2 to dismiss pending consolidation of the Bernard and Strassman Actions, as more specifically\n\n 3 stated in the motions and briefing on the motions (Bernard ECF Nos. 34\u201336; Strassman ECF Nos.\n\n 4 19\u201321);\n\n 5 WHEREAS on May 27, 2022, Defendants and Marathon filed their response to\n\n 6 Plaintiffs\u2019 motions, stating their willingness to stipulate to consolidation and the requested lead\n\n 7 plaintiff designation and opposing an indefinite stay of briefing, as more specifically stated in\n\n 8 Defendants\u2019 and Marathon\u2019s papers (Bernard ECF Nos. 37\u201340; Strassman ECF Nos. 25\u201327);\n\n 9 WHEREAS on June 1, 2022, the Court entered an Order consolidating the Bernard\n\n 10 and Strassman Actions (Bernard ECF No. 41; Strassman ECF No. 29);\n\n 11 WHEREAS on June 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed reply papers responding to\n\n 12 Defendants\u2019 and Marathon\u2019s response to Plaintiffs\u2019 May 23, 2022 motions (Bernard ECF No. 42).\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 WHEREAS the parties have discussed scheduling in light of the procedural posture\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 of the action and the positions the parties have stated in their motion papers;\n\n 15 WHEREAS the parties have agreed to the following resolution of their disputes\n\n 16 concerning deadlines for filing a consolidated complaint and answers or motions to dismiss the\n\n 17 consolidated complaint;\n\n 18 WHEREAS this is the parties\u2019 first request for relief resolving pending motions and\n\n 19 to set a schedule for proceedings in this action in light of the Court\u2019s consolidation of these actions\n\n 20 on June 1, 2022;\n\n 21 WHEREAS this Stipulation is made in good faith, with good cause, and not for\n\n 22 purposes of unduly delaying discovery or trial;\n\n 23 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned\n\n 24 counsel for the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that:\n\n 25 1. All pending motions (Bernard ECF Nos. 11, 34\u201336; Strassman ECF Nos. 11, 19\u201320) are\n\n 26 withdrawn without prejudice.\n\n 27 2. The law firms Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Gainey McKenna &\n\n 28 Egleston are designated co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs.\n\n 3\n WEIL:\\98664780\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 46 Filed 06/10/22 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n 1 3. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a consolidated complaint 30 days after an amended\n\n 2 complaint is filed in Schlatre v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc., 2:21-cv-02209-RFB-NJK\n\n 3 (D. Nev.).\n\n 4 4. Answers or motions to dismiss are due 30 days after the consolidated complaint is filed.\n\n 5 5. If motions to dismiss are filed, opposition to the motions to dismiss is due 30 days after\n\n 6 they are filed.\n\n 7 6. If motions to dismiss are filed, replies are due 21 days after any opposition.\n\n 8 ///\n\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n 4\n WEIL:\\98664780\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 46 Filed 06/10/22 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n 1 Dated this 10th day of June 2022. Dated this 10th day of June 2022.\n 2 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3\n By: /s/ Matthew L. Sharp By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera\n 4 Matthew L. Sharp, Bar No. 4746 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n 432 Ridge Street Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 5 Reno, Nevada 89501 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n Telephone: 775.324.1500 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n 6 Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 7 Thomas J. McKenna Jonathan D. Polkes\n Gregory M. Egleston (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Stephen A. Radin\n 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor (admitted pro hac vice)\n 9 New York, New York 10017 Caroline Hickey Zalka\n Telephone: 212.983.1300 (admitted pro hac vice)\n 10 Facsimile: 212.983.0383 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com 767 Fifth Avenue\n 11 Email: gegleston@gme-law.com New York, New York 10153\n 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 G. Mark Albright, Bar No. 1394 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Daniel R. Ormsby, Bar No. 14595 Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal\n 14 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n & ALBRIGHT\n 15 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89106\n 16 Telephone: (702) 384-7111\n Email: gma@albrightstoddard.com\n 17 Email: dormsby@albrightstoddard.com\n 18 Mark C. Rifkin\n WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n 19 FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n 20 New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 545-4600\n 21 Email: rifkin@whafh.com\n 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff Roy Strassman\n 23 ORDER\n 24 Having considered the Parties' Stipulation and finding good cause appearing,\n 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n 27 DATED:\n 28 Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n\n 5\n WEIL:\\98664780\\1\\61707.0006\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:56:16.805423-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509489311","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.575215-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.778520-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":212,"description":"STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Resolving Pending Motions and Setting Schedule for Filing Consolidated Complaint and Motions to Dismiss Consolidate Complaint (First Request) by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 06/10/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563203/","id":199563203,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292049/","id":205292049,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/44/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.552190-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.739919-07:00","sha1":"796df5f511a273347db3f96000569985e55c434c","page_count":3,"file_size":97899,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 44 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n Nevada Bar No. 4746\n 2 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 432 Ridge Street\n 3 Reno, NV 89501\n (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 5 [Additional Co-counsel on signature page]\n 6\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n 7\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 8\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n 9\n Lead Case No. 2:22-cv-00305RFB-NUK\n10 IN RE: MARATHON DIGITAL\n HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER Consolidated With Case No.:\n11 DERIVATIVE LITIGATION\n 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n12\n13 NOTICE OF NON-PARTICIPATION OF GREGORY M. EGLESTON, ESQ.\n\n14 Notice is hereby given that at this time, Gregory M. Egleston, of GAINEY McKENNA &\n\n15 EGLESTON, will not be appearing as counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this matter. Mr.\n\n16 Egleston\u2019s partner, Thomas J. McKenna, will be appearing as counsel in his place and having filed\n\n17 his Verified Petition for Permission To Practice In This Case contemporaneously herewith.\n\n18 ///\n\n19 ///\n\n20 ///\n\n21 ///\n\n22 ///\n\n23 ///\n\n24 ///\n\n25 ///\n\n26 ///\n\n27 ///\n\n28 ///\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF NON-PARTICIPATION OF GREGORY M. EGLESTON, ESQ.\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 44 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Gregory M. Egleston respectfully requests this court remove him as a participant in the\n 2 case. Should events dictate the necessity of Mr. Egleston\u2019s participation, he will file his Verified\n 3 Petition for Permission to Practice at that time.\n 4 DATED this 8th day of June 2022.\n 5\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 6\n 7 /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n Matthew L. Sharp\n 8 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n 432 Ridge Street\n 9 Reno, NV 89501\n Phone: (775) 324-1500\n10 Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n11 Thomas J. McKenna\n GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n12 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n New York, New York 10017\n13 Phone: (212) 983-1300\n14 Fax: (212) 983-0383\n Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com\n15\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n NOTICE OF NON-PARTICIPATION OF GREGORY M. EGLESTON, ESQ.\n -2-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 44 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using\n\n 4 the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n\n 7 DATED this 8th day of June 2022.\n\n 8\n /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n 9 An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n VERIFIED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT\n -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:55:46.464105-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509485369","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.544762-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.729604-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-08.002","pacer_sequence_number":207,"description":"NOTICE OF NON-PARTICIPATION OF GREGORY M. EGLESTON, ESQ. by Kimberly Bernard. (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563202/","id":199563202,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292048/","id":205292048,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/43/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.537205-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.717093-07:00","sha1":"a2482b9c9eace9468fabf7a6266c290dbbea0f78","page_count":6,"file_size":395719,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.43.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.43.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n 7\n 8 KIMBERLY BERNARD ) Case #_______________________\n 2:22-cv-00305\n )\n 9 )\n ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR\n10 Plaintiff(s), ) PERMISSION TO PRACTICE\n ) IN THIS CASE ONLY BY\n11 vs. ) ATTORNEY NOT ADMITTED\n FRED THEIL, ET AL. ) TO THE BAR OF THIS COURT\n12 ) AND DESIGNATION OF\n ) LOCAL COUNSEL\n13 )\n Defendant(s). )\n14 ____________________________________) FILING FEE IS $250.00\n15\n16 Thomas J. McKenna\n ____________________________, Petitioner, respectfully represents to the Court:\n (name of petitioner)\n17\n 1. That Petitioner is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of\n18\n _______________________________________________________________________________\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston\n19 (firm name)\n\n20 with offices at __________________________________________________________________,\n 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n (street address)\n21\n ____________________________________,\n New York ____________________________,\n New York ____________,\n 10017\n22 (city) (state) (zip code)\n\n23 ____________________ tjmckenna@gme-law.com\n 212-983-1300 _________, __________________________________.\n (area code + telephone number) (Email address)\n24\n 2. That Petitioner has been retained personally or as a member of the law firm by\n25\n _______________________________________\n Kimberly Bernard to provide legal representation in connection with\n26 [client(s)]\n\n27 the above-entitled case now pending before this Court.\n\n28 Rev. 5/16\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n 1 3. August 27, 1985\n That since _______________________, Petitioner has been and presently is a\n (date)\n 2 member in good standing of the bar of the highest Court of the State of ______________________\n New York\n (state)\n 3 where Petitioner regularly practices law. Petitioner shall attach a certificate from the state bar or\n 4 from the clerk of the supreme court or highest admitting court of each state, territory, or insular\n 5 possession of the United States in which the applicant has been admitted to practice law certifying\n 6 the applicant's membership therein is in good standing.\n 7 4. That Petitioner was admitted to practice before the following United States District\n 8 Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States and Courts\n 9 of other States on the dates indicated for each, and that Petitioner is presently a member in good\n10 standing of the bars of said Courts.\n11 Court Date Admitted Bar Number\n12 _________________________________________\n New York State Courts -- All 08/27/1985\n _________________ 2009546\n ___________________\n13 _________________________________________\n Eastern and Southern District of New York 10/28/1986\n _________________ ___________________\n 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 10/25/2010\n14 _________________________________________ _________________ ___________________\n15 5th Circuit Court of Appeals\n _________________________________________ 05/14/2012\n _________________ ___________________\n16 6th Circuit Court of Appeals\n _________________________________________ 06/23/2011\n _________________ ___________________\n 11th Circuit Court of Appeals 08/02/2010\n17 _________________________________________ _________________ ___________________\n18 Supreme Court of the United States\n _________________________________________ 03/04/2014\n _________________ ___________________\n19\n 5. That there are or have been no disciplinary proceedings instituted against petitioner,\n20\n nor any suspension of any license, certificate or privilege to appear before any judicial, regulatory\n21\n or administrative body, or any resignation or termination in order to avoid disciplinary or\n22\n disbarment proceedings, except as described in detail below:\n23\n None\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28 22 Rev. 5/16\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n 1 6. That Petitioner has never been denied admission to the State Bar of Nevada. (Give\n 2 particulars if ever denied admission):\n 3 None\n 4\n 5\n 6 7. That Petitioner is a member of good standing in the following Bar Associations.\n 7 New York\n 8\n 9\n10 8. Petitioner has filed application(s) to appear as counsel under Local Rule IA 11-2\n11 (formerly LR IA 10-2) during the past three (3) years in the following matters: (State \"none\" if no applications.)\n\n12 Date of Application Cause Title of Court Was Application\n Administrative Body Granted or\n13 or Arbitrator Denied\n\n14 None\n ___________________ __________________ _________________________ _______________\n15 ___________________ __________________ _________________________ _______________\n16 ___________________ __________________ _________________________ _______________\n17 ___________________ __________________ _________________________ _______________\n18 ___________________ __________________ _________________________ _______________\n19 (If necessary, please attach a statement of additional applications)\n20 9. Petitioner consents to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of the\n21 State of Nevada with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same\n22 extent as a member of the State Bar of Nevada.\n23 10. Petitioner agrees to comply with the standards of professional conduct required of\n24 the members of the bar of this court.\n25 11. Petitioner has disclosed in writing to the client that the applicant is not admitted to\n26 practice in this jurisdiction and that the client has consented to such representation.\n27\n28 33 Rev. 5/16\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 4 of 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 5 of 6\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 43 Filed 06/08/22 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\n Appellate Division of the Supreme Court\n of the State of New York\n Third Judicial Department\n\n\n I, Robert D. Mayberger, Clerk of the Appellate Division of\nthe Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Judicial\nDepartment, do hereby certify that\n\n Thomas James Mckenna\nwas duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and\nCounselor at Law in all the courts of this State on August 27, 1985,\nhas duly taken and subscribed the oath of office prescribed by law,\nhas been enrolled in the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors at Law\non file in this office, is duly registered with the Administration\nOffice of the Courts, and according to the records of this Court is\ncurrently in good standing as an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law.\n\n\n\n In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set\n my hand in the City of Albany on June\n 8, 2022.\n\n\n\n\n Clerk of the Court\n\n\nCertID-00070130\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:55:33.882614-07:00","document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509485349","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.529097-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.705331-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":205,"description":"MOTION/VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Thomas J. McKenna and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Matthew L. Sharp (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number ANVDC-6932642) by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563201/","id":199563201,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292047/","id":205292047,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/42/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.522446-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.692159-07:00","sha1":"bf0a87beeda2c0a4c7bd5e31afe61ed5c9d54f4f","page_count":11,"file_size":281279,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.42.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.42.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n 1 G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 2 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 3 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 4 (702) 384-7111\n\n 5 [Proposed] Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n 6 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE\n 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n 9 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of\n10 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n11 Plaintiff,\n v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY\n12\n TO DEFENDANT\u2019S RESPONSE TO\n13 FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN MOTION (ECF NOS. 34, 35, AND 36)\n DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n14 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY\n SIMEON SALZMAN, STAY MAY 31, 2022 DEADLINE TO\n15 RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO\n -and-\n16 DISMISS.\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDING, INC. (f/k/a\n17 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n18 Defendants\n\n19\n Additional caption on next Page\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n Plaintiff,\n 3\n v.\n 4\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n 6 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7\n Defendants,\n 8\n -and-\n 9 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n10 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n11 Nominal Defendant\n\n12 Plaintiffs Kimberly Bernard and Roy Strassman (collectively, the \u201cConsolidated Plaintiffs\u201d)\n13 respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Reply to Defendant\u2019s Response To Motion\n14 (ECF Nos. 34, 35, and 36) To Consolidate, Appoint Lead Counsel, And Indefinitely Stay May 31,\n15 2022 Deadline To Respond To Motions To Dismiss (\u201cOpp.).\n16 I. INTRODUCTION\n17 This Court has now consolidated the two actions, see ECF 41 in Bernard and ECF 29 in\n18 Strassman. Thus, this branch of the instant motion has been resolved.\n19 As to the second branch of the motion for appointment of interim co-lead counsel,\n20 Defendants have no objection to said relief. See Opp, p. 5 at ECF 37. The third branch of the instant\n21 motion still needs to be resolved. The interim stay requested by Plaintiff, the third branch of the\n22 motion, should be granted for the reasons set forth in the opening papers and below.\n23 II. ARGUMENT\n24 This consolidated derivative action is based on a similar set of facts as the related securities\n25 class action pending before this Court, captioned Tad Schlatre v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n26 f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc., Merrick D. Okamoto, Frederick G. Thiel, and Simeon Salzman,\n27 Case No. 2:21-cv-2209-RFB-NJK (\u201cSecurities Class Action\u201d). Motions for appointment of lead\n28 ///\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n 1 counsel are fully briefed and pending before this Court. Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, that lead\n\n 2 plaintiff will file an amended complaint and the defendants will likely move to dismiss.\n\n 3 Though this consolidated Derivative Action and the Securities Class Action both concern\n\n 4 related parties and misconduct, the interests of the plaintiffs in the Derivative Action and Securities\n\n 5 Class Action are very different, and the actions involve distinct legal claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs\n\n 6 believe coordination of both actions is warranted and in the interest of judicial economy.\n\n 7 The Securities Class Action alleges violations of the federal securities laws against, among\n\n 8 others, Marathon, whereas the Derivative Action asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Marathon.\n\n 9 The Securities Class Action involves direct claims against the Company for damaging shareholders\n\n10 because of allegedly false and misleading statements about Marathon\u2019s business operations and\n\n11 prospects made in investor presentations, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission\n\n12 (\u201cSEC\u201d), and in press releases. The Derivative Action alleges that certain Company directors and\n\n13 officers, most of whom are not named in the Securities Class Action, breached their fiduciary duties\n\n14 to the Company by, inter alia, making and/or allowing the Company to make substantially similar\n\n15 statements to investors as those alleged in the Securities Class Action, and engaged in other\n\n16 misconduct in connection with the above and the Company\u2019s conduct of its business. Because of\n\n17 the distinct nature of the claims asserted in derivative and securities actions, the different individual\n\n18 defendants named in the actions, and the potential conflicts between the securities and derivative\n\n19 claims, courts often take the more common approach of allowing related securities and derivative\n\n20 actions to proceed sequentially. See In re Bear Systems Cos. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., No.\n\n21 08 M.D.L. 1963 (RWS), 2009 WL 50132, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009). Moreover, any recovery\n\n22 that may be awarded in a derivative action is for the company on whose behalf the action is brought\n\n23 as opposed to the shareholders of that company.\n\n24 However, courts often coordinate the proceedings in a derivative action with a related\n\n25 securities class action. Generally, a securities class action proceeds ahead of a related derivative\n\n26 action because significant claims related to liability and damages alleged in the derivative action(s)\n\n27 depend upon the proceedings and allegations in the securities class action. In these circumstances,\n\n28 \u201cthe sensible ordering of events is for the \u2026 [securities class] [a]ction to proceed first.\u201d In re\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n 1 Groupon Derivative Litig., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1049 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks\n\n 2 to file an amended complaint after an amended complaint is filed in the Securities Class Action.\n\n 3 For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (i) vacate the current\n\n 4 deadlines for Plaintiffs to respond to the pending motions to dismiss in each action; (ii) temporarily\n\n 5 stay this consolidated action to allow Plaintiff to leave to file a consolidated complaint within thirty\n\n 6 (30) days after the amended complaint is filed in the Securities Class Action and/or temporarily stay\n\n 7 this action until the motion to dismiss is decided in the Securities Class Action; and (iii) in order to\n\n 8 conserve resources of the Court and the parties, issue an order setting a new deadline for Defendants\n\n 9 to respond only to the amended complaint Plaintiff intends to file in the Derivative Action.\n\n10 A. This Action Should Be Temporarily Stayed\n\n11 This court has complete discretion to grant a motion to stay an action within its jurisdiction.\n\n12 Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong, 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (stating \u201c[t]he trial\n\n13 court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar\u201d); In re MGM Mirage,\n\n14 Deriv. Litig., 2014 WL 1347840, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 4, 2014) (the trial court has discretion\n\n15 to stay proceedings \u201c\u2018incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition\n\n16 of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for\n\n17 litigants.\u2019\u201d) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\u201355 (1936)); Stern v. United States,\n\n18 563 F. Supp. 484, 489 (D. Nev. 1983) (stating \u201c[e]very court has the inherent power to stay causes\n\n19 on its docket with a view to avoiding duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of time\n\n20 and effort by itself, the litigants and counsel.\u201d); see also Nevada Civil Practice Manual \u00a7 3.07 (5th\n\n21 ed. 2006) (stating \u201ca frequently exercised ground [for granting a stay] is the pendency of a related\n\n22 action\u201d).\n\n23 In determining whether or not to grant a temporary stay, courts should consider \u201c\u2018the possible\n\n24 damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may\n\n25 suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the\n\n26 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to\n\n27 result from a stay.\u2019\u201d In re MGM Mirage, Deriv. Litig., 2014 WL 1347840 at *1 (citing Lockyer v.\n\n28 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005)). Courts thus look to \u201cpractical\n\n\n\n -4-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n 1 considerations\u201d such as potential prejudice to the parties, simplification of issues, and judicial\n\n 2 efficiency.\n\n 3 As relevant here, courts regularly temporarily stay shareholder derivative actions to allow\n\n 4 a related securities class actions that raises the same or similar allegations against a corporation to\n\n 5 move forward initially with its amended complaint given (i) prejudice to the corporation (and other\n\n 6 overlapping defendants) in having to litigate two actions raising the same issues at the same time;\n\n 7 (ii) the simplification of issues in the derivative action that would result if the securities action\n\n 8 were allowed to proceed first; (iii) the risk of inconsistent judgments and increased costs and\n\n 9 inefficiencies if both actions were allowed to proceed simultaneously. See, e.g., Rosenblum\n\n10 v. Sharer, 2008 WL 9396534, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) (identifying same factors) (citing\n\n11 Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972)).\n\n12 B. A Stay Will Also Assist In Avoiding Prejudice To Marathon And Defendants\n\n13 Courts also often stay related derivative actions until after a decision on the motion to dismiss\n\n14 the related securities class action and/or until the conclusion of the related securities class action.\n\n15 Here, a stay may be warranted to avoid significant prejudice to Marathon and Defendants if\n\n16 Plaintiffs in this Action were allowed to prosecute their claims in Marathon\u2019s name while Marathon\n\n17 and certain Defendants are also defending substantially the same allegations in the Securities\n\n18 Action. Courts have recognized that litigating a shareholder derivative action and related securities\n\n19 action concurrently \u201ccould undermine [the company\u2019s] defense of the securities class action\u201d\n\n20 because it \u201cwould require Plaintiffs [in the derivative action] to prove the very same alleged\n\n21 misconduct that is the basis of the securities class action, and to attack the credibility of witnesses\n\n22 also named as defendants in that action\u201d. In re Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Deriv. Litig., 2019 WL 1429526,\n\n23 at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2019); In re Rh S\u2019holder Deriv. Litig., 2019 WL 580668, at *4 (N.D. Cal.\n\n24 Jan. 23, 2019) (agreeing with defendants \u201cthat proceeding with the Derivative Action risks\n\n25 prejudicing [the company\u2019s] defense in the Securities Class Action\u201d and that \u201c[m]yriad courts have\n\n26 found this argument sufficient reason to support a stay in a derivative action.\u201d).\n\n27 Courts have stayed derivative actions because of the inherent \u201ctension\u201d and prejudice to\n\n28 a company in compelling it to both prosecute and defend against substantially similar\n\n\n\n -5-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n 1 allegations in favor of a related and pending securities class action. See, e.g., In re STEC, Inc.\n\n 2 Derivative Litig., 2012 WL 8978155, at *4 (\u201cCourts generally stay a shareholder derivative suit\n\n 3 until the culmination of a securities class action when the cases arise from the same factual\n\n 4 allegations and the evidence in the former could jeopardize the company\u2019s defense in the latter.\u201d);\n\n 5 In re DaVita Inc. S\u2019holder Deriv. Litig., 2018 WL3105061, at *3 (D. Del. June 25, 2018)\n\n 6 (granting stay and agreeing with the argument that proceeding with the derivative action would\n\n 7 be \u201cantithetical\u201d to defendants\u2019 defensive position in the securities action since it would force the\n\n 8 company to \u201caccuse its directors of violations of federal securities laws, while, at the same time,\n\n 9 defending itself against the same allegations\u201d in the derivative action).\n\n10 Courts have also found that the tension and prejudice is not limited to just the company but\n\n11 extends also to the officers and directors defendants \u201cin the derivative action [who] would be\n\n12 important witnesses for [the company] in the securities class action,\u201d and who would be placed\n\n13 the difficult position of potentially being adverse to their company in the derivative litigation\n\n14 with respect to the same allegations on which they are aligned with the company in the securities\n\n15 litigation. Rosenblum, 2008 WL 9396534, at *8 (identifying this tension in granting stay).\n\n16 Here, the risk of prejudice seems apparent. It will be the rare securities class action where\n\n17 defendants do not make a motion to dismiss denying that that they made any false and misleading statements\n\n18 or violated the securities laws. That motion to dismiss is coming once lead plaintiff is appointed in the\n\n19 Securities Class Action. There is a significant risk that if Plaintiffs here were allowed to pursue those\n\n20 same allegations in Marathon\u2019s name, Marathon would be forced to take inconsistent positions on a\n\n21 number of issues critical to both that action and this one, such as whether the challenged statements\n\n22 were false or misleading and whether the makers of those statements intended to mislead the public.\n\n23 Further, if both actions were to proceed concurrently as opposed to in a staggered fashion, Marathon\n\n24 would likely have to undertake discovery with different goals in mind, putting it in the difficult, and\n\n25 highly prejudicial position of both trying to adduce evidence for and against the same allegations.\n\n26 And it would put the director and officer Defendants here in the similarly difficult and prejudicial\n\n27 position of having to take an adversarial posture with the Company with respect to similar\n\n28 allegations in the Securities Class Action where Defendants and Marathon are aligned. As other\n\n\n\n -6-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n 1 courts held, director - defendants like those here \u201care likely witnesses in both cases, but\n\n 2 [plaintiff] must attempt to undermine their credibility while the Company presumably will attempt\n\n 3 to rely on their veracity. The potential for such conflicts . . . creates a significant risk that\n\n 4 prosecution of [plaintiff\u2019s] case will prejudice [the Company].\u201d Brenner v. Albrecht, 2012 WL\n\n 5 252286, at *6 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012); Breault v. Folino, 2002 WL 31974381, at *2 (C.D. Cal.\n\n 6 Mar. 15, 2002) (identifying same issue); In re Wynn, 2019 WL 1429526, at *2 (litigating both\n\n 7 derivative and securities actions simultaneously \u201cwould require Plaintiffs [in the derivative action]\n\n 8 \u2026 to attack the credibility of witnesses also named as defendants in that action [which] could\n\n 9 undermine [the company\u2019s] defense of the securities class action\u201d).\n\n10 Also, allowing both actions to proceed simultaneously could contravene the purpose of a\n\n11 shareholder derivative action, which is to promote the company\u2019s best interests. See In re STEC,\n\n12 Inc. Derivative Litig., 2012 WL 8978155, at *4 (\u201c[B]y virtue of bringing this derivative action,\n\n13 [p]laintiff is STEC's fiduciary and has a duty to act in the company\u2019s best interest. It follows that\n\n14 Plaintiff may proceed with this action only if and when it is in STEC\u2019s best interest.\u201d).\n\n15 Marathon\u2019s best interests would not be served if it were forced to take opposite litigation positions\n\n16 on the same allegations.\n\n17 C. A Temporary Stay May Help Simplify And Resolve Key Issues In This Action\n\n18 A temporary stay until the motion to dismiss the Securities Class action amended complaint\n\n19 would also be warranted because the issues presented here will potentially be simplified\u2014 or even\n\n20 rendered moot\u2014by the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action given the\n\n21 substantial overlap in allegations between actions. See In re Wynn, 2019 WL 1429526, at *3 (stay\n\n22 granted because if the shareholder\u2019s securities claims were dismissed, there would be an \u201cincrease\n\n23 in the orderly course of justice that will come from the increased judicial economy and the\n\n24 crystallization of the factual issues\u201d) (citation omitted); In re Rh S'holder Derivative Litig., 2019\n\n25 WL 580668, at *4 (stay warranted where resolution of claims in a parallel securities action \u201cwill\n\n26 simplify issues, proof, and questions of law in the Derivative Action and will therefore help\n\n27 preserve judicial resources and promote the orderly course of justice\u201d) (internal citation omitted).\n\n28 For example, if this Court determines in the Securities Action that no challenged statement in that\n\n\n\n -7-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n 1 amended complaint was false, misleading, or material, such a finding would affect Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 2 claims here given the overlapping challenged statements. Rosenblum, 2008 WL 9396534, at *8\n\n 3 (staying derivative case where shareholders\u2019 claims \u201cnecessarily depend on the outcome of the\n\n 4 securities class action, and noting that if the company were \u201cexonerated in the securities class action,\n\n 5 then it is unclear what, if anything, would be left of the derivative action.\u201d).\n\n 6 Moreover, staying this Action now will help clarify\u2014or even eliminate\u2014damages in this\n\n 7 Action. As noted supra, Plaintiffs here allege that Defendants\u2019 purported conducted has harmed\n\n 8 Marathon insofar as it has resulted in the company being sued in the Securities Action and,\n\n 9 resultantly, has caused it to experience a loss of reputation and good will and suffer a so- called\n\n10 \u201cliar\u2019s discount.\u201d And Plaintiffs seek as damages any amounts Marathon has and will expend in\n\n11 the Securities Action as well as indemnification from the Individual Defendants Okamoto, Theil and\n\n12 Salzman. If, however, Marathon and defendants in the Securities Action were to defeat that action\n\n13 on the merits, Plaintiffs\u2019 claimed damages and harm to the Company here would likely be impacted.\n\n14 See, e.g., In re Wynn, 2019 WL 1429526, at *3 (granting a stay because resolution of securities action\n\n15 favorable to company would spare it \u201cthe expense of pursuing doomed claims\u201d in the derivative\n\n16 action); accord In re Bofl Holding, Inc. S\u2019holder Litig., 848 Fed. App\u2019x 234 (9th Cir. Feb. 25,\n\n17 2021) (stay appropriate where relief in derivative action, including legal fees defending other\n\n18 securities and derivative actions raising same allegations, depends on \u201cthe outcome of the [ ]\n\n19 other ongoing lawsuits\u201d).\n\n20 In addition, the fact that this Action asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims not pled in\n\n21 the Securities Action against additional directors not named in that action is not dispositive. Courts\n\n22 have held, \u201cidentical claims are not a prerequisite for granting a stay of a derivative\n\n23 shareholder action pending resolution of a related shareholder class action.\u201d Aspex Eyewear, Inc.v.\n\n24 Revolution Eyewear, Inc., 2008 WL 11409571, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2008). Nor is there any\n\n25 prerequisite that defendants must perfectly overlap. See, e.g., In re Ormat Techs., Inc., 2011 WL\n\n26 3841089, at *5 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2011) (\u201cThe fact that Plaintiffs in this case are not lead plaintiffs in\n\n27 the Securities Class Action, and that there are additional defendants in this case, do not require a\n\n28 finding that a stay is not warranted. We do not believe that the two actions must involve exactly the\n\n\n\n -8-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 9 of 11\n\n\n 1 same parties and that Plaintiffs of a shareholder derivative suit must be the lead plaintiffs in the\n\n 2 class action suit in order for a stay.\u201d).\n\n 3 The issue that courts have focused on is whether the core allegations between the two actions\n\n 4 are similar such that temporarily staying the derivative action in favor of the securities action will\n\n 5 simplify the issues in the derivative action, and otherwise preserve this Court\u2019s and the\n\n 6 company\u2019s resources and promote efficiencies. In re Rh S\u2019holder Deriv. Litig., 2019 WL 580668,\n\n 7 at *4 (stay warranted even though derivative action raised insider trading and Section 14(a) claims\n\n 8 not raised in securities action where core facts overlapped such that adjudicating securities action\n\n 9 first would simplify issues in derivative action); In re Wynn, 2019 WL 1429526, at *3 (granting stay\n\n10 of derivative case while securities action was pending notwithstanding different claims where\n\n11 \u201cfactual allegations\u201d underlying both claims were similar).\n\n12 D. A Temporary Stay Will Likely Preserve Resources And Promote Efficiency\n\n13 Staying this Action now temporarily will also likely promote efficiency and preserve\n\n14 Marathon\u2019s\u2014and this Court\u2019s\u2014limited time and resources. See In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig.,\n\n15 2012 WL 8978155, at *4 (staying derivative action in favor of securities action in part to preserve\n\n16 the Company\u2019s financial and management resources that would be unnecessarily expended if both\n\n17 actions proceed simultaneously). This Action is currently in its early stages\u2014Defendants have yet\n\n18 to answer the Complaint, discovery has not begun, and only limited resources have been expended\n\n19 thus far. Granting a temporary stay now would prevent Marathon and overlapping defendants from\n\n20 having to expend a significant amount of resources to carry out what are likely to be duplicative\n\n21 and inefficient proceedings. See In re Ormat Techs., Inc., 2011 WL 3841089, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug.\n\n22 29, 2011) (finding that staying derivative case would preserve judicial resources because it would\n\n23 divert financial and management resources away from the underlying securities action); In re Rh\n\n24 S\u2019holder Deriv. Litig., 2019 WL 580668, at *4 (staying derivative case early in litigation in favor\n\n25 of securities class action in part where doing so would preserve judicial resources \u201cand promote\n\n26 the orderly course of justice.\u201d); Aspex, 2008 WL 11409571, at *5 (granting a motion to stay\n\n27 where the issue of liability would be determined by the earlier-filed action and it would \u201cmake[]\n\n28 no sense to expend time or resources litigating those matters pending receipt of the Federal\n\n\n\n -9-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 10 of 11\n\n\n 1 Circuit's decision\u201d); Rosenblum, 2008 WL 9396534, at *8 (stay warranted because it \u201cwould\n\n 2 preserve judicial resources, since the allegations, issues and parties in the two lawsuits substantially\n\n 3 overlap.\u201d).\n\n 4 E. A Temporary Stay Reduces The Risk Of Inconsistent Rulings And Judgments\n\n 5 A temporary stay will also likely avoid the chance that Marathon or Defendants here are\n\n 6 subject to inconsistent obligations, rulings, or judgments. See Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. 27TH\n\n 7 & S. Holding, LLC, 2012 WL 6562027, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 13, 2012) (granting stay to avoid the\n\n 8 possibility of piecemeal litigation and inconsistent outcomes due to the similar legal issues in the\n\n 9 state appeals and present case); In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig., 2012 WL 8978155, at *6\n\n10 (granting stay of derivative action pending securities action in part because \u201cthe stay will obviate\n\n11 the threat of conflicting outcomes in the cases.\u201d). Marathon is likely to be on opposite sides of\n\n12 the same or similar issues if both actions were to proceed simultaneously. This raises the\n\n13 possibility that Marathon will be subject to competing and/or conflicting obligations or rulings.\n\n14 See also In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig., 2012 WL 8978155, at *8 (\u201cTwo juries, considering\n\n15 the same evidence and hearing testimony could reach opposite or conflicting results. Accordingly,\n\n16 a stay would help reduce the likelihood of conflicting outcomes.\u201d).\n\n17 ///\n\n18 ///\n\n19 ///\n\n20 ///\n\n21 ///\n\n22 ///\n\n23 ///\n\n24 ///\n\n25 ///\n\n26 ///\n\n27 ///\n\n28 ///\n\n\n\n - 10 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 42 Filed 06/03/22 Page 11 of 11\n\n\n 1 III. CONCLUSION\n\n 2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (i) vacate the current deadlines for Plaintiffs to\n\n 3 respond to the pending motions to dismiss in each action; (ii) temporarily stay this consolidated\n\n 4 action to allow Plaintiff to leave to file a consolidated complaint within thirty (30) days after the\n\n 5 amended complaint is filed in the Securities Class Action and/or temporarily stay this action until\n\n 6 the motion to dismiss is decided in the Securities Class Action; and (iii) in order to conserve\n\n 7 resources of the Court and the parties, issue an order setting a new deadline for Defendants to\n\n 8 respond only to the amended complaint Plaintiff intends to file in the Derivative Action.\n\n 9 Dated: June 3, 2022\n\n10 /s/ G. Mark Albright, Esq.\n G. Mark Albright, Esq. (NV Bar # 1394)\n11 Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. (NV Bar # 14595)\n ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n12 & ALBRIGHT\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n13 Las Vegas, NV 89106\n Tel: (702) 384-7111\n14\n Mark C. Rifkin\n15 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n16 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n New York, NY 10016\n17 Tel: (212) 545-4600\n\n18 Attorneys for Plaintiff Strassman\n\n19 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n\n20 By: /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n Matthew L. Sharp\n21 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n22 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n23\n Thomas J. McKenna\n24 Gregory M. Egleston\n GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n25 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n New York, New York 10017\n26 Phone: (212) 983-1300\n Fax: (212) 983-0383\n27 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com\n Email: gegleston@gme-aw.com\n28\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n\n\n - 11 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:55:17.205523-07:00","document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509479892","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.514846-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.680532-07:00","date_filed":"2022-06-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-06-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":196,"description":"REPLY to Response to 36 Motion, 35 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 34 Motion to Consolidate Cases by Plaintiffs Kimberly Bernard, Roy Strassman, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. (Albright, Mark) (Entered: 06/03/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563200/","id":199563200,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292046/","id":205292046,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/40/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.507941-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.669752-07:00","sha1":"038cf22e5d8c1cf9a54e42b8467cae0b4c1d39ca","page_count":6,"file_size":92260,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.40.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 4 Telephone: 702.214.2100\n Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n 5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com\n\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 9 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 10 Telephone: 212.310.8770\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n 11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 12 Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n 14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n 15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\n 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 18 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 20 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A.\n v. RADIN OPPOSING MOTION TO\n 21 INDEFINITELY STAY\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN DEADLINES TO RESPOND TO\n 22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, MOTIONS TO DISMISS\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and\n 23 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 24 Defendants,\n -and-\n 25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 26 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 27 Nominal Defendant.\n\n 28\n\n 1\n WEIL:\\98650383\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 3 Plaintiff,\n v.\n 4\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and\n 6 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7 Defendants,\n -and-\n 8\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 9 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n10 Nominal Defendant.\n11\n\n12 I, Stephen A. Radin, declare the following:\n13 1. I am a member of the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges, counsel for Defendants\n14 Georges Antoun, Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal,\n\n15 Simeon Salzman, and Fred Thiel and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. in the\n\n16 above-captioned Bernard action and the above-captioned Strassman action. I have been admitted\n\n17 to practice before this Court pro hac vice in both actions.\n\n18 2. I submit this declaration in opposition to the motions by plaintiffs in the above-\n\n19 captioned actions seeking, among other things, to stay briefing of motions to dismiss for an\n20 indefinite period of time. Bernard ECF Nos. 34, 35, and 36, Strassman ECF Nos. 19, 20. Neither\n21 Defendants nor Marathon oppose plaintiffs\u2019 other requested relief.\n22 3. On May 17, 2022, I sent an email to Mark C. Rifkin of the firm Wolf Haldenstein\n23 Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel in the Strassman action, proposing briefing the\n24 motion to dismiss the Strassman action on the same schedule that the Court ordered on April 18,\n25 2022 in the Bernard action. I wrote that, if that did not work for Mr. Rifkin, I would be \u201c[h]appy\n26 to accommodate any reasonable request.\u201d A true and correct copy of this email is attached as\n27 Exhibit A.\n28\n\n\n 2\n WEIL:\\98650383\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n 1 4. On May 18, 2022, Mr. Rifkin informed me by telephone that plaintiffs in the\n\n 2 Bernard and Strassman actions intended to move to consolidate the cases and file a consolidated\n\n 3 complaint before briefing the pending motions to dismiss. I offered to stipulate to consolidation\n\n 4 and asked Mr. Rifkin to propose a date for the filing of the consolidated complaint. I reiterated\n\n 5 what I stated in my May 17, 2022 email: that I was \u201c[h]appy to accommodate any reasonable\n\n 6 request.\u201d Mr. Rifkin declined to propose a date. He stated that he would discuss the matter with\n\n 7 counsel in the Bernard action and call me back.\n\n 8 5. I heard nothing further from Mr. Rifkin until May 23, 2022, when, rather than\n\n 9 calling me back, plaintiffs filed the motions now before the Court.\n10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n11 foregoing is true and correct based upon my knowledge, information, and belief.\n12 Executed on: May 27, 2022\n13 /s/ Stephen A. Radin\n Stephen A. Radin\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n 3\n WEIL:\\98650383\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC and that, on this\n 3 27th day of May 2022, I caused to be served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF program true and correct\n\n 4 copies of the above and foregoing DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A. RADIN OPPOSING\n\n 5 MOTION TO INDEFINITELY STAY DEADLINES TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO\n\n 6 DISMISS to all parties via electronic service.\n\n 7\n\n 8 /s/ Cinda Towne\n An employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 9\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n 4\n WEIL:\\98650383\\1\\61707.0006\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n May 17, 2022 Email from\n Stephen Radin to Mark Rifkin\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:55:02.483851-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509469652","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.500022-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.658938-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-27.004","pacer_sequence_number":185,"description":"DECLARATION of Stephen A. Radin re 38 Response, 39 Response, 37 Response, by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 05/27/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563199/","id":199563199,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292045/","id":205292045,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/39/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.493446-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.648383-07:00","sha1":"1a4d65317bf259740c2be05ca413cf270952cd23","page_count":7,"file_size":74114,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.39.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.39.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 4 Telephone: 702.214.2100\n Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n 5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 9 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 10 Telephone: 212.310.8770\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n 11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n 14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n 15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 18 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 20 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n 21 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY\n 22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, STAY MAY 31, 2022 DEADLINE TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO\n 23 SIMEON SALZMAN, DISMISS\n 24 Defendants,\n -and-\n 25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 26 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 27 Nominal Defendant.\n 28\n\n 1\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE,\n 4 APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25,\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and MOTIONS TO DISMISS\n 6 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 7 Defendants,\n -and-\n 8\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 9 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 10 Nominal Defendant.\n\n 11\n 12 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n These are almost word-for-word identical shareholder derivative actions in which plaintiffs\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 purport to sue eight individuals on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\n 15 (\u201cMarathon\u201d). The lawsuit besmirches the names of these eight individuals, alleging that they\n\n 16 breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Marathon. The claims are meritless.\n\n 17 Among other things, Nev. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 78.138(7) requires that a claim against a director or officer\n\n 18 of a Nevada corporation allege \u201cintentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.\u201d No\n\n 19 intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violation of law is alleged in plaintiffs\u2019 complaints.\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants are entitled to have their motions to dismiss heard. Plaintiffs\n\n 21 have had Defendants\u2019 moving papers since April 4, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Court set a\n\n 22 deadline for a response in the Bernard action: May 31, 2022. The Local Rules require a response\n\n 23 in the Strassman action on May 25, 2022; that date has passed. Marathon and Defendants offered\n\n 24 the plaintiff in the Strassman action an extension until May 31, so that the two near-identical\n\n 25 complaints could be briefed in one rather than two rounds of briefing. Plaintiffs rejected that offer.\n\n 26 Instead, plaintiffs seek \u2013 and appear to have granted themselves \u2013 indefinite extensions of\n\n 27 time. In plaintiffs\u2019 world, the filing of two near-identical complaints (instead of the usual practice,\n\n 28 one complaint with two plaintiffs) entitles plaintiffs to an indefinite time to file a formal\n\n\n 2\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n 1 consolidated complaint and exempts them from complying with court deadlines for responses to\n\n 2 motions to dismiss. Upon learning of plaintiffs\u2019 position, Marathon and Defendants offered to\n\n 3 stipulate to consolidation with a deadline for filing a consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs refused to\n\n 4 stipulate or propose a deadline. Plaintiffs instead filed multiple motions for the obvious purpose\n\n 5 of delay: stipulations take days; briefing and decisions on motions take months.\n\n 6 Today is May 27, 2022. If plaintiffs need a short amount of time beyond the May 31, 2022\n\n 7 deadline to commit to dates for a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 8 current complaints and briefing a new motion to dismiss, they need only ask. Marathon and\n\n 9 Defendants will extend plaintiffs\u2019 counsel every reasonable professional courtesy \u2013 but not the\n\n 10 many weeks plaintiffs seek by moving for consolidation rather than stipulating to consolidation.\n\n 11 If plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will retroactively extend deadlines,\n\n 12 then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the Court chooses to forgive\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order that plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint within seven\n\n 15 (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one\n\n 16 (21) days of the filing of the renewed motion.\n\n 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT\n\n 18 On February 18, 2022, plaintiff Kimberly Bernard commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-305-\n\n 19 RFB-NJK. ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2022, service was effectuated. ECF No. 6. On April 4, 2022,\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bernard action. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff\n\n 21 Bernard requested two months to oppose the motion to dismiss, and the parties stipulated to a May\n\n 22 31, 2022 due date for plaintiff\u2019s opposition. ECF No. 18. On April 18, 2022, the Court so ordered\n\n 23 the schedule. ECF No. 26.\n\n 24 On May 5, 2022, plaintiff Roy Strassman commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-724-ART-EJY.\n\n 25 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Strassman\u2019s complaint copied, nearly word-for-word, the entirety of the com-\n\n 26 plaint filed by Plaintiff Bernard, as follows, ignoring the deficiencies identified in the motion to\n\n 27 dismiss the Bernard complaint filed on April 4, 2022:\n\n 28\n\n\n 3\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n 1 Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman\n Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6\n 2 1 1 24 24 47 47 70 73\n 2 2 25 25 48 48 71 74\n 3 3 3 26 26 49 49 72 75\n 4 4 27 27 50 50 73 76\n 4 5 5 28 28 51 51 74 77\n 6 6 29 29 52 52 75 78\n 5 7 7 30 30 53 55 76 79\n 8 8 31 31 54 56 77 80\n 6 9 9 32 32 55 57 78 81\n 10 10 33 33 56 58 79 82\n 7 11 11 34 34 57 59 80 83\n 12 12 35 35 58 60 81 84\n 8 13 13 36 36 59 61 82 85\n 14 14 37 37 60 63 83 86\n 9 15 15 38 38 61 64 84 87\n 16 16 39 39 62 65 85 88\n 10 17 17 40 40 63 66 86 89\n 18 18 41 41 64 67 87 90\n 11 19 19 42 42 65 68 88 91\n 20 20 43 43 66 69 89 92\n 12 21 21 44 44 67 70 90 93\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 22 22 45 45 68 71 91 94\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 23 23 46 46 69 72 92 95\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 The Strassman complaint made just four changes to the Bernard complaint: (1) the Strassman\n 15 complaint double-spaces rather than single-spaces block quotes; (2) the Strassman complaint\n 16 replaces female gender pronouns for the plaintiff with male gender pronouns; (3) the Strassman\n 17 complaint corrects a typo (the Bernard complaint stated in paragraph 60 that \u201cthe Company Board\n 18 was comprised of eight (6) members,\u201d while the Strassman complaint replaces \u201ceight (6)\n 19 members\u201d with \u201csix (6) members\u201d); and (4) the Strassman complaint skips paragraph numbers 53,\n 20 54, and 62 in its numbering of paragraphs, resulting in a 95 paragraph complaint rather than a 92\n 21 paragraph complaint.\n 22 On May 11, 2022, Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Strassman action\n 23 on the same grounds that Marathon and Defendants moved to dismiss the Bernard action.\n 24 Strassman ECF No. 11. On May 17, 2022, the undersigned counsel proposed briefing the identical\n 25 motion to dismiss on the same schedule the Court ordered in the Bernard action. Radin Decl. \u00b6 3.\n 26 On May 18, 2022, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel informed the undersigned counsel that plaintiffs intended to\n 27 move to consolidate the cases and file a consolidated complaint before briefing the pending\n 28 motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel offered to stipulate to consolidation and asked\n\n\n 4\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n 1 plaintiff\u2019s counsel to propose a date for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Id. \u00b6 4.\n\n 2 Plaintiff\u2019s counsel declined to stipulate or propose a date. Id. Instead, on May 23, 2022,\n\n 3 plaintiffs filed multiple motions. The motions seek (1) consolidation \u2013 to which Marathon and\n\n 4 Defendants had offered to stipulate, (2) a \u201cCo-Lead Derivative Counsel\u201d stamp of approval by the\n\n 5 Court \u2013 completely unnecessary but something to which Marathon and Defendants would have\n\n 6 stipulated to if asked, and (3) the only contested subject of the motions \u2013 a stay postponing the\n\n 7 deadlines set in the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order, indefinitely. Bernard ECF No. 34, 35, and 36;\n\n 8 Strassman ECF No. 19, 20.\n\n 9 Marathon and Defendants oppose the indefinite stay plaintiffs seek and appear to have\n\n 10 granted themselves notwithstanding the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order. Counsel for the plaintiffs in\n\n 11 the two actions admit that \u201cfrom the inception of the litigation\u201d they have been \u201ccoordinating\n\n 12 together.\u201d Bernard ECF No. 34 at 3; Strassman ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiffs do not explain why\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 two plaintiffs \u201ccoordinating together\u201d chose to file a second near-identical complaint a month after\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 a motion to dismiss their first complaint had been filed, rather than opposing the motion to dismiss\n\n 15 or addressing deficiencies in their new complaint. Plaintiffs do not explain why the drafting of a\n\n 16 consolidated complaint combining two near-identical complaints would require more than an hour\n\n 17 or two of work by any one of the four law firms representing plaintiffs.\n\n 18 Deadlines in Court Orders should be enforced. If plaintiffs choose to oppose the pending\n\n 19 motions to dismiss with a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019 existing\n\n 20 complaints, they may do so on May 31, 2022 \u2013 the date the Court so ordered on April 18, 2022.\n\n 21 Marathon and Defendants will promptly respond to any such consolidated complaint. If plaintiffs\n\n 22 need a short amount of additional time to oppose the pending motions to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 two\n\n 23 complaints, or commit to a date for a consolidated complaint curing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 24 first two complaints, Marathon and Defendants will extend every reasonable professional courtesy.\n\n 25 But if plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will extend the deadlines plaintiffs\n\n 26 have chosen to ignore, then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs\n\n 27 re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the\n\n 28 Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order, as stated above, that plaintiffs\n\n\n 5\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n 1 file a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any\n\n 2 renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion.\n\n 3 CONCLUSION\n\n 4 For all of these reasons, Marathon and Defendants oppose plaintiffs\u2019 motion to indefinitely\n\n 5 extend the deadlines set in this Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order and request that the Court dismiss\n\n 6 plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted\n\n 7 here in this Court or any other Court, or, if the Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the\n\n 8 alternative relief stated above.\n\n 9 DATED this 27th day of May 2022.\n\n 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 11\n By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera\n 12 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n\n 15 -and-\n\n 16 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 17 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 18 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 19\n Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin\n 20 DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D.\n Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred\n 21 Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital\n Holdings, Inc.\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 6\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC and that, on this\n 3 27th day of May 2022, I caused to be served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF program true and correct\n\n 4 copies of the above and foregoing RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF NO. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n\n 5 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 31,\n\n 6 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Bernard action and\n\n 7 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n\n 8 COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n\n 9 MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Strassman action to all parties via electronic service.\n\n 10\n /s/ Cinda Towne\n 11 An employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 7\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:54:46.661073-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509469632","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.485636-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.636697-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-27.003","pacer_sequence_number":182,"description":"RESPONSE to 36 Motion by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. Replies due by 6/3/2022. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 05/27/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563198/","id":199563198,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292044/","id":205292044,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/38/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.479146-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.626196-07:00","sha1":"95f5fa6ff16532cc72068f40a553e43b9124b09a","page_count":7,"file_size":74141,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.38.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.38.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 4 Telephone: 702.214.2100\n Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n 5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 9 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 10 Telephone: 212.310.8770\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n 11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n 14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n 15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 18 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 20 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n 21 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY\n 22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, STAY MAY 31, 2022 DEADLINE TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO\n 23 SIMEON SALZMAN, DISMISS\n 24 Defendants,\n -and-\n 25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 26 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 27 Nominal Defendant.\n 28\n\n 1\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE,\n 4 APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25,\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and MOTIONS TO DISMISS\n 6 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 7 Defendants,\n -and-\n 8\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 9 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 10 Nominal Defendant.\n\n 11\n 12 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n These are almost word-for-word identical shareholder derivative actions in which plaintiffs\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 purport to sue eight individuals on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\n 15 (\u201cMarathon\u201d). The lawsuit besmirches the names of these eight individuals, alleging that they\n\n 16 breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Marathon. The claims are meritless.\n\n 17 Among other things, Nev. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 78.138(7) requires that a claim against a director or officer\n\n 18 of a Nevada corporation allege \u201cintentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.\u201d No\n\n 19 intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violation of law is alleged in plaintiffs\u2019 complaints.\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants are entitled to have their motions to dismiss heard. Plaintiffs\n\n 21 have had Defendants\u2019 moving papers since April 4, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Court set a\n\n 22 deadline for a response in the Bernard action: May 31, 2022. The Local Rules require a response\n\n 23 in the Strassman action on May 25, 2022; that date has passed. Marathon and Defendants offered\n\n 24 the plaintiff in the Strassman action an extension until May 31, so that the two near-identical\n\n 25 complaints could be briefed in one rather than two rounds of briefing. Plaintiffs rejected that offer.\n\n 26 Instead, plaintiffs seek \u2013 and appear to have granted themselves \u2013 indefinite extensions of\n\n 27 time. In plaintiffs\u2019 world, the filing of two near-identical complaints (instead of the usual practice,\n\n 28 one complaint with two plaintiffs) entitles plaintiffs to an indefinite time to file a formal\n\n\n 2\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n 1 consolidated complaint and exempts them from complying with court deadlines for responses to\n\n 2 motions to dismiss. Upon learning of plaintiffs\u2019 position, Marathon and Defendants offered to\n\n 3 stipulate to consolidation with a deadline for filing a consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs refused to\n\n 4 stipulate or propose a deadline. Plaintiffs instead filed multiple motions for the obvious purpose\n\n 5 of delay: stipulations take days; briefing and decisions on motions take months.\n\n 6 Today is May 27, 2022. If plaintiffs need a short amount of time beyond the May 31, 2022\n\n 7 deadline to commit to dates for a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 8 current complaints and briefing a new motion to dismiss, they need only ask. Marathon and\n\n 9 Defendants will extend plaintiffs\u2019 counsel every reasonable professional courtesy \u2013 but not the\n\n 10 many weeks plaintiffs seek by moving for consolidation rather than stipulating to consolidation.\n\n 11 If plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will retroactively extend deadlines,\n\n 12 then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the Court chooses to forgive\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order that plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint within seven\n\n 15 (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one\n\n 16 (21) days of the filing of the renewed motion.\n\n 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT\n\n 18 On February 18, 2022, plaintiff Kimberly Bernard commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-305-\n\n 19 RFB-NJK. ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2022, service was effectuated. ECF No. 6. On April 4, 2022,\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bernard action. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff\n\n 21 Bernard requested two months to oppose the motion to dismiss, and the parties stipulated to a May\n\n 22 31, 2022 due date for plaintiff\u2019s opposition. ECF No. 18. On April 18, 2022, the Court so ordered\n\n 23 the schedule. ECF No. 26.\n\n 24 On May 5, 2022, plaintiff Roy Strassman commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-724-ART-EJY.\n\n 25 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Strassman\u2019s complaint copied, nearly word-for-word, the entirety of the com-\n\n 26 plaint filed by Plaintiff Bernard, as follows, ignoring the deficiencies identified in the motion to\n\n 27 dismiss the Bernard complaint filed on April 4, 2022:\n\n 28\n\n\n 3\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n 1 Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman\n Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6\n 2 1 1 24 24 47 47 70 73\n 2 2 25 25 48 48 71 74\n 3 3 3 26 26 49 49 72 75\n 4 4 27 27 50 50 73 76\n 4 5 5 28 28 51 51 74 77\n 6 6 29 29 52 52 75 78\n 5 7 7 30 30 53 55 76 79\n 8 8 31 31 54 56 77 80\n 6 9 9 32 32 55 57 78 81\n 10 10 33 33 56 58 79 82\n 7 11 11 34 34 57 59 80 83\n 12 12 35 35 58 60 81 84\n 8 13 13 36 36 59 61 82 85\n 14 14 37 37 60 63 83 86\n 9 15 15 38 38 61 64 84 87\n 16 16 39 39 62 65 85 88\n 10 17 17 40 40 63 66 86 89\n 18 18 41 41 64 67 87 90\n 11 19 19 42 42 65 68 88 91\n 20 20 43 43 66 69 89 92\n 12 21 21 44 44 67 70 90 93\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 22 22 45 45 68 71 91 94\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 23 23 46 46 69 72 92 95\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 The Strassman complaint made just four changes to the Bernard complaint: (1) the Strassman\n 15 complaint double-spaces rather than single-spaces block quotes; (2) the Strassman complaint\n 16 replaces female gender pronouns for the plaintiff with male gender pronouns; (3) the Strassman\n 17 complaint corrects a typo (the Bernard complaint stated in paragraph 60 that \u201cthe Company Board\n 18 was comprised of eight (6) members,\u201d while the Strassman complaint replaces \u201ceight (6)\n 19 members\u201d with \u201csix (6) members\u201d); and (4) the Strassman complaint skips paragraph numbers 53,\n 20 54, and 62 in its numbering of paragraphs, resulting in a 95 paragraph complaint rather than a 92\n 21 paragraph complaint.\n 22 On May 11, 2022, Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Strassman action\n 23 on the same grounds that Marathon and Defendants moved to dismiss the Bernard action.\n 24 Strassman ECF No. 11. On May 17, 2022, the undersigned counsel proposed briefing the identical\n 25 motion to dismiss on the same schedule the Court ordered in the Bernard action. Radin Decl. \u00b6 3.\n 26 On May 18, 2022, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel informed the undersigned counsel that plaintiffs intended to\n 27 move to consolidate the cases and file a consolidated complaint before briefing the pending\n 28 motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel offered to stipulate to consolidation and asked\n\n\n 4\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n 1 plaintiff\u2019s counsel to propose a date for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Id. \u00b6 4.\n\n 2 Plaintiff\u2019s counsel declined to stipulate or propose a date. Id. Instead, on May 23, 2022,\n\n 3 plaintiffs filed multiple motions. The motions seek (1) consolidation \u2013 to which Marathon and\n\n 4 Defendants had offered to stipulate, (2) a \u201cCo-Lead Derivative Counsel\u201d stamp of approval by the\n\n 5 Court \u2013 completely unnecessary but something to which Marathon and Defendants would have\n\n 6 stipulated to if asked, and (3) the only contested subject of the motions \u2013 a stay postponing the\n\n 7 deadlines set in the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order, indefinitely. Bernard ECF No. 34, 35, and 36;\n\n 8 Strassman ECF No. 19, 20.\n\n 9 Marathon and Defendants oppose the indefinite stay plaintiffs seek and appear to have\n\n 10 granted themselves notwithstanding the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order. Counsel for the plaintiffs in\n\n 11 the two actions admit that \u201cfrom the inception of the litigation\u201d they have been \u201ccoordinating\n\n 12 together.\u201d Bernard ECF No. 34 at 3; Strassman ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiffs do not explain why\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 two plaintiffs \u201ccoordinating together\u201d chose to file a second near-identical complaint a month after\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 a motion to dismiss their first complaint had been filed, rather than opposing the motion to dismiss\n\n 15 or addressing deficiencies in their new complaint. Plaintiffs do not explain why the drafting of a\n\n 16 consolidated complaint combining two near-identical complaints would require more than an hour\n\n 17 or two of work by any one of the four law firms representing plaintiffs.\n\n 18 Deadlines in Court Orders should be enforced. If plaintiffs choose to oppose the pending\n\n 19 motions to dismiss with a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019 existing\n\n 20 complaints, they may do so on May 31, 2022 \u2013 the date the Court so ordered on April 18, 2022.\n\n 21 Marathon and Defendants will promptly respond to any such consolidated complaint. If plaintiffs\n\n 22 need a short amount of additional time to oppose the pending motions to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 two\n\n 23 complaints, or commit to a date for a consolidated complaint curing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 24 first two complaints, Marathon and Defendants will extend every reasonable professional courtesy.\n\n 25 But if plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will extend the deadlines plaintiffs\n\n 26 have chosen to ignore, then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs\n\n 27 re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the\n\n 28 Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order, as stated above, that plaintiffs\n\n\n 5\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n 1 file a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any\n\n 2 renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion.\n\n 3 CONCLUSION\n\n 4 For all of these reasons, Marathon and Defendants oppose plaintiffs\u2019 motion to indefinitely\n\n 5 extend the deadlines set in this Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order and request that the Court dismiss\n\n 6 plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted\n\n 7 here in this Court or any other Court, or, if the Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the\n\n 8 alternative relief stated above.\n\n 9 DATED this 27th day of May 2022.\n\n 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 11\n By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera\n 12 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n\n 15 -and-\n\n 16 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 17 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 18 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 19\n Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin\n 20 DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D.\n Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred\n 21 Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital\n Holdings, Inc.\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 6\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 38 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC and that, on this\n 3 27th day of May 2022, I caused to be served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF program true and correct\n\n 4 copies of the above and foregoing RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF NO. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n\n 5 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 31,\n\n 6 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Bernard action and\n\n 7 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n\n 8 COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n\n 9 MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Strassman action to all parties via electronic service.\n\n 10\n /s/ Cinda Towne\n 11 An employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 7\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:54:31.774721-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509469605","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.471188-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.616103-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":179,"description":"RESPONSE to 35 Motion for Appointment of Counsel by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. Replies due by 6/3/2022. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 05/27/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563197/","id":199563197,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292043/","id":205292043,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/37/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.463550-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.605226-07:00","sha1":"066beaf56f715bf2902331a7ab68954b1b4d4d3c","page_count":7,"file_size":73823,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n 4 Telephone: 702.214.2100\n Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n 5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com\n 7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 9 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 10 Telephone: 212.310.8770\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n 11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n 14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n 15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 18 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 20 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n 21 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY\n 22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, STAY MAY 31, 2022 DEADLINE TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO\n 23 SIMEON SALZMAN, DISMISS\n 24 Defendants,\n -and-\n 25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 26 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n 27 Nominal Defendant.\n 28\n\n 1\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n 1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF\n v. NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE,\n 4 APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25,\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and MOTIONS TO DISMISS\n 6 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 7 Defendants,\n -and-\n 8\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n 9 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 10 Nominal Defendant.\n\n 11\n 12 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n These are almost word-for-word identical shareholder derivative actions in which plaintiffs\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 purport to sue eight individuals on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\n 15 (\u201cMarathon\u201d). The lawsuit besmirches the names of these eight individuals, alleging that they\n\n 16 breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Marathon. The claims are meritless.\n\n 17 Among other things, Nev. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 78.138(7) requires that a claim against a director or officer\n\n 18 of a Nevada corporation allege \u201cintentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.\u201d No\n\n 19 intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violation of law is alleged in plaintiffs\u2019 complaints.\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants are entitled to have their motions to dismiss heard. Plaintiffs\n\n 21 have had Defendants\u2019 moving papers since April 4, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Court set a\n\n 22 deadline for a response in the Bernard action: May 31, 2022. The Local Rules require a response\n\n 23 in the Strassman action on May 25, 2022; that date has passed. Marathon and Defendants offered\n\n 24 the plaintiff in the Strassman action an extension until May 31, so that the two near-identical\n\n 25 complaints could be briefed in one rather than two rounds of briefing. Plaintiffs rejected that offer.\n\n 26 Instead, plaintiffs seek \u2013 and appear to have granted themselves \u2013 indefinite extensions of\n\n 27 time. In plaintiffs\u2019 world, the filing of two near-identical complaints (instead of the usual practice,\n\n 28 one complaint with two plaintiffs) entitles plaintiffs to an indefinite time to file a formal\n\n\n 2\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n 1 consolidated complaint and exempts them from complying with court deadlines for responses to\n\n 2 motions to dismiss. Upon learning of plaintiffs\u2019 position, Marathon and Defendants offered to\n\n 3 stipulate to consolidation with a deadline for filing a consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs refused to\n\n 4 stipulate or propose a deadline. Plaintiffs instead filed multiple motions for the obvious purpose\n\n 5 of delay: stipulations take days; briefing and decisions on motions take months.\n\n 6 Today is May 27, 2022. If plaintiffs need a short amount of time beyond the May 31, 2022\n\n 7 deadline to commit to dates for a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 8 current complaints and briefing a new motion to dismiss, they need only ask. Marathon and\n\n 9 Defendants will extend plaintiffs\u2019 counsel every reasonable professional courtesy \u2013 but not the\n\n 10 many weeks plaintiffs seek by moving for consolidation rather than stipulating to consolidation.\n\n 11 If plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will retroactively extend deadlines,\n\n 12 then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the Court chooses to forgive\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order that plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint within seven\n\n 15 (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one\n\n 16 (21) days of the filing of the renewed motion.\n\n 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT\n\n 18 On February 18, 2022, plaintiff Kimberly Bernard commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-305-\n\n 19 RFB-NJK. ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2022, service was effectuated. ECF No. 6. On April 4, 2022,\n\n 20 Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bernard action. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff\n\n 21 Bernard requested two months to oppose the motion to dismiss, and the parties stipulated to a May\n\n 22 31, 2022 due date for plaintiff\u2019s opposition. ECF No. 18. On April 18, 2022, the Court so ordered\n\n 23 the schedule. ECF No. 26.\n\n 24 On May 5, 2022, plaintiff Roy Strassman commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-724-ART-EJY.\n\n 25 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Strassman\u2019s complaint copied, nearly word-for-word, the entirety of the com-\n\n 26 plaint filed by Plaintiff Bernard, as follows, ignoring the deficiencies identified in the motion to\n\n 27 dismiss the Bernard complaint filed on April 4, 2022:\n\n 28\n\n\n 3\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n 1 Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman\n Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6 Compl. \u00b6\n 2 1 1 24 24 47 47 70 73\n 2 2 25 25 48 48 71 74\n 3 3 3 26 26 49 49 72 75\n 4 4 27 27 50 50 73 76\n 4 5 5 28 28 51 51 74 77\n 6 6 29 29 52 52 75 78\n 5 7 7 30 30 53 55 76 79\n 8 8 31 31 54 56 77 80\n 6 9 9 32 32 55 57 78 81\n 10 10 33 33 56 58 79 82\n 7 11 11 34 34 57 59 80 83\n 12 12 35 35 58 60 81 84\n 8 13 13 36 36 59 61 82 85\n 14 14 37 37 60 63 83 86\n 9 15 15 38 38 61 64 84 87\n 16 16 39 39 62 65 85 88\n 10 17 17 40 40 63 66 86 89\n 18 18 41 41 64 67 87 90\n 11 19 19 42 42 65 68 88 91\n 20 20 43 43 66 69 89 92\n 12 21 21 44 44 67 70 90 93\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 22 22 45 45 68 71 91 94\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 23 23 46 46 69 72 92 95\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 The Strassman complaint made just four changes to the Bernard complaint: (1) the Strassman\n 15 complaint double-spaces rather than single-spaces block quotes; (2) the Strassman complaint\n 16 replaces female gender pronouns for the plaintiff with male gender pronouns; (3) the Strassman\n 17 complaint corrects a typo (the Bernard complaint stated in paragraph 60 that \u201cthe Company Board\n 18 was comprised of eight (6) members,\u201d while the Strassman complaint replaces \u201ceight (6)\n 19 members\u201d with \u201csix (6) members\u201d); and (4) the Strassman complaint skips paragraph numbers 53,\n 20 54, and 62 in its numbering of paragraphs, resulting in a 95 paragraph complaint rather than a 92\n 21 paragraph complaint.\n 22 On May 11, 2022, Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Strassman action\n 23 on the same grounds that Marathon and Defendants moved to dismiss the Bernard action.\n 24 Strassman ECF No. 11. On May 17, 2022, the undersigned counsel proposed briefing the identical\n 25 motion to dismiss on the same schedule the Court ordered in the Bernard action. Radin Decl. \u00b6 3.\n 26 On May 18, 2022, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel informed the undersigned counsel that plaintiffs intended to\n 27 move to consolidate the cases and file a consolidated complaint before briefing the pending\n 28 motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel offered to stipulate to consolidation and asked\n\n\n 4\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n 1 plaintiff\u2019s counsel to propose a date for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Id. \u00b6 4.\n\n 2 Plaintiff\u2019s counsel declined to stipulate or propose a date. Id. Instead, on May 23, 2022,\n\n 3 plaintiffs filed multiple motions. The motions seek (1) consolidation \u2013 to which Marathon and\n\n 4 Defendants had offered to stipulate, (2) a \u201cCo-Lead Derivative Counsel\u201d stamp of approval by the\n\n 5 Court \u2013 completely unnecessary but something to which Marathon and Defendants would have\n\n 6 stipulated to if asked, and (3) the only contested subject of the motions \u2013 a stay postponing the\n\n 7 deadlines set in the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order, indefinitely. Bernard ECF No. 34, 35, and 36;\n\n 8 Strassman ECF No. 19, 20.\n\n 9 Marathon and Defendants oppose the indefinite stay plaintiffs seek and appear to have\n\n 10 granted themselves notwithstanding the Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order. Counsel for the plaintiffs in\n\n 11 the two actions admit that \u201cfrom the inception of the litigation\u201d they have been \u201ccoordinating\n\n 12 together.\u201d Bernard ECF No. 34 at 3; Strassman ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiffs do not explain why\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 two plaintiffs \u201ccoordinating together\u201d chose to file a second near-identical complaint a month after\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 a motion to dismiss their first complaint had been filed, rather than opposing the motion to dismiss\n\n 15 or addressing deficiencies in their new complaint. Plaintiffs do not explain why the drafting of a\n\n 16 consolidated complaint combining two near-identical complaints would require more than an hour\n\n 17 or two of work by any one of the four law firms representing plaintiffs.\n\n 18 Deadlines in Court Orders should be enforced. If plaintiffs choose to oppose the pending\n\n 19 motions to dismiss with a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019 existing\n\n 20 complaints, they may do so on May 31, 2022 \u2013 the date the Court so ordered on April 18, 2022.\n\n 21 Marathon and Defendants will promptly respond to any such consolidated complaint. If plaintiffs\n\n 22 need a short amount of additional time to oppose the pending motions to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 two\n\n 23 complaints, or commit to a date for a consolidated complaint curing the deficiencies in plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 24 first two complaints, Marathon and Defendants will extend every reasonable professional courtesy.\n\n 25 But if plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will extend the deadlines plaintiffs\n\n 26 have chosen to ignore, then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs\n\n 27 re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the\n\n 28 Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the Court should order, as stated above, that plaintiffs\n\n\n 5\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n 1 file a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the Court\u2019s Order and respond to any\n\n 2 renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion.\n\n 3 CONCLUSION\n\n 4 For all of these reasons, Marathon and Defendants oppose plaintiffs\u2019 motion to indefinitely\n\n 5 extend the deadlines set in this Court\u2019s April 18, 2022 Order and request that the Court dismiss\n\n 6 plaintiffs\u2019 actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted\n\n 7 here in this Court or any other Court, or, if the Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs\u2019 default, the\n\n 8 alternative relief stated above.\n\n 9 DATED this 27th day of May 2022.\n\n 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 11\n By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera\n 12 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\n\n\n\n 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n\n 15 -and-\n\n 16 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)\n Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)\n 17 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 18 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 19\n Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin\n 20 DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D.\n Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred\n 21 Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital\n Holdings, Inc.\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 6\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 37 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC and that, on this\n 3 27th day of May 2022, I caused to be served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF program true and correct\n\n 4 copies of the above and foregoing RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF NO. 34, 35, AND 36) TO\n\n 5 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 31,\n\n 6 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Bernard action and\n\n 7 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD\n\n 8 COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO\n\n 9 MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Strassman action to all parties via electronic service.\n\n 10\n /s/ Cinda Towne\n 11 An employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n 12\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\n\n\n\n 13\n LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n PISANELLI BICE\n\n\n\n\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n\n\n 7\n WEIL:\\98647916\\1\\61707.0006\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:54:16.119573-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509469596","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.454755-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.594695-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":167,"description":"RESPONSE to 34 Motion to Consolidate Cases by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. Replies due by 6/3/2022. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 05/27/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563196/","id":199563196,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292042/","id":205292042,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/36/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.429214-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.556974-07:00","sha1":"ca77be25bcdd2e1f865177ab74c6aeefe7a5c351","page_count":14,"file_size":185543,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.36.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 1 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 2 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 3 (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n\n 5 G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 6 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 7\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 8 Las Vegas, NV 89106\n (702) 384-7111\n 9\n10 [Proposed] Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE\n12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n13\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n14\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n15 Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n16 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION (2)\n17 APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n Plaintiff, COUNSEL AND (3) TO TEMPORARILY\n18 STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n v. BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n19 SUPPORT\n20 FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n21\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n22 and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n23 Defendants,\n24\n -and-\n25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n26 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n27 Nominal Defendant.\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff,\n 4 v.\n 5\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 6 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n 7 AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 8 Defendants,\n 9 -and-\n10 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n11 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n12 Nominal Defendant.\n\n13\n14 STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED\n15 Should the Court (1) consolidate the two above-referenced actions, (2) appoint Wolf and\n16 GM&E as interim co-lead counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3)\n17 temporarily stay the current motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of\n18 a consolidated complaint?\n19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n20 I. INTRODUCTION\n21 Plaintiffs, shareholders of Marathon, request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2)\n22 appoint Wolf and GM&E as interim co-lead counsel to prosecute this action on behalf of the\n23 Plaintiffs suing derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Holdings, Inc.\n24 (\u201cMarathon\u201d or \u201cthe Company\u201d) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3) temporarily\n25 stay the motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated\n26 complaint.\n27 ///\n28 ///\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -2-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Both actions concern the same alleged general conduct and misconduct of the Board of the\n 2 Company in permitting the officers of Marathon to allegedly breach their fiduciary duties. The\n 3 consolidation of these two actions would serve the interests of judicial economy.\n 4 Moreover, Wolf and GM&E have capably represented the Plaintiffs and the nominal\n 5 defendant Marathon from the inception of the litigation, investigating and developing potential\n 6 claims, analyzing public reports and admissions about the allegations at issue, filing separate\n 7 complaints and then coordinating together in an effort to prosecute the derivative litigation in an\n 8 efficient manner. The firms have many years of experience prosecuting complex shareholder\n 9 actions, have successfully litigated the types of claims asserted in this case, and have the resources\n10 necessary to vigorously prosecute the case and protect the interests of the nominal defendant.\n11 In addition, in order ensure efficient proceedings in the two matters, Plaintiffs respectfully\n12 submit that the briefing on the pending motions to dismiss made in each action be stayed until this\n13 Court rules on the instant motion and sets a new schedule for the filing of a consolidated\n14 complaint. In the alternative, should the motion for consolidation and/or appointment of interim\n15 co lead counsel be denied, then the Plaintiffs request that their response to the pending motions to\n16 dismiss be due twenty-one (21) days after an Order is entered by the Court on this motion.\n17 Defendants have no objection to the proposed consolidation of the two actions, take no\n18 position on Plaintiffs\u2019 request for a leadership appointment and oppose Plaintiff\u2019s request to stay\n19 the briefing on the current motions to dismiss.\n20 II. BACKGROUND\n21 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n22 These are two shareholder derivative actions brought on behalf of and for the benefit of\n23 Marathon, against certain of its officers and directors named as defendants herein seeking to remedy\n24 their breaches of fiduciary duties. Defendants\u2019 actions have caused, and will continue to cause,\n25 substantial financial harm and reputational damage to Marathon. See Bernard Complaint, \u00b6 1.\n26 The Company is a corporation with principal executive offices located at 1180 North Town\n27 Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. Id. \u00b6 7. Marathon is a digital asset\n28 technology company that mines cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -3-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known as \u201cMarathon Patent\n 2 Group, Inc.\u201d and changed its name to \u201cMarathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\u201d on March 1, 2021. Id. \u00b6\n 3 28.\n 4 In October 2020, the Company announced the formation of a new joint venture with\n 5 Beowulf Joint Venture (\u201cBeowulf\u201d)\u2014a private, independent infrastructure holding company\n 6 that develops, builds, owns, and operates power generation and industrial infrastructure\n 7 facilities worldwide. Beowulf was purportedly focused on delivering low-cost power to the\n 8 Company\u2019s Bitcoin mining operations. In connection with that joint venture, the Company\n 9 entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties, including affiliates of Beowulf and\n10 Two Point One, LLC (\u201c2Pl\u201d), a Delaware limited liability company, to design and build a\n11 data center in Hardin, Montana, issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the parties of\n12 those agreements.\n13 On March 16, 2021, Defendants caused the Company to issue a press release announcing\n14 the Company\u2019s fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 results (the \u201c4Q/FY20 Press Release\u201d). That\n15 4Q/FY20 Press Release highlighted the fact that the Company \u201c[i]nitiated construction of [the]\n16 mining facility adjacent to Beowulf\u2019s energy plant in Hardin, MT, supplying Marathon long-term\n17 access to electricity at 2.8\u00a2/kWh[,]\u201d and the \u201cinstall[ation of] 3,697 S-19 ASIC miners at the\n18 mining facility Hardin, MT, increasing Marathon\u2019s current active mining fleet to 5,690 miners\n19 with an additional 6,641 already delivered . . . and in the process of being installed[.]\u201d\n20 Additionally, the 4Q/FY20 Press Release quoted Defendant Okamoto: \u201cwe established\n21 our 105 MW mining facility in Hardin, MT, where we have consistent access to electricity at\n22 rates far below market average, we presciently purchased more than 100,000 of the industry\u2019s top\n23 performing Bitcoin miners . . . and we enhanced our balance sheet[,]\u201d and that \u201c[w]ith a solid\n24 foundation to grow the business established, we are now focused on continuing to build out our\n25 mining facility and bring our miners . . . online.\u201d\n26 The statements referenced above were materially false and misleading.\n27 Specifically, Defendants caused the Company to make false and/or misleading statements and/or\n28 fail to disclose that: (i) Beowulf\u2019s activities, as it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -4-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a result, Beowulf\n 2 subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably\n 3 likely to have a material negative impact on the Company\u2019s business and commercial prospects;\n 4 and (iv) as a result, the Company\u2019s public statements were materially false and misleading at all\n 5 relevant times.\n 6 B. Procedural History\n 7 Presently pending in this District are the following two (2) related shareholder derivative\n 8 actions:\n 9\n Case Name Case No. Filing Date\n10\n11 Bernard v. Theil, et al. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305 February 18, 2022\n12\n Strassman v. Theil, et al. Case No.; 2:22-cv-00724 May 5, 2022\n13\n14 Each of the related actions is brought for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Marathon against\n15 members of Marathon\u2019s Board of Directors (\u201cBoard\u201d) and certain of the Company\u2019s officers. There\n16 is also a significant overlap of facts and legal claims among the cases, including for violation of\n17 federal or state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.\n18 III. ARGUMENT\n19 A. Consolidation\n20 Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:\n When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending\n21 before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters\n in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may\n22 make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid\n23 unnecessary costs or delay.\n\n24 Plaintiffs believe consolidation is appropriate for the above-referenced actions and any\n25 subsequently filed derivative action filed with this Court because they will involve common\n26 questions of law and fact and allege virtually identical state law claims of breach of fiduciary duty.\n27 Accordingly, the two derivative actions should be consolidated for all purposes in the interests of\n28 judicial economy and overall efficiency. Defendants do not oppose consolidation.\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -5-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 B. The Court Should Appoint Wolf and GM&E as Co-Lead Counsel\n 2 Competing derivative actions and uncoordinated plaintiffs\u2019 counsel create a risk of inefficient\n 3 and inconsistent results that would be adverse to the Company\u2019s interests. For those reasons, courts\n 4 routinely appoint lead counsel in derivative actions to facilitate the litigation for the sake of both\n 5 plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint Wolf\n 6 and GM&E as Co-Lead Derivative Counsel.\n 7 In complex cases such as this one, it is well-established that the court may appoint a plaintiff\n 8 leadership structure to coordinate the prosecution of the litigation. Saprano v. Lief, Nos. 10cv2079\n 9 BTM(BLM), 10cv2132 BTM(BLM), 10cv2344 BTM(BLM), 2011 WL 830109, at *2 (S.D. Cal.\n10 Mar. 3, 2011) (\u201cThe benefits of appointing a lead counsel in consolidated derivative actions is clear:\n11 \u2018The benefits achieved by consolidation and the appointment of general counsel, i.e., elimination of\n12 duplication and repetition and in effect the creation of a coordinator of diffuse plaintiffs through\n13 whom motions and discovery proceedings will be channeled, will most certainly redound to the\n14 benefit of all parties to the litigation.\u2019\u201d) (quoting MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.\n15 1958)); see also In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 297 (6th Cir. 1988); In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec.\n16 Litig., No 05 MDL 1706 (RO), 2006 WL 1120491, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 2006); In re Comverse\n17 Tech., Inc. Deriv. Litig., 06 Civ. 1849(NGG)(RER), 2006 WL 3761986, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22,\n18 2006) (holding that courts have \u201cthe inherent power to provide for the conduct of the proceedings\u201d\n19 and can therefore appoint lead counsel in derivative actions) (citing Advisory Committee Note to\n20 Rule 23.1); Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 659, 66, 673 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (\u201cA court may disturb\n21 the lead plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel only if it appears necessary to \u2018protect the interest of the class\u2019\u201d).\n22 It is well-settled that a judge may appoint plaintiff\u2019s counsel as lead counsel. In re Bendectin, 857\n23 F.2d at 297.\n24 The relevant factors are the qualifications of counsel, their diligence in prosecuting the action\n25 and ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of their clients and the Nominal Defendant,\n26 and the reasonableness of their fees and expenses. Moreover, the Manual for Complex Litigation\n27 recognizes the benefits of appointing class counsel in complex, multiparty litigation:\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -6-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n Complex litigation often involves numerous parties with common or similar interest\n 1 but separate counsel. Traditional procedures in which all papers and documents are\n served on all attorneys, and each attorney files motions, presents arguments, and\n 2 examines witnesses, may waste time and money, confuse and misdirect the litigation,\n burden the court unnecessarily. Instituting special procedures for coordination of\n 3 counsel early in the litigation will help to avoid these problems.\n 4 Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) \u00a7 10.22.\n 5 The criteria for appointing lead counsel in shareholder derivative actions should be similar to\n 6 those utilized under Rule 23(g) in class actions. These factors are: (i) [t]he work counsel has done in\n 7 identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel\u2019s experience in handling class\n 8 actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel\u2019s\n 9 knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class.\n10 Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., Nos. 12\u201305980 CRB, 12\u201306003 CRB, 12\u201306074 CRB, 12\u201306410\n11 CRB, 12\u201306199 CRB, 13\u201300301 CRB, 2013 WL 792642, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Bernhard\n12 v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 08-4392, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92308, at *14 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2009)\n13 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)). The Court must decide if the proposed candidates are qualified,\n14 holding dispositive no single factor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(B).\n15 In the proposed Consolidated Action, the appointment of Wolf and GM&E as co-lead counsel\n16 will best serve the interest of Marathon. Further, supporting the appointment of proposed Co-Lead\n17 Counsel are the criteria for selecting counsel set forth in Newberg on Class Actions, which state that\n18 the relevant factors \u201cinclude experience and prior success, the number, the size, and extent of\n19 involvement of represented litigants, the advanced stage of proceedings in a particular suit, and the\n20 nature of the causes of action alleged.\u201d 3 Alba Conte & Herbet B. Newberg, Newberg on Class\n21 Actions \u00a7 9.35, at 388 (4th ed. 2002). Each of these factors supports the appointment of proposed\n22 Co-Lead in the proposed Consolidated Action.\n23 1. The Work Done by Counsel\n24 Before filing their respective complaints, Wolf and GM&E investigated the underlying\n25 conduct and the potential legal claims. Wolf and GM&E drafted complaints and worked to\n26 develop the factual allegations and legal claims asserted in their respective complaints, and to\n27 ensure their accuracy.\n28 ///\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -7-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Once the litigation commenced, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel worked together in the litigation to\n 2 organize and coordinate the litigation, propose the consolidation of the actions, continue to\n 3 investigate the facts, and research legal theories for an anticipated consolidated complaint. The\n 4 two firms have conferred with defense counsel to attempt to organize the two actions into a\n 5 consolidated action and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint. All of this work\n 6 was performed for the benefit of the Nominal Defendant on a consensus basis among the two\n 7 Plaintiff law firms, without duplication of effort or the need for judicial intervention.\n 8 2. Wolf and GM&E\u2019s Experience\n 9 The second Rule 23(g) factor also supports appointment of Wolf and GM&E as interim co-\n10 lead counsel. The two firms have extensive experience in litigating complex civil cases of all\n11 types including shareholder rights, have achieved significant relief for their clients through\n12 settlement and trial, and have served in leadership positions in multiple complex actions\n13 throughout the country.\n14 a. Wolf\u2019s Experience\n15 Wolf has been a leading national law firm with extensive experience in shareholder\n16 derivative actions for more than fifty years. Wolf has been lead or co-lead counsel in securities\n17 class and derivative actions that have recouped billions of dollars on behalf of investors, including\n18 stockholder rights class actions that have resulted in billions of dollars in increased merger\n19 consideration to shareholder classes and in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of\n20 dollars for corporations.\n21 Wolf\u2019s pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\n22 laws include: groundbreaking derivative claims under the Investment Company Act of 1940\n23 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment companies and their advisors toward their\n24 shareholders; claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors in connection with change\n25 of control transactions; breach of fiduciary duty claims involving director self-dealing and lack of\n26 oversight. For example, in In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.), the\n27 firm was lead derivative counsel in a large collection of cases against mutual fund companies\n28 accused of market timing which achieved more than $300 million in settlement. In American\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -8-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 769-VCS (Del. Ch.), Wolf was\n 2 co-lead counsel and achieved a $125 million settlement. In In Re Bank of America Stockholder\n 3 Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.), the firm was co-lead and achieved $42.5\n 4 million in settlement benefits.\n 5 Wolf has served as lead or co-lead in many other securities class actions, such as In re\n 6 BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D. Mo.), in which the\n 7 class recovered $490 million, and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92\n 8 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), in which the class recovered $586 million. A copy of the firm resume of the\n 9 Wolf firm is attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin as Exhibit 1.\n10 b. GM&E\u2019s Experience\n11 GM&E has extensive experience in handling shareholder actions and other similar\n12 complex lawsuits and has prosecuted numerous securities class action and derivative shareholder\n13 cases, and therefore, possess substantial knowledge about the applicable law. In addition, the firm\n14 is well capitalized, and fully capable and prepared to staff and finance this derivative litigation.\n15 See GM&E\u2019s Firm R\u00e9sum\u00e9 attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin at Exhibit 2.\n16 GM&E made law with its successful prosecution of an appeal to the United States\n17 Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of prudence\u201d that lower courts had\n18 been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer retirement plans who imprudently\n19 invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case, Fifth Third Bancorp v,\n20 Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 2014 WL 2864481 (Sup. Ct. June 25, 2014), GM&E argued with co-\n21 counsel that the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework.\n22 The Supreme Court agreed.\n23 GM&E has also been lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous derivative and\n24 shareholder actions and has produced substantial recoveries for shareholders. GM&E was lead\n25 counsel in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n26 (D.N.J.) (recovery of $12.25 million for breach of fiduciary duty to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In\n27 re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (recovery of $8.2\n28 million for breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Boyd, et al. v.\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -9-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (breach of fiduciary duty recovery\n 2 of $3.6 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil\n 3 Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (sole lead counsel producing a recovery of $4.5 million for\n 4 breach of fiduciary duties owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In re General Growth Properties,\n 5 Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement\n 6 Class producing a recovery of $5.75 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan).\n 7 3. The Resources Counsel Will Commit to Representing the Nominal\n Defendant\n 8\n 9 Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have the resources necessary to lead this litigation. The firms have\n10 sufficient numbers of attorneys and other professionals to staff this case, and they have\n11 successfully managed complex, resource-intensive cases in the past. The firms have invested in\n12 the technology support necessary to handle complex matters, and each has designated a primary\n13 team of attorneys who will bring their unique skills and experience to representing the nominal\n14 defendant. The firms routinely advance the costs of litigation and have demonstrated an ability\n15 and willingness to dedicate substantial resources to vigorously prosecute the derivative claims\n16 asserted in the instant action.\n17 The two firms are prepared to commit the resources necessary to prosecute this case to a\n18 successful conclusion. The proposed leadership structure is ideally suited to the particular\n19 circumstances of this litigation, which will require a lean team of dedicated lawyers with sufficient\n20 resources to prosecute this litigation against sophisticated and well-financed defendants. The\n21 firms are well established, reputable, and have demonstrated that they are capable of handling the\n22 challenges of this litigation and committing the necessary resources to effectively represent the\n23 proposed class.\n24 C. Motion To Stay\n25 The Court is vested with the inherent power and authority to manage its calendar. See\n26 Dambach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 324 P.3d 369, 373 (2014). This\n27 includes the discretion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the instant motion.\n28 Additionally, NRCP 16.1 reflects the Court's wide discretion in managing all aspects of cases\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 10 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 before it. Among the Court's powers is the right to take action to discourage \"wasteful pretrial\n 2 activities\", \"to improve the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation\", and to craft\n 3 any procedures \"appropriate in the circumstances of the case.\" NRCP 16.1 (a)(3) and (4); NRCP\n 4 16.1 (b)(5).\n 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek a limited, temporary stay to allow the instant motion to be decided,\n 6 the two similar cases consolidated, co-lead counsel for the prosecution of the action appointed and\n 7 a schedule set for the drafting and filing of the consolidated complaint. Consolidating the actions\n 8 and proceeding in an orderly fashion will save judicial resources.\n 9 V. CONCLUSION\n10 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2) appoint Wolf\n11 and GM&E to serve as interim co-lead counsel in this litigation and (3) order that the pending\n12 motion to dismiss briefing in each action be temporarily stayed until after the actions are\n13 consolidated and a schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated complaint. In the alternative, if\n14 the instant motion is denied, Plaintiffs ask that any response to the pending motions to dismiss be\n15 due twenty-one (21) after an order is entered on the instant motion.\n16 Dated: May 23, 2022\n17 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n18\n /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n19 Matthew L. Sharp\n20 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n21 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n22\n Gregory M. Egleston\n23 Pro-Hac Vice Application to be filed\n GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n24 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n New York, New York 10017\n25 Phone: (212) 983-1300\n Fax: (212) 983-0383\n26 Email: gegleston@gme-aw.com\n27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 11 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n /s/ G. Mark Albright\n 1\n G. Mark Albright, Esq. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 2 Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. (NV Bar # 14595)\n ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n 3 & ALBRIGHT\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 5 Tel: (702) 384-7111\n\n 6 Mark C. Rifkin\n 7 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n 8 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n New York, NY 10016\n 9 Tel: (212) 545-4600\n10\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n11 Strassman\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 12 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by\n 4 using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n 7 DATED this 23rd day of May 2022.\n 8\n /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n 9 An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 13 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:54:00.577582-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462243","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371983030/","id":371983030,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/36/1/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2023-09-17T20:53:37.857815-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T04:30:43.326167-08:00","sha1":"8d9f45c9cb95253c2ee566fdc882f278b889122f","page_count":62,"file_size":773426,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.36.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.36.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 62\n\n\n\n\n G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 1\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 2 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 3 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 4\n (702) 384-7111\n 5\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 6 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 7 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 8 (775) 324-1500\n matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 9\n10 Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n12\n13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n14 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n15 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN\n16 IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS\n17 Plaintiff, FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION AND\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n18 v. COUNSEL AND (2) TO TEMPORARILY\n STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n19 BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n20 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, SUPPORT\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n21\n and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n22\n Defendants,\n23 -and-\n24\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n25 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n26 Nominal Defendant.\n27\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 62\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n Plaintiff,\n 3\n v.\n 4\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n 6 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7\n Defendants,\n 8\n -and-\n 9\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n10 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n11\n Nominal Defendant.\n12\n13 I Marc C. Rifkin declare the following:\n\n14 1. I am a resident of the State of New York and a partner at the law firm Wolf\n\n15 Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n16 2. I submit this declaration in support of the Motions for (1) Consolidation and\n\n17 Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel and (2) to Temporarily Stay All Motion to Dismiss\n\n18 Briefing.\n\n19 3. True and correct copies of the following documents cited in the accompanying Motion\n\n20 are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2:\n\n21 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION\n\n22 1. Firm Resume of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n23 2. Firm Resume of Gainey McKenna & Egleston.\n\n24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n25 foregoing is true and correct based upon my knowledge, information and belief.\n\n26 Dated: May 23, 2022\n\n27 /s/ Mark C. Rifkin\n Mark C. Rifkin\n28\n DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2)\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION\n TO DISMISS BRIEFING\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Providing Exemplary Legal Services Since 1888\n\n\n\n\n firm resume\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 62\n\n\nFounded in 1888, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a full service law\nfirm specializing in complex litigation in federal and state courts nationwide. The\nfirm\u2019s practice includes litigation, both hourly and contingent, in securities, antitrust,\nwage & hour, consumer fraud, false marketing, ERISA, and general and commercial\nmatters, whistleblower, false claim, trust & estate, corporate investigation, and white\ncollar matters, and FINRA arbitration. The Firm has a particular specialty in complex\nclass action and other representative litigation \u2013 including investor, shareholder,\nantitrust, ERISA, consumer, employee, and biotechnology matters \u2013 under both federal\nand state law.\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s total practice approach distinguishes it from other firms. Our\nlongstanding tradition of a close attorney/client relationship ensures that each one of\nour clients receives prompt, individual attention and does not become lost in an\ninstitutional bureaucracy. Our team approach is at the very heart of Wolf Haldenstein\u2019s\npractice. All of our lawyers are readily available to all of our clients and to each other.\nThe result of this approach is that we provide our clients with an efficient legal team\nhaving the broad perspective, expertise and experience required for any matter at hand.\nWe are thus able to provide our clients with cost effective and thorough counsel focused\non our clients\u2019 overall goals.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-686-0114\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 62\n\n\n THE FIRM\n\nWolf Haldenstein has been recognized by state and federal courts throughout the\ncountry as being highly experienced in complex litigation, particularly with respect to\nsecurities, consumer, ERISA, FLSA and state overtime and expense deductions, and\nantitrust class actions and shareholder rights litigation.\n\nAmong its colleagues in the plaintiffs\u2019 bar, as well as among its adversaries in the\ndefense bar, Wolf Haldenstein is known for the high ability of its attorneys, and the\nexceptionally high quality of its written and oral advocacy.\n\nThe nature of the Firm\u2019s activities in both individual and representative litigation is\nextremely broad. In addition to a large case load of securities fraud and other investor\nclass actions, Wolf Haldenstein has represented classes of corn and rice farmers in\nconnection with the devaluation of their crops; canned tuna consumers for tuna\ncompanies\u2019 violations of antitrust laws; merchants compelled to accept certain types of\ndebit cards; insurance policyholders for insurance companies\u2019 deceptive sales practices;\nvictims of unlawful strip searches under the civil rights laws; and various cases\ninvolving violations of Internet users\u2019 on-line privacy rights.\n\nThe Firm\u2019s experience in class action securities litigation, in particular public\nshareholder rights under state law and securities fraud claims arising under the federal\nsecurities laws and regulations is particularly extensive. The Firm was one of the lead\nor other primary counsel in securities class action cases that have recouped billions of\ndollars on behalf of investor classes, in stockholder rights class actions that have\nresulted in billions of dollars in increased merger consideration to shareholder classes,\nand in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of dollars for corporations.\n\nIts pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\nlaws include: groundbreaking claims that have been successfully brought under the\nInvestment Company Act of 1940 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment\ncompanies and their advisors toward their shareholders; claims under ERISA involving\nfiduciary duties of ERISA trustees who are also insiders in possession of adverse\ninformation regarding their fund\u2019s primary stockholdings; the fiduciary duties of the\ndirectors of Delaware corporations in connection with change of control transactions;\nthe early application of the fraud-on-the-market theory to claims against public\naccounting firms in connection with their audits of publicly traded corporations; and\nthe application of federal securities class certification standards to state law claims often\nthought to be beyond the reach of class action treatment.\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 62\n\n\n Judicial Commendations\n\nWolf Haldenstein has repeatedly received favorable judicial recognition. The following\nrepresentative judicial comments over the past decade indicate the high regard in which\nthe Firm is held:\n\n \u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (Sup. Ct.\n N.Y. Co.) \u2013 On May 2, 2013, Justice O. Peter Sherwood praised the Firm in its\n role as chair of the committee of co-lead counsel as follows: \"It is apparent to\n me, having presided over this case, that class counsel has performed in an\n excellent manner, and you have represented your clients quite well. You\n should be complimented for that.\" In awarding attorneys' fees, the\n Court stated that the fee was \"intended to reward class counsel handsomely\n for the very good result achieved for the Class, assumption of the high risk of\n Plaintiffs prevailing and the efficiency of effort that resulted in the settlement\n of the case at an early stage without protracted motion practice.\" May 17, 2013\n slip. op. at 5 (citations omitted).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) \u2013 On April 9, 2013, Justice\n Richard B. Lowe III praised the Firm\u2019s efforts as follows: \u201c[W]hen you have\n challenging cases, the one thing you like to ask for is that the legal\n representation on both sides rise to that level. Because when you have lawyers\n who are professionals, who are confident, who are experienced, each of you\n know that each side has a job to do [. . . .] I want to tell you that I am very\n satisfied with your performance and with your, quite frankly, tenacity on both\n sides. And it took six years, but look at the history of the litigation. There were\n two appeals all of the way to the Court of Appeals [. . . .] And then look at the\n results. I mean, there are dissents in the Court of Appeals, so that shows you\n the complexity of the issues that were presented in this litigation [. . . .] [I]t\n shows you effort that went into this and the professionalism that was\n exhibited [. . . .] So let me just again express my appreciation to both sides.\u201d\n\n \u2022 K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555 (E.D. Mich.) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Rosen, at the June 7, 2010 final\n approval hearing, praised the Firm for doing \u201can outstanding job of\n representing [its] clients,\u201d and further commented that \u201cthe conduct of all\n counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties\n confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Klein, et al. v. Ryan Beck Holdings, Inc., et al., 06-cv-3460 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. 2010) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Deborah A. Batts described the\n Firm\u2019s successful establishment of a settlement fund as follows: \u201c[a] miracle\n that there is a settlement fund at all.\u201d Judge Batts continued: \"As I said earlier,\n there is no question that the litigation is complex and of a large and, if you\n will, pioneering magnitude ...\" (Emphasis added).\n\n\u2022 Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) \u2013 where\n the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), \u201c[a]ll\n of the attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really\n appreciate the quality of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this\n case.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) \u2013 where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August\n 15, 2007), \u201cI think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all,\n watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the\n results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put\n this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust]\n class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an\n exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really\n required the Court\u2019s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at\n organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case.\n There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs\u2019\n counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . .\n . So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed\n as well by both sides.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Sec. Litigation, 01 C 2110 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2005) \u2013 Judge Milton\n Shadur observed: \u201cIt has to be said . . . that the efforts that have been extended\n [by Wolf Haldenstein] on behalf of the plaintiff class in the face of these\n obstacles have been exemplary. And in my view [Wolf Haldenstein] reflected\n the kind of professionalism that the critics of class actions . . . are never willing\n to recognize. . . . I really cannot speak too highly of the services rendered by\n class counsel in an extraordinary difficult situation.\u201d\n\n\u2022 Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV\n 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2016) \u2013 Judge George H. King\n\n\n\n\n Page 5\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 62\n\n\n stated: \"Not all, or perhaps even most, plaintiffs' class counsel could have\n litigated this case as successfully as did class counsel against such a fierce and\n exceptionally accomplished opponent.\"\n\n \u2022 Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., (Case No. 1:18-cv-209, D. Haw., May 3,\n 2019): Judge Robert J. Bryan said, \u201cI\u2019ve been impressed by the quality of the\n work you\u2019ve done throughout here, and that is reflected, I think, in the fact\n that no one has objected to the settlement.\u201d\n\n Recent Noteworthy Results\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s performance in representative litigation has repeatedly resulted in\nfavorable results for its clients. The Firm has helped recover billions of dollars on\nbehalf of its clients in the cases listed below. Recent examples include the following:\n\n \u2022 On May 13, 2019, in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, the Supreme Court\n affirmed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that iPhone\n purchasers have standing to sue Apple for monopolizing the market for iPhone\n apps in this longstanding antitrust class action. Wolf Haldenstein has been\n Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs since 2007. The case was commenced in federal\n district court in Oakland. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision clears the way for the\n plaintiffs to proceed on the merits of their claim.\n\n \u2022 On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated\n decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael H. Resh, et al. Wolf Haldenstein\n represented the plaintiffs/respondents, having commenced the action on behalf\n of aggrieved shareholders of China Agritech after two prior cases had failed at\n the class certification stage.\n\n \u2022 In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, MDL 1811 (E.D. Mo.) - Wolf\n Haldenstein represented U.S. rice farmers in this landmark action against Bayer\n A.G. and its global affiliates, achieving a global recovery of $750 million. The\n case arose from the contamination of the nation's long grain rice crop by\n Bayer's experimental and unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice.\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) - a class action brought on\n behalf of over 27,500 current and former tenants of New York City's iconic\n Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village housing complexes. On April 9,\n 2013, Justice Richard B. Lowe III of the New York Supreme Court finally\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 62\n\n\n approved settlement of the action, which totals over $173 million, sets aside\n $68.75 million in damages, re-regulates the apartments at issue, and sets\n preferential rents for the units that will save tenants significant monies in the\n future. The settlement also enables the tenants to retain an estimated $105\n million in rent savings they enjoyed between 2009 and 2012. The settlement is\n by many magnitudes the largest tenant settlement in United States history.\n\n\u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., Index No. 650607/2012 \u2013 The\n firm served as Chair of the Executive Committee of Co-Lead Counsel for the\n Plaintiffs in a class action settlement finally approved on May 2, 2013 that\n provides for the establishment of a $55 million settlement fund for investors, in\n addition to substantial tax deferral benefits estimated to be in excess of $100\n million.\n\n\u2022 American International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 769-VCS (Del. Ch.) The Firm acted as co-lead counsel and the settlement\n addressed claims alleging that the D&O Defendants breached their fiduciary\n duties to the Company and otherwise committed wrongdoing to the detriment\n of AIG in connection with various allegedly fraudulent schemes during the\n 1999-2005 time period.\n\n\u2022 In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income\n Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Master File No. 09 MD 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (firm was\n co-lead counsel in parallel derivative action pending in Delaware (In Re Bank of\n America Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.)) (increase\n of settlement cash recovery from $20 million to $62.5 million).\n\n\u2022 The Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Service Transit Operating\n Authority Pension Plan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:09-cv-04408-SAS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $150 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Tremont Sec. Law, State Law and Insurance Litig., No. 08-civ-11117 (TPG)\n (SDNY) (class recovered $100 million). The firm was court-appointed co-lead\n counsel in the Insurance Action, 08 Civ. 557, and represented a class of persons\n who purchased or otherwise acquired Variable Universal Life (\u201cVUL\u201d)\n insurance policies or Deferred Variable Annuity (\u201cDVA\u201d) policies issued by\n Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus International Life Bermuda\n Limited from May 10, 1994 - December 11, 2008 to the extent the investment\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 62\n\n\n accounts of those policies were exposed to the massive Ponzi scheme\n orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff through one or more Rye funds.\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $586 million). Wolf Haldenstein served as Co-Lead Counsel of one\n of the largest securities fraud cases in history. Despite the United States Court\n of Appeals for the Second Circuit\u2019s decision to vacate the district court\u2019s class\n certification decision, on remand, counsel for plaintiffs were able to press on to\n a settlement on April 1, 2009, ultimately recovering in excess of a half-billion\n dollars.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 62\n\n\n FIRM PRACTICE AREAS\n\n Class Action Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in class and derivative action litigation and is currently or\nhas been the court-appointed lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or executive committee\nmember in some of the largest and most significant class action and derivative action\nlawsuits in the United States. For example, the class action Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13\nN.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) was recently described by a sitting member of the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives as the greatest legal victory for tenants in her lifetime. In Roberts, the\nFirm obtained a victory in the New York Court of Appeals requiring the reregulation of\nthousands of apartment units in the Stuyvesant Town complex in Manhattan, New\nYork. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful results are summarized within.\n\n Private Actions for Institutional Investors\n\nIn addition to its vast class action practice, the Firm also regularly represents\ninstitutional clients such as public funds, investment funds, limited partnerships, and\nqualified institutional buyers in private actions. The Firm has represented institutional\nclients in non-class federal and state actions concerning a variety of matters, including\nprivate placements, disputes with investment advisors, and disputes with corporate\nmanagement.\n\nThe Firm has also acted as special counsel to investors\u2019 committees in efforts to assert\nand advance the investors\u2019 interests without resorting to litigation. For example, the\nFirm served as Counsel to the Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partners Committee for\nseveral years in its dealings with Host Marriott Corporation, and as Special Counsel to\nthe Windsor Park Properties 7 and 8 limited partners to insure the fairness of their\nliquidation transactions.\n\n Antitrust Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in antitrust and competition litigation. The Firm actively\nseeks to enforce the federal and state antitrust laws to protect and strengthen the rights\nand claims of businesses, organizations, Taft-Hartley funds, and consumers throughout\nthe United States. To that end, Wolf Haldenstein commences large, often complex,\nantitrust and trade regulation class actions and other cases that target some of the most\npowerful and well-funded corporate interests in the world. Many of these interests\nexert strong influence over enforcement policy that is in the hands of elected officials, so\nthat private enforcement provides the only true assurance that unfair and\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 62\n\n\nanticompetitive conduct will be duly scrutinized for compliance with the law. These\ncases frequently bring to light concealed, unlawful behavior such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, market allocation, monopoly leveraging, essential facilities, tying\narrangements, vertical restraints, exclusive dealing, and refusals to deal. Wolf\nHaldenstein\u2019s Antitrust Practice Group has successfully prosecuted numerous antitrust\ncases and aggressively advocates remedies and restitution for businesses and investors\nwronged by violations of the antitrust laws. For example, in In re DRAM Antitrust\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) the firm successfully prosecuted an antitrust\ncase resulting in a $315 million recovery. Many of the firm\u2019s successful results are\nsummarized within.\n\nWolf Haldenstein attorneys currently serve as lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or as\nexecutive committee members in some of the largest and most significant antitrust class\naction lawsuits. The firm was most recently appointed lead counsel in the Salmon\nAntitrust Indirect Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District\nof Florida.\n\n Overtime and Compensation Class Actions\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader class action litigation on behalf of employees who have not\nbeen paid overtime or other compensation they are entitled to receive, or have had\nimproper deductions taken from their compensation. These claims under the federal\nFair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws allege improper failure to pay overtime\nand other wages, and improper deductions from compensation for various company\nexpenses. Wolf Haldenstein has served as lead or co-lead counsel, or other similar lead\nrole, in some of the most significant overtime class actions pending in the United States,\nand has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in recovered wages for its clients. For\nexample, in LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\na $108 million settlement was secured for the class. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful\nwage and hour results are summarized within.\n\nSubstantial Recoveries in Class Action and Derivative Cases in Which\nWolf Haldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n \u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litigation, Master File No. 09 Civ. 0777 (LBS) (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($219 million settlement in this and related action).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, No. 100956/2007 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) ($173 Million\n settlement).\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.) (derivative\n counsel in consolidated cases against numerous mutual fund companies\n involved in market timing resulting in class/derivative settlements totaling\n more than $300 million).\n\n\u2022 Inland Western Securities Litigation, Case No. 07 C 6174 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n value of shares valued between $61.5 million and $90 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust, No. 09-Civ-8011 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $8 million).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D.\n Mo.) (class recovered $490 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, (MD-02 1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) (class recovered $325 million).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (class\n recovered $160 million in cash and securities).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373, 94 Civ. 2546 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $116.5 million in cash).\n\n\u2022 In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $110\n million).\n\n\u2022 In Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Sec. Litigation, 2:02-CV-1226 (E.D.N.Y.)\n ($130 million settlement in this and two related actions).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 02-12338 (MEL) (D. Mass.)\n (classes recovered $52.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ\n (D. Mass) (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Iridium Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.) (class recovered $43\n million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 15 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1783 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n providing for adoption of corporate governance principles relating to potential\n corporate transactions requiring shareholder approval).\n\n\u2022 LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\n ($108 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv-2628 (BEN) (S.D. Cal.)\n ($50 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Poole v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Case No. CV-06-1657 (D. Or.)\n ($43.5 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 07-1807 DOC\n (C.D. Cal.) ($39 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation (Prudential), MDL No.\n 07-1807 DOC (C.D. Cal.) ($11 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Basile v. A.G. Edwards, Inc., 08-CV-00338-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal.) ($12 million\n settlement).\n\n\u2022 Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n (Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) (co-lead, $1.65 million settlement w/\n average class member recovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded\n separately).\n\n\u2022 Neil Weinstein, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D.Cal)\n (co-lead, $7.4 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Creighton v. Oppenheimer, Index No. 1:06 - cv - 04607 - BSJ - DCF (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($2.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-CV-3460 (DAB)(S.D.N.Y.) ($1.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated\n C.A. No. 1823-N (Del. Ch. Ct.) ($14.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Collins and Aikman Corp., 06-cv-13555 (E.D. Mich.) (class recovered\n $12 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 16 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, 02 CV\n 7854 (JFK) (SDNY); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund\n Securities Litigation, 02 CV 10221 (JFK) (SDNY) (class recovered $39 million in\n combined cases).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 6:04-cv-1231 (Orl-31)\n (class recovered $35 million, and lawsuit also instrumental in $225 million\n benefit to corporation).\n\n\u2022 In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06-CV-4130-DGT-AKT ($34.4 million recovery).\n\n\u2022 In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Stock Option Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06cv4622 (S.D.N.Y.) ($32 million recovery and corporate governance reforms).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Docket No. 98-1148 (S.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $29 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Arakis Energy Corporation Securities Litigation, 95 CV 3431 (E.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $24 million).\n\n\u2022 In re E.W. Blanche Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-258 (D. Minn.)\n (class recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation, No. CV 01-3285 (E.D.N.Y) (class\n recovered $18.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, CV-00-2018 (C.D. Cal.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110 (MIS) (N.D. Ill.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-CV-1270\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13.65 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 17 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2097 (MA) (W.D. Tenn) (class\n recovered $13.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6190 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.)\n (class recovered $12.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corp. Securities Litigation, 00-11972 (D. Mass.) (class recovered $12\n million).\n\n\u2022 Bamboo Partners LLC v. Robert Mondavi Corp., No. 26-27170 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (class\n recovered $10.8 million).\n\n\u2022 Curative Health Services Securities Litigation, 99-2074 (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Jones Intercable, 99 WM-1051 (D. Colo.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila, Inc., (ERISA Litigation), 04-865 (W.D. Mo.) ($10.5 million recovery\n for the class).\n\n\u2022 In re Tenfold Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:00-CV-652 (D. Utah) (class\n recovered $5.9 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Industrial Gas Antitrust Litigation, 80 C 3479 and related cases (N.D. Ill.)\n (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chor-Alkalai and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, 86-5428 and related cases\n (E.D. Pa.) (class recovered $55 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.) (class\n recovered $126 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:94-cv-00897,\n M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $715 million).\n\n\u2022 Landon v. Freel, M.D.L. No. 592 (S.D. Tex.) (class recovered $12 million).\n\n\u2022 Holloway v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., No. 84 C 814 EU (N.D. Okla.) (class\n recovered $38 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 18 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re The Chubb Corp. Drought Insurance Litigation, C-1-88-644 (S.D. Ohio)\n (class recovered $100 million).\n\n\u2022 Wong v. Megafoods, Civ-94-1702 (D. Ariz.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $12.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Del Val Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4854 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $11.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Home Shopping Network Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action\n No. 12868, (Del. Ch. 1995) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Paine Webber Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 Civ 8547 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4007 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $19 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Spectrum Information Technologies Securities Litigation, CV 93-2245\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chase Manhattan Securities Litigation, 90 Civ. 6092 (LJF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Prostic v. Xerox Corp., No. B-90-113 (EBB) (D. Conn.) (class recovered $9\n million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Hercules, Civil Action No. 90-442-RRM (D. Del.) (class recovered $18\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Ambase Securities Litigation, 90 Civ 2011 (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $14.6\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southmark Securities Litigation, CA No. 3-89-1402-D (N.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $70 million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., No. 86-M 456 (D. Colo. 1989) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Tucson Electric Power Derivative Litigation, 2:89 Civ. 01274 TUC. ACM\n (corporation recovered $30 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 19 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Alleco Stockholders Litigation, (Md. Cir. Ct. Pr. Georges County) (class recovered\n $16 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Revlon Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. 8362 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Taft Broadcasting Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 8897 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southland Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 87-8834-K (N.D.Tex.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Crocker Bank Securities Litigation, CA No. 7405 (Del. Ch.) (class recovered\n $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, No. 82 Civ. 8288 (JFK)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Joseph v. Shell Oil, CA No. 7450 (Del. Ch.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 4-82-874,\n MDL No. 517 (D. Minn.) (recovery of over $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Whittaker Corporation Securities Litigation, CA000817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los\n Angeles County) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Naevus International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 602191/99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)\n (consumer fraud) (class recovered $40 million).\n\n\u2022 Sewell v. Sprint PCS Limited Partnership, C.A. No. 97-188027/CC 3879 (Cir. Ct.\n for Baltimore City) (consumer fraud) (class recovered $45.2 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2:08-\n cv-285 (D.N.J.) (class recovered $41.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Verizon, No. 104784/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) \u2013 Wolf Haldenstein\n represented a class of New York Verizon Centrex customers in an action\n against Verizon stemming from overbilling of certain charges. The Firm\n secured a settlement with a total value to the Class of over $5 million, which\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 20 of 62\n\n\n provided, among other things, each class member with full refunds of certain\n disputed charges, plus interest.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Nahal Zelouf, Index No. 653652/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.\n 2015). In an important trial decision following an appraisal proceeding\n triggered by the freeze-out merger of a closely-held corporation, which also\n included shareholder derivative claims, Justice Kornreich of the New York\n Supreme Court refused to apply a discount for lack of marketability to the\n minority interest in the former corporation and found that the insiders stole\n more than $14 million dollars; the minority shareholder recovered over $9\n million.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 45 Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2014). The\n Court rejected application of a discount for lack of marketability and awarded\n a $10,031,438.28 judgment following an eleven day bench trial in the\n Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New\n York County) on the value of a minority interest in a closely held corporation.\n\n\u2022 Thompson et al. v. Bethpage Federal Credit Union et al., No. 2:17-cv-00921-GRB\n (E.D.N.Y.) ($3.6 million settlement)\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 21 of 62\n\n\n Representative Reported Opinions Since 1990 in Which Wolf\nHaldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n Federal Appellate and District Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)\n\n\u2022 Hymes v. Bank of America, 408 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 332 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. Cal. 2019)\n\n\u2022 China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal.\n 2017)\n\n\u2022 DeFrees v. Kirkland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52780 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 282 F.R.D. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\n\u2022 Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, No. 10-2514 (7th\n Cir. Jan. 13, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Text Message Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d, 622 (7th Cir. 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98270 (N.D. Cal. July\n 8, 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 745 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., 545 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litig., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).\n\n\u2022 Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, No. 06 C 4674, 2007 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 93877 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 2007 WL 2768383 (E.D. Mo.\n Sept. 20, 2007).\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 22 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund, 99 Civ. 4174 (LMM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61454\n (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-Civ. 3460 (WCC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51465 (S.D.N.Y.\n July 13, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Cannon v. MBNA Corp. No. 05-429 GMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48901 (D. Del.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202 (W.D. Mo. 2006).\n\n\u2022 Smith v. Aon Corp., 238 F.R.D. 609 (N.D. Ill. 2006).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 03-10165, 2005 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 29656 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group, S.p.A. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071\n (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38876,\n No. 6:04-cv-1231-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2005).\n\n\u2022 Johnson v. Aegon USA, Inc., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2004).\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 33018 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, 03-CV-1270 (E.D.N.Y. June\n 22, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 308 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2697 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7,\n 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (1st Cir. May 9,\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re PerkinElmer, Inc. Securities Litigation, 286 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2003).\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 23 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y.\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5047\n (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475 (2001), clarified, 279 F.3d 313 (5th\n Cir. 2002).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Cable TV Fund 14-B, 213 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corporation Securities Litigation, Docket No. 00-11972 - WGY, 2002\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18143 (D. Mass., Sept. 27, 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation, 212 F.Supp.2d 828 (N.D. Ill.\n 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Bankamerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 263 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, 166 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D. Ill. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457\n JN, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14780 (W.D. Tx. Aug. 15, 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Lindelow v. Hill, No. 00 C 3727, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10301 (N.D. Ill. July 19,\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 148 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the\n Electrical Industry, 172 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Carney v. Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass.\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 Weltz v. Lee, 199 F.R.D. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Schoers v. Pfizer, Inc., 00 Civ. 6121, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,\n 2001).\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 24 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83\n (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2001).\n\n\u2022 Goldberger v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 98 Civ. 8677 (JSM), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18714\n (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 99 C 6853, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 15190 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Stanley v. Safeskin Corp., Case No. 99 CV 454 BTM (LSP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 14100, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 221 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re USA Talks.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14823, Fed.\n Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 231 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Sotheby\u2019s Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 00 CIV. 1041 (DLC), 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 12504, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 059 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 10906 (E.D. La. July 21, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21424 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Carnegie International Corp. Securities Litigation, 107 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D.\n Md. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21423 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Imperial Credit Industries Securities Litigation, CV 98-8842 SVW, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 2340 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 82 F. Supp. 2d 227\n (S.D.N.Y. 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 25 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 619 (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 110 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 78 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Mo. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18378\n (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Nanophase Technologies Corp. Litigation, 98 C 3450, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 16171 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Clearly Canadian Securities Litigation, File No. C-93-1037-VRW, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 14273 Cal. Sept. 7, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (W.D. Okla. 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Spyglass, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99 C 512, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11382\n (N.D. Ill. July 20, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11595 (N.D. Ga. June 30, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 98 CV 3287, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11363 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1368, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90, 429 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Longman v. Food Lion, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 331 (M.D.N.C. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 669 (W.D. Pa. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 1998).\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 26 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga.\n 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re MobileMedia Securities Litigation, 28 F.Supp.2d 901 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 1865 (HB), 1998\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 999 F. Supp. 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-cv-3183-TWT, 1998 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 23222 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 1998).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Radica Games (In re Radica Games Securities Litigation), No. 96-17274,\n 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32775 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Robbins v. Koger Properties, 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 95\n Civ. 0167 (PKL), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18485 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 97 Civ. 2189 (SAS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13630\n (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23646 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23647 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 964 F.\n Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Companies, 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 4451 (S.D.N.Y. April 8, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Bobrow v. Mobilmedia, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-4715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 23806 (D.N.J. March 31, 1997).\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 27 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kalodner v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 200 (N.D.Tex. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 95 Civ.\n 8422 (LAK), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Alpern v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 95 Civ. 1924 (MBM),\n 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Simon v. American Power Conversion Corp., 945 F. Supp. 416 (D.R.I. 1996).\n\n\u2022 TII Industries, Inc., 96 Civ. 4412 (SAS), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14466 (S.D.N.Y.\n Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 941\n F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 9195 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Tricord Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil No. 3-94-746, 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 20943 (D. Minn. April 5, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1265 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Riley v. Simmons, 45 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1995).\n\n\u2022 Stepak v. Addison, 20 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1994).\n\n\u2022 Zitin v. Turley, [1991 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u00b6 96,123 (D.\n Ariz. June 20, 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 28 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation, 151 F.R.D.\n 597 (W.D.N.C. 1993).\n\n\u2022 County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\n\n Notable State Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 William Hughes, Jr. v. Xiaoming Hu, et al. [In re Kandi Technologies Group], C.A.\n No. 2019-0112-JTL (Del. Ch. April 27, 2020).\n\n\u2022 Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir, 179 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2020).\n\n\u2022 Cohen v. Saks, Inc., 169 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\n\u2022 Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 147 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep\u2019t 2016).\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 47 Misc. 3d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014).\n\n\u2022 McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, 56 Cal. 4th 613 (2013).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 89 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).\n\n\u2022 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 241 (2011).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009).\n\n\u2022 In re Tyson Foods, Inc., Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A.2d 563 (Del. Ch.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 Naevus Int\u2019l v. AT&T Corp., 283 A.D.2d 171, 724 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Western National Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.\n 15927, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 82 (May 22, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 2000 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 90 (May 5, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14634,\n 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 27, 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 29 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotels Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 24, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company, 132 N.C. App. 682, 513 S.E.2d\n 598 (Ct. App. 1999), aff\u2019d, 351 N.C. 349, 524 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Greenwald v. Batterson, C.A. No. 16475, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158 (July 26, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Perrette, Civil Action No. 13531, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 92 (May 18,\n 1999).\n\n\u2022 Seinfeld v. Robinson, 246 A.D.2d 291, 676 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Werner v. Alexander, 130 N.C. App. 435, 502 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 1997 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 146 (Oct. 15, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 1997 Del. Ch. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 17, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Cheyenne Software Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14941,\n 1996 Del. Ch. LEXIS 142 (Nov. 7, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. Super.\n Ct. 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 30 of 62\n\n\n ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES\n\nThe qualifications of the attorneys in the Wolf Haldenstein Litigation Group are set\nforth below and are followed by descriptions of some of the Firm\u2019s attorneys who\nnormally practice outside the Litigation Group who contribute significantly to the class\naction practice from time to time.\n Partners\n\nMARK C. RIFKIN: admitted: New York; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; U.S. Supreme\nCourt; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits; U.S.\nDistrict Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern and\nWestern Districts of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin and the Western District of Michigan. Education: Princeton University (A.B.\n1982); Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1985). Contributor, Packel & Poulin,\nPennsylvania Evidence (1987).\n\nA highly experienced securities class action and shareholder rights litigator, Mr. Rifkin\nhas recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate fraud and abuse\nin federal and state litigation across the country. Since 1990, Mr. Rifkin has served as\nlead counsel, co-lead counsel, or trial counsel in many class and derivative actions in\nsecurities, intellectual property, antitrust, insurance, consumer and mass tort litigation\nthroughout the country.\n\nUnique among his peers in the class action practice, Mr. Rifkin has extensive trial\nexperience. Over the past thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has tried many complex commercial\nactions in federal and state courts across the country in class and derivative actions,\nincluding In re National Media Corp. Derivative Litig., C.A. 90-7574 (E.D. Pa.), Upp v.\nMellon Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 91-5229 (E.D. Pa.), where the verdict awarded more than\n$60 million in damages to the Class (later reversed on appeal, 997 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir.\n1993)), and In re AST Research Securities Litigation, No. 94-1370 SVW (C.D. Cal.), as well\nas a number of commercial matters for individual clients, including Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v.\nZelouf, Index No. 653652/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), in which he obtained a $10 million\njudgment for his client.\n\nMr. Rifkin also has extensive appellate experience. Over thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has\nargued dozens of appeals on behalf of appellants and appellees in several federal\nappellate courts, and in the highest appellate courts in New York, Pennsylvania, New\nJersey, and Delaware.\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 31 of 62\n\n\n\n\nMr. Rifkin has earned the AV\u00ae-Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell\u00ae for more\nthan 20 years, and has been selected for inclusion in the New York Metro\nSuperLawyers\u00ae listing since 2010. In 2014, Mr. Rifkin was named a \u201cTitan of the\nPlaintiff\u2019s Bar\u201d by Law360\u00ae.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Rifkin received worldwide acclaim for his role as lead counsel for the class\nin Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV 13-\n04460-GHK (MRWx), in federal court in Los Angeles, successfully challenging the\ncopyright to \u201cHappy Birthday to You,\u201d the world\u2019s most famous song. In recognition of\nhis historic victory, Mr. Rifkin was named a Trailblazer in Intellectual Property by the\nNational Law Journal in 2016. In 2018, Mr. Rifkin led a team of lawyers from Wolf\nHaldenstein who represented the plaintiffs in We Shall Overcome Foundation, et al. v. The\nRichmond Organization, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02725-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), which successfully\nchallenged the copyright to \u201cWe Shall Overcome,\u201d called the \u201cmost powerful song of\nthe 20th century\u201d by the Librarian of Congress.\n\nMr. Rifkin lectures frequently to business and professional organizations on a variety of\nsecurities, shareholder, intellectual property, and corporate governance matters. Mr.\nRifkin is a guest lecturer to graduate and undergraduate economics and finance\nstudents on corporate governance and financial disclosure topics. He also serves as a\nmoot court judge for the A.B.A. and New York University Law School. Mr. Rifkin\nappears frequently in print and broadcast media on diverse law-related topics in\ncorporate, securities, intellectual property, antitrust, regulatory, and enforcement\nmatters.\n\nBETSY C. MANIFOLD: admitted: Wisconsin; New York; California; U.S. District Courts\nfor the Western District of Wisconsin, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California. Education: Elmira College;\nMiddlebury College (B.A., cum laude, 1980); Marquette University (J.D., 1986); New\nYork University. Thomas More Scholar. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award in\nAgency. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Languages:\nFrench.\n\nMs. Manifold served as co-lead counsel in the following cases to recovery on behalf of\nemployees: Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n(Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) ($1.65 million settlement w/ average class member\nrecovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded separately) and Neil Weinstein, et al.\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 32 of 62\n\n\nv. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D. Cal) ($7.4 million settlement).\nMs. Manifold also served as co-lead counsel in the following derivative actions: In re\nAtmel Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. CV 06-4592-JF (N.D. Cal.) ($9.65\nmillion payment to Atmel) and In re Silicon Storage Technology Inc. Derivative Litig., Case\nNo. C 06-04310 JF (N.D. Cal.) (cash payment and re-pricing of options with a total value\nof $5.45 million). Ms. Manifold also worked as lead counsel on the following class\naction: Lewis v. American Spectrum Realty, Case No. 01 CC 00394, Cal. Sup. Ct (Orange\nCounty) ($6.5 million settlement).\n\nBENJAMIN Y. KAUFMAN: admitted: New York, United States Supreme Court, United\nStates Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts\nof New York, District of New Jersey; and District of Colorado. Education: Yeshiva\nUniversity, B.A.; Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D; New\nYork University, Stern School of Business, M.B.A. Mr. Kaufman focuses on class actions\non behalf of defrauded shareholders, investors, and consumers. Mr. Kaufman has\nextensive experience in complex class actions representing clients including\ninstitutional investors such as public and labor pension funds, labor health and welfare\nbenefit funds, as well as private individuals and funds who suffered losses due to\ncorporate fraud. Mr. Kaufman also has extensive experience litigating complex\ncommercial cases in state and federal court.\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s successful securities litigations include In re Deutsche Telekom AG\nSecurities Litigation, No. 00-9475 (S.D.N.Y.), a complex international securities litigation\nrequiring evidentiary discovery in both the United States and Europe, which settled for\n$120 million. Mr. Kaufman was also part of the team that recovered $46 million for\ninvestors in In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation, No. 01-7351 (S.D.N.Y.); and $43.1\nmillion in Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.).\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s outstanding representative results in derivative and transactional\nlitigations include: In re Trump Hotels Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 96-cv-7820\n(S.D.N.Y.) (in settlement Trump personally contributed some of his holdings and the\ncompany adopted corporate reforms); Southwest Airlines Derivative Litigation (Carbon\nCounty Employee Retirement System v. Kelly) (Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty., Tex.) (derivative\nmatter that resulted in significant reforms to the air carrier\u2019s corporate governance and\nsafety and maintenance practices and procedures for the benefit of the company and its\nshareholders); Lynn v. Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 3:12-cv-01137 (M.D.\nTenn.) ($2.6 million settlement); In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, No. A-17-\n758912-B (D. Nev.) ($5 million settlement and corporate therapeutics). Mr. Kaufman\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 33 of 62\n\n\nalso argued the appeal in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litig., 56 A.D.3d 49\n(1st Dep\u2019t 2008) which led to the seminal New York Appellate Division opinion\nclarifying the standards of demand futility in New York and In re Topps Company, Inc.\nShareholders Litigation which resulted in a 2007 decision vindicating the rights of\nshareholders to pursue claims in the most relevant forum notwithstanding the state of\nincorporation. Mr. Kaufman has also lectured and taught in the subjects of corporate\ngovernance as well as transactional and derivative litigation.\n\nIn addition, Mr. Kaufman has represented many corporate clients in complex\ncommercial matters, including complex copyright royalty class actions against music\ncompanies. Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. );\nShropshire v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 06-3252 (S.D.N.Y.), and The Youngbloods v.\nBMG Music, No. 07-2394 (S.D.N.Y.). In Mich II Holdings LLC v. Schron, No. 600736/10\n(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.), Mr. Kaufman represented certain prominent real estate investors\nand successfully moved to dismiss all claims against those defendants. Mr. Kaufman\nhas also represented clients in arbitrations and litigations involving oppressed minority\nshareholders in closely held corporations.\n\nCurrently, Mr. Kaufman represents clients in a wide array of matters, including\nshareholders of a large cooperative complex alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the\nboard of directors and property manager; purchasers of New York City taxi medallions\nin a class action pending in New York Supreme Court, Queens County; a New York art\ngallery in an action against several European insurers over insurance coverage for\npaintings seized while on exhibit; and shareholders of Saks, Inc. alleging that the board\nof directors and its investment advisor sold the company for inadequate consideration.\nCohen v. Saks, 169 A.D.3d 51 (1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\nPrior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, and prior to joining Milberg LLP in 1998, Mr.\nKaufman was a Court Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, New York\nCounty (1988-1990) and Principal Law Clerk to Justice Herman Cahn of the Commercial\nDivision of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1990-1998).\n\nMr. Kaufman is an active member of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of\nthe New York State Bar Association, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers\nand Jurists and the Jewish Lawyers Guild in which he serves as a Vice President. Mr.\nKaufman was the Dinner Chair at the Jewish Lawyers Guild Annual Dinner in 2017,\n2018, and 2019. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Board of Trustees of Congregation\n\n\n\n\n Page 30\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 34 of 62\n\n\nBeth Sholom in Lawrence, NY and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the\nHebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaways from 2015-2019.\n\nMr. Kaufman has been recognized by SuperLawyers\u00ae each year since 2012.\n\nTHOMAS H. BURT: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan. Education: American\nUniversity (B.A. 1993); New York University (J.D. 1997). Articles Editor with New York\nUniversity Review of Law and Social Change. Mr. Burt is a litigator with a practice\nconcentrated in securities class actions and complex commercial litigation. After\npracticing criminal defense with noted defense lawyer Jack T. Litman for three years, he\njoined Wolf Haldenstein, where he has worked on such notable cases as In re Initial\nPublic Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (a novel and sweeping\namalgamation of over 300 class actions which resulted in a recovery of $586 million); In\nre MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (recovery of $192 million);\nIn re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust case\nresulting in $315 million recovery); In re Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Securities\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.)(settled, together with a related fraud case,\nfor over $133 million); K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555\n(E.D. Mich.) (recovery included personal assets from former Reagan Administration\nbudget director David A. Stockman); and Parker Friedland v. Iridium World\nCommunications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.)(recovery of $43.1 million). Mr. Burt has spoken\non several occasions to investor and activist groups regarding the intersection of\nlitigation and corporate social responsibility. Mr. Burt writes and speaks on both\nsecurities and antitrust litigation topics. He has served as a board member and officer\nof the St. Andrew\u2019s Society of the State of New York, New York\u2019s oldest charity.\n\nRACHELE R. BYRD: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California and the Northern District of\nIllinois; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court. Education:\nPoint Loma Nazarene College (B.A., 1994); University of California, Hastings College of\nthe Law (J.D., 1997). Member: State Bar of California. Ms. Byrd is located in the firm\u2019s\nSan Diego office and practices corporate derivative and class action litigation including\nsecurities, consumer, privacy and security, antitrust, employment and general corporate\nand business litigation. Ms. Byrd has played a significant role in litigating numerous\nclass and derivative actions, including Engquist v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC591331 (Los\nAngeles Super. Ct.) (gas tax refund action that recently settled for $32.5 million and\ninjunctive relief, valued at a minimum of $24.5 million over 3 years and $81.8 million\n\n\n\n\n Page 31\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 35 of 62\n\n\nover 10 years, following certification of the class and on the eve of a hearing on the\nparties\u2019 cross-motions for summary judgment); Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th\n241 (2011) (telephone tax refund action against the City of Los Angeles that settled for\n$92.5 million after a successful appeal and a groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, Cal. Supreme Ct. No.\nS202037, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3510 (April 25, 2013) (telephone tax refund action that settled\nfor $16.6 million after a successful appeal and another groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); Granados v. County of Los Angeles, BC361470 (Los Angeles\nSuper. Ct.) (telephone tax refund action that settled for $16.9 million following class\ncertification and a successful appeal); In re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy\nLitigation, No. 5:20-cv-0291 (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Steering Committee; $85\nmillion settlement pending preliminary approval); In re Robinhood Outage Litigation, No.\n20-cv-01626-JD (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Executive Committee); In re Apple\niPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust class action on\nbehalf of consumers against Apple over its monopolization of the iOS applications\naftermarket and that secured a favorable opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court: Apple Inc.\nv. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)); Defrees v. Kirkland, et al., 11-04272 (JLS) (C.D. Cal.)\n($12.2 million settlement reached in derivative action on the eve of trial); Bokelman et al.\nv. FCH Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-00209-RJB-RLP (D. Haw.) (settled data breach class\naction; final approval granted May 3, 2019); Christofferson v. Creation Entertainment, Inc.,\nNo. 19STCV11000 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.) (settled data breach class action; final\napproval of settlement granted on June 29, 2021); In re: Hanna Andersson and\nsalesforce.com Data Breach Litig., No. 3:20-cv-00812-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (recently settled data\nbreach class action; final approval granted on June 25, 2021); Gaston v. FabFitFun, Inc.,\nNo. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on April 2, 2021); Rossi v. Claire\u2019s Stores, No. 1:20-cv-05090\n(N.D. Ill) (recently settled data breach class action); and Riggs v. Kroto, Inc., D/B/A/\niCanvas, No. 1:20-cv-5822 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on July 8, 2021); In re: Scripps Health Data Incident\nLitigation, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00024103-CU-BT-CTL (ongoing); Thomas v.\nSan Diego Family Care, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00026758-CU-BT-CTL\n(ongoing); Marcaurel, et al. v. USA Waste Management Resources, LLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-\n06199 (S.D. N.Y.) (ongoing); Miller v. CSI Financial, LLC, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-\n2021-00030263-CU-BT-CT (ongoing); Fields v. The Regents of the University of California,\nAlameda Superior Court No. RG21107152 (ongoing); In re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach\nLitigation, No. 1:21-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.) (ongoing); Donovan, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,\nNo. 2:21-cv-01138 (W.D. Wa.) (ongoing); In re: CaptureRx Data Breach Litigation, No. 5:21-\n\n\n\n\n Page 32\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 36 of 62\n\n\ncv-00523-OLG (W.D. Tex.) (ongoing); Carrera Aguallo, et al. v. Kemper Corp., et al., No.\n1:21-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action where Ms. Byrd is\nInterim Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nMATTHEW M. GUINEY: admitted: New York State; United States Supreme Court;\nUnited States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits; U.S. District\nCourts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York and numerous others.\nEducation: The College of William & Mary (B.A. in Government and Economics 1998);\nGeorgetown University Law Center (J.D. 2002). Mr. Guiney\u2019s primary areas of practice\nare securities class actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of\n1934, complex commercial litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act\n(ERISA) actions on behalf of plan participants, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 actions\nconcerning overtime payment, and fiduciary duty actions under various state laws. Mr.\nGuiney has helped recover hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate\nfraud and abuse in federal and state litigation across the country. Mr. Guiney was on\nthe merits briefs at the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the\nplaintiffs/respondents in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) where the\nCourt affirmed plaintiffs\u2019 antitrust standing under Illinois Brick. Mr. Guiney also\nrepresented plaintiffs/respondents at the United States Supreme Court in China Agritech\nv. Resh, 584 U.S. __ (2018), where the Court addressed tolling in the class action context.\nMr. Guiney also initially served as counsel of record and briefed opposition to petition\nfor writ of certiorari, and argued and achieved a precedential reversal of motion to\ndismiss in a published opinion at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit in Resh v. China Agritech, No. 15-5543, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9029 (9th Cir. May\n24, 2017).\n\nSome of Mr. Guiney\u2019s notable results on behalf of investors include: Mallozzi v.\nIndustrial Enterprises of America, Inc., et al., 1:07-cv-10321-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) ($3.4 million\nsettlement on behalf of shareholders); In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation,\nNo. CV 01-3285 (JBW) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.) ($18.5 million settlement on behalf of\nshareholders); In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master Docket No. 05-429 (GMS), (D.\nDel) ($4.5 million settlement on behalf of plan participants).\n\nMALCOLM T. BROWN: admitted: United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, District of New Jersey and Eastern District of\nPennsylvania; United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Education:\nUniversity of Pennsylvania (B.A., Political Science 1988) and Rutgers University School\nof Law (J.D. 1994). Mr. Brown\u2019s primary areas of practice are securities, derivative,\n\n\n\n\n Page 33\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 37 of 62\n\n\nM&A litigation and consumer class actions. Recent notable decisions include: Johnson v.\nFord Motor Co., 309 F.R.D. 226 (S.D. W. Va. 2015); Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 43268 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2014); In re Merkin Sec. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n178084 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015). Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Mr. Brown was a\nbusiness litigation attorney who represented financial institutions, corporations and\npartnerships and advised clients on business disputes, reorganizations, dissolutions and\ninsurance coverage matters. Notable decisions include: Garment v. Zoeller, 2001 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 20736 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2001), aff\u2019d 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9966 (2d Cir. May\n24, 2002); Bainton v. Baran, 731 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1st Dep\u2019t 2001).\n\n Special Counsel\n\nJUSTICE HERMAN CAHN: admitted: New York. Education: Harvard Law School and a\nB.A. from City College of the City University of New York. Justice Herman Cahn was\nfirst elected as Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York in 1976. He\nsubsequently served as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court from 1980 until 1992,\nwhen he was elected to the Supreme Court. Throughout his decades on the bench, he\nprincipally handled civil cases, with the exception of 1981 until 1987, when he presided\nover criminal matters. Justice Cahn was instrumental in the creation of, and a founding\nJustice in, the Commercial Division within the New York State Supreme Court. He\nserved as a Justice of the Commercial Division from its inception in 1993.\n\nAmong his most notable recent cases are the consolidated cases stemming from the Bear\nStearns merger with JP Morgan (In re Bear Stearns Litigation); litigation regarding the\nAmerica\u2019s Cup Yacht Race (Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nautique de Gen\u00e8ve);\nlitigation stemming from the attempt to enjoin the construction of the new Yankee\nStadium (Save Our Parks v. City of New York); and the consolidated state cases regarding\nthe rebuilding of the World Trade Center site (World Trade Center Properties v. Alliance\nInsurance; Port Authority v. Alliance Insurance).\n\nJustice Cahn is a member of the Council on Judicial Administration of the Association\nof the Bar of the City of New York. He has also recently been appointed to the\nCharacter and Fitness Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department. He is on\nthe Register of Mediators for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\nBefore ascending the bench, Justice Cahn practiced law in Manhattan. He was first\nadmitted to the New York bar in 1956. He is admitted to practice in numerous courts,\n\n\n\n\n Page 34\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 38 of 62\n\n\nincluding the New York State courts, the Southern District of New York and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nDANIEL W. KRASNER: admitted: New York; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S.\nCourts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and\nEleventh Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\nYork, Central District of Illinois, and Northern District of Michigan. Education: Yale\nLaw School (LL.B., 1965); Yeshiva College (B.A., 1962). Mr. Krasner is of counsel at\nWolf Haldenstein. He began practicing law with Abraham L. Pomerantz, generally\ncredited as the \"Dean of the Class Action Bar.\" He founded the Class Litigation Group\nat Wolf Haldenstein in 1976.\nMr. Krasner received judicial praise for his class action acumen as early as 1978. See,\ne.g., Shapiro v. Consolidated Edison Co., [1978 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) &\n96,364 at 93,252 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (\u201cin the Court\u2019s opinion the reputation, skill and\nexpertise of . . . [Mr.] Krasner, considerably enhanced the probability of obtaining as\nlarge a cash settlement as was obtained\u201d); Steiner v. BOC Financial Corp., [1980 Transfer\nBinder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) & 97,656, at 98,491.4, (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (\u201cThis Court has\npreviously recognized the high quality of work of plaintiffs\u2019 lead counsel, Mr.\nKrasner\u201d). The New York Law Journal referred to Mr. Krasner as one of the \u201ctop rank\nplaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u201d in the securities and class action fields. In connection with a failed\n1989 management buyout of United Airlines, Mr. Krasner testified before Congress.\n\nMore recently, Mr. Krasner has been one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs in some of\nthe leading Federal multidistrict cases in the United States, including the IPO Litigation\nin the Southern District of New York, the Mutual Fund Market Timing Litigation in the\nDistrict of Maryland, and several Madoff-related litigations pending in the Southern\nDistrict of New York. Mr. Krasner has also been lead attorney in several precedent-\nsetting shareholder actions in Delaware Chancery Court and the New York Court of\nAppeals, including American International Group, Inc. v. Greenberg, 965 A.2d 763 (Del. Ch.\n2009) and the companion certified appeal, Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, Nos. 151, 152, 2010\nN.Y. LEXIS 2959 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010); Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and City of\nNew Orleans Employees' Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant\nAmerican International Group, Inc., v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 152 (New York,\nOctober 21, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch.\nLEXIS 119 (Del. Ch., May 25, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-\n\n\n\n\n Page 35\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 39 of 62\n\n\nVCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 139, (Del. Ch. July 5, 2010), appeal refused, 2010 Del. LEXIS\n324, 2010 WL 2690402 (Del. 2010).\n\nMr. Krasner has lectured at the Practicing Law Institute; Rutgers Graduate School of\nBusiness; Federal Bar Council; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Rockland\nCounty, New York State, and American Bar Associations; Federal Bar Council, and\nbefore numerous other bar, industry, and investor groups.\n\nPETER C. HARRAR: admitted; New York; United States Court of Appeals for the\nFourth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York. Education: Columbia Law School (J.D. 1984); Princeton\nUniversity, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude. Mr. Harrar is of counsel at the firm and\nhas extensive experience in complex securities and commercial litigation on behalf of\nindividual and institutional clients.\n\nHe has represented investment funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and other\ninstitutional investors in a variety of individual actions, class actions and disputes\ninvolving mortgage-backed securities and derivative instruments. Examples include In\nre EMAC Securities Litigation, a fraud case concerning private placements of securitized\nloan pools, and Steed Finance LDC v. LASER Advisors, Inc., a hybrid individual and class\naction concerning the mispricing of swaptions.\n\nOver the years, Mr. Harrar has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous\nsecurities class and derivative actions throughout the country, recovering hundreds of\nmillions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors and corporations. Recent examples\nare some of the largest recoveries achieved in resolution of derivative actions, including\nAmerican International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation) ($90 million), and Bank of\nAmerica/Merrill Derivative Litigation ($62.5 million).\n\nJEFFREY G. SMITH: admitted: New York; California; Supreme Court of the United\nStates; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,\nEighth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California\nand the Districts of Colorado and Nebraska. Education: Woodrow Wilson School of\nPublic and International Affairs, Princeton University (M.P.A., 1977); Yale Law School\n(J.D., 1978); Vassar College (A.B., cum laude generali, 1974). At Yale Law School, Mr.\nSmith was a teaching assistant for the Trial Practice course and a student supervisor in\nthe Legal Services Organization, a clinical program. Member: The Association of the\nBar of the City of New York; New York State and American (Section on Litigation) Bar\n\n\n\n\n Page 36\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 40 of 62\n\n\nAssociations; State Bar of California (Member: Litigation Section); American Association\nfor Justice. Mr. Smith has frequently lectured on corporate governance issues to\nprofessional groups of Fund trustees and investment advisors as well as to graduate\nand undergraduate business student groups, and has regularly served as a moot court\njudge for the A.B.A. and at New York University Law School. Mr. Smith has substantial\nexperience in complex civil litigation, including class and derivative actions, tender\noffer, merger, and takeover litigation. Mr. Smith is rated \u201cAV\u201d by Martindale Hubble\nand, since its inception in 2006, has been selected as among the top 5% of attorneys in\nthe New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in the Super Lawyers\nMagazine.\n\nJENNY YOUNG DU PONT: admitted: New York; Massachusetts; District of Columbia; U.S.\nSupreme Court. Education: Princeton University (A.B. cum laude); Georgetown\nUniversity Law Center/School of Foreign Service (J.D./M.S.F.S. magna cum laude); Order\nof the Coif; Georgetown Law Journal, Notes and Comments Editor.\n\nMs. du Pont has extensive experience representing domestic and international\ncompanies ranging in size from small privately-held firms to large public companies in\na variety of corporate, investment, banking, insurance, finance, and employment\nmatters. Ms. du Pont began her legal career at two AmLaw 100 firms in Washington,\nD.C. and London, U.K. and a decade later moved into in-house counsel roles, first with\nPlymouth Rock Assurance Corporation in Boston, MA, and later with Millennium\nManagement, LLC in New York. Ms. du Pont also advises and presents on issues\nrelated to family businesses, family offices, and managing wealth transfer across\ngenerations.\n\nIn addition to her legal experience, Ms. du Pont has significant experience in the non-\nprofit sector. Ms. du Pont was President and CEO of The Garden Conservancy in Cold\nSpring, New York and Executive Director of Miracle House of New York, Inc., and has\nacted a legal and strategic advisor to a variety of for profit and non-profit entities in\nNew York. For more than 20 years, Ms. du Pont also has been a director, trustee, and\nofficer for a broad range of educational, cultural, scientific, and service non-profit\nentities. Ms. du Pont served for a number of years as a Trustee of Phillips Exeter\nAcademy, in Exeter, NH, and as a member and Vice Chair of the Warrant Committee\nfor the Town of Dover in Massachusetts. She is currently a Director of the American\nFriends of the British Museum and of the American Patrons of the National Galleries\nand Library of Scotland, serves as an Advisory Council member for the Untermyer\nGardens Conservancy in Yonkers, NY and the Sing Sing Prison Museum Master\n\n\n\n\n Page 37\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 41 of 62\n\n\nNarrative Project, in Ossining, NY, and is chair of the Advisory Council for the\nConservation Law Foundation in Boston, MA.\n\nKATE MCGUIRE: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York. Education: University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A.\n1995), Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1998); Member: Georgetown Immigration\nLaw Journal.\n\nMs. McGuire has extensive experience prosecuting complex litigation. Her work\nencompasses consumer and data protection class actions, securities class and derivative\nshareholder cases and nationwide antitrust suits.\n\nShe is a member of the Firm\u2019s Consumer Protection practice group and, in that context,\nhas worked intensively to protect classes of consumers under a range of state and\nfederal laws. Recently, she served as a member of the co-lead counsel team in Simerlein\net al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., 3:17-CV-01021-VAB (D. Conn.), representing more\nthan a million owners of Sienna minivans in litigation that settled for class-wide\nbenefits valued at between $30 and $40 million. Presently, she serves on a team\nrepresenting plaintiffs in multi-district litigation against Fisher-Price and Mattel,\nrelating to Rock \u2018n Play infant sleepers which are alleged to be dangerous and\nmisleadingly marketed. She has also served as a member of the firm\u2019s lead or co-\ncounsel teams in other consumer protection cases, including litigation based upon\nallegations of misrepresentations and omissions concerning the purported safety of\nelectronic cigarettes.\n\nMs. McGuire has also represented plaintiffs with respect to the protection of their civil\nrights. For example, she represented a blind plaintiff in a suit under the Americans\nwith Disability Act against a major trading online trading company, and represented a\ngroup of minority business owners in federal civil rights litigation concerning disparate\ntreatment which settled for significant governance therapeutics.\n\nCARL MALMSTROM: admitted: Illinois; Minnesota; United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Seventh Circuit; Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern District of\nIndiana; District of Minnesota; Eastern District of Missouri; Western District of New\nYork. Education: University of Chicago (A.B., Biological Sciences, 1999; A.M., Social\nSciences, 2001); The University of Hawai\u2019i at Manoa (M.A., Anthropology, 2004); Loyola\nUniversity Chicago School of Law (J.D., 2007). Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Malmstrom\nworked for the City of Chicago Department of Law in the Municipal Prosecutions\n\n\n\n\n Page 38\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 42 of 62\n\n\nDivision; he is a member of the Chicago Bar Association. Mr. Malmstrom has\nsubstantial experience litigating complex class actions in several practice areas,\nincluding antitrust, consumer fraud, and data security. Representative cases in which\nhe has represented plaintiffs include Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., Case No.\n1:18-cv-209 (D. Haw.), involving customers of Zippy\u2019s Restaurants in Hawaii whose\npersonal data was stolen by hackers, In re: Experian Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:15-\ncv-1592 (C.D. Cal.); Freeman-Hargis v. Taxi Affiliation Services, LLC, Case No. 2016-CH-\n02519 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.), involving customers of several taxi services in Chicago who\nwere unlawfully charged fees for using credit cards in taxis.\n\n Associates\n\nBRITTANY N. DEJONG: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California. Education: University of Phoenix\n(B.S. 2005); Golden Gate University, School of Law (J.D. 2008), Graduated with Highest\nHonors, Editor \u2013 Law Review, Merit Scholarship Recipient, Member: State Bar of\nCalifornia. Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Ms. DeJong was an associate at a boutique\ntrial firm in San Francisco where her practice focused on multiparty litigation involving\ncatastrophic property damage. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. DeJong worked as\na Research Attorney for the Honorable Peter Busch in the Law & Motion Department at\nthe San Francisco Superior Court. Additionally, while in law school, Ms. DeJong\nexterned for the Honorable Susan Illston of the Northern District of California and the\nU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.\n\nPATRICK DONOVAN: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; United States Court of Appeals for the Second and\nFourth Circuits. Education: Iona College (B.A., Business Management, 2007); St. John's\nUniversity School of Law (J.D. 2011). Mr. Donovan\u2019s primary areas of focus are\nsecurities, derivative and M&A litigation.\n\nMARISA LIVESAY: admitted: California; United States District Courts for the Southern,\nCentral and Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit. Education: University of\nArizona (B.A., History & Spanish, 1999); University California Los Angeles Law School\n(J.D. 2002).\n\n PARAPROFESSIONALS\n\nGREGORY STONE: Education: University of Pennsylvania (B.S., Economics, 1979);\nUniversity of California, Los Angeles (MBA, 1983). Mr. Stone is the Firm\u2019s Director of\n\n\n\n\n Page 39\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 43 of 62\n\n\nCase and Financial Analysis. He assists partners and associates in identifying and\nresearching potential federal class action securities, derivative litigation and merger &\nacquisition (M&A) litigation. Mr. Stone has worked with leading securities class action\nfirms in an analytical and investigative role for over 18 year throughout the United\nStates, and has an extensive professional background in the accounting and investment\nprofessions. He plays a key role in new case development, including performing\ninvestigations into potential securities fraud class actions, derivative and other\ncorporate governance related actions. By using a broad spectrum of financial news and\nlegal industry research tools, Mr. Stone analyzes information that helps identify and\nsupport the theories behind the firm\u2019s litigation efforts.\n\n\n\n\n Page 40\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 44 of 62\n\n\n Non-Discrimination Policies\n\nWolf Haldenstein does not discriminate or tolerate harassment against any employee or\napplicant because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital\nstatus, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status and designs its hiring\npractices to ensure that minority group members and women are afforded equal\nemployment opportunities without discrimination. The Firm is in compliance with all\napplicable Federal, State, County, and City equal employment opportunity laws.\n\nWolf Haldenstein is proud of its long history of support for the rights of, and\nemployment opportunities for, women, the disadvantaged, and minority group\npersons, including the participation in civil rights and voter registration activities in the\nSouth in the early 1960s by partners of the Firm; the part-time employment of\ndisadvantaged youth through various public school programs; the varied pro bono\nactivities performed by many of the Firm\u2019s lawyers; the employment of many women\nand minority group persons in various capacities at the Firm, including at the partner\nlevel; the hiring of ex-offenders in supported job training programs; and the use of\nminority and women-owned businesses to provide services and supplies to the Firm.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-545-4653\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 41\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 45 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 46 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston\n Attorneys at Law\n www.gme-law.com\n\n 501 FIFTH AVENUE 375 ABBOT ROAD\n 19TH FLOOR PARAMUS, NJ 07652\n NEW YORK, NY 10017 TEL: (201) 225-2001\n TEL: (212) 983-1300 FAX: (201) 225-9002\n FAX: (212) 983-0383\n\n\n\n\n FIRM R\u00c9SUM\u00c9\n\nI. Introduction\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston (the \u201cFirm\u201d) is based in New York and New Jersey and\nlitigates throughout the country in both state and federal court. Members of the Firm have been\nengaged in the practice of law for over thirty years. The Firm concentrates its practice on civil\nlitigation of all types and especially in class action litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and\nsmall businesses.\n\n The Firm has broad experience in the following areas: breach of fiduciary duty claims\nunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\u201cERISA\u201d), securities, shareholder\nderivative, consumer fraud and other types of complex commercial and tort litigation. The Firm\nalso has experience in federal and state minimum wage laws, overtime laws or other employment\nlaws regulating the payment of wages and benefits to employees.\n\n Many of the Firm\u2019s cases involve multi-district litigation. The Firm is experienced in, and\nthoroughly familiar with, all aspects of complex litigation, including the underlying substantive\nlaw, the procedures recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation and the substance and\nprocedure of class certification.\n\n The Firm\u2019s approach to each case is the same. It presents an aggressive position for its\nclients and uses all available resources necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for its\nclients. In short, the Firm works hard to produce victories for its clients and takes pride in providing\na high level of legal service. It also develops a strong working relationship with its clients and\nwill do whatever it takes within the bounds of the law to get results.\n\n The Firm was formed with the goal of combining the experience gained through practicing\nlaw at large firms with the closeness, flexibility and attention to detail that characterize many\nsmaller firms. In essence, the Firm has designed itself to be able to handle both large and small\nmatters, offering what we believe our clients want most: quality legal work with an emphasis on\ncommunication.\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 47 of 62\n\n\n\n\n We also represent plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of complex civil and commercial\nlitigations, including real estate and business disputes, breach of contract and commercial disputes,\nemployment cases (discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination), insurance coverage\ndisputes, professional malpractice (accounting, legal and medical), products liability, and personal\ninjury lawsuits.\n\n The Firm recently made law in the field of ERISA with its successful prosecution of an\nappeal to the United States Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of\nprudence\u201d that lower courts had been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer\nretirement plans who imprudently invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case,\nFifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the Firm argued with co-counsel\nthat the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework. The\nSupreme Court agreed.\n\n We have also been retained strictly as trial counsel in many matters. Members of the Firm\nare admitted to practice in all the courts of the State of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and\nConnecticut as well as in the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New\nYork, the United States District Court of New Jersey, United States District Court for the Eastern\nDistrict of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court of Connecticut, the United States Court\nof Appeals for the Second Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit and\nEleventh Circuit. Members of the firm have also been admitted pro hac vice in a number of other\nstate and federal jurisdictions.\n\nII. Notable Achievements\n\n Below are just some of the cases the attorneys at the Firm have successfully prosecuted by\nproducing a recovery for their clients:\n\n \u2022 Dudenhoeffer, et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-538\n (S.D. Ohio) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $6,000,000\n in cash and structural relief to the 401(k) Plan);\n\n \u2022 Borboa, et al. v. Thoedore L. Chandler, et al., Case No.: 3:13-cv-844-JAG (E.D.\n Va.) (counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Gordon et al., Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-00123-AB (C.D. Cal.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Opus Bank consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re CytRx Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation II, Civil Action No.:\n C.A. No. 11800-VCMR (Chancery Delaware) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in\n 2\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 48 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of CytRx Corp. consisting of\n corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $2.1 million for benefit of\n class);\n\n \u2022 In re Wilmington Trust Corp. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-001114-SLR\n (D. Del.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $3 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n (D.N.J.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $12.25 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $8.2 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Salvato v. Zale Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1124 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k)\n plan);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680\n (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in ERISA class action)\n (recovery of $5.75 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.)\n (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Taylor v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-8322 (AKH)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.25 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Boyd, et al. v. Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery $3.6 million for the employees\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $975,000 for benefit of class);\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.35 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 49 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-01001 (M.D. Tenn.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Bagley, et al., v. KB Home, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1754 (C.D. Cal.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Maxwell v. Radioshack Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-499 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $2.4 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litig., Master Docket No.: 05-cv-429 (D. Del.) (Class\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Guidant Corp. ERIS Litig., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1009 (S.D. Ind.) (recovery\n of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re ING Groep, N.V. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-00400 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $850,000 for benefit of class).\n\nIII. The Firm Serving As \u201cLead,\u201d \u201cCo-Lead\u201d or \u201cCounsel\u201d\n\n The Firm has significant experience in prosecuting complex cases, including class actions\nunder ERISA involving breach of fiduciary duty, consumer class actions, securities fraud class\nactions, derivative cases and transactional matters. By way of example, the following are some of\nthe other cases the Firm has been involved in serving as \u201cLead or \u201cCo-Lead\u201d Counsel:\n\nDerivative Actions\n\n \u2022 Recupero v. Friedli, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00381-JKB (D. Md.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Fifth Street Finance Corp., Stockholder Litig., C.A. No.: 12157-VCG (Del.\n Chancery) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n monetary and non-monetary corporate benefits conferred on corporation);\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 50 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Hamdan v. Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-03706-PGS (D. N.J.) (Lead\n Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Intercloud\n Systems, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n CV16-01569-DMG (C.D. Cal) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative\n Action);\n\n \u2022 Nahar, et al., v. Bianco, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-00756-RSL (W.D. Wash.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of CTI Biopharma Corp. in cooperation with other derivative actions venued\n elsewhere consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Derivative Litig., Civil Action No.: 3:14-\n cv-00372-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.) (Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of\n Company);\n\n \u2022 Loyd v. Giles, et al., Case No.: 2015CV33429 (Colo., Denver County) (settlement\n consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Ampio\n Pharmaceuticals, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Vacek v. Awad, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-02820 (E.D. Pa.) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Walter Investment Management Corp. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Giesbrecht v. Lee, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-0697 (D. Nev.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on L&L Energy, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Hapka v. Dennis Crowley, et al., 50-2005 CA (15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm\n Beach County, Florida) (de facto Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Spear & Jackson, Inc. for monetary benefits conferred on\n corporation);\n\n \u2022 Nieman v. Ira B. Lampert, et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-60574 (S.D. Fl.) (de facto\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting of corporate\n governance reforms achieved on behalf of Concord Camera Corp.);\n\n \u2022 Riley v. Jorge Mas, et al., Case No.: 04-cv-27000 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for\n Dade County, Florida) (Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting\n of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Mastec, Inc.);\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 51 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Ramseur v. Callidus Software, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-4419 (N.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Callidus\n Software, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Emond v. Murphy, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:18-cv-09040 (C.D. Cal.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on Izea Worldwide, Inc. consisting of corporate\n reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re India Globalization Capital, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 1:18-cv-3698 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action);\n\n \u2022 In re Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. Derivative Action, Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-cv-03913 (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Kelly Nicole Desmond-Newman v. Saagar Govil, et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-\n 03992 (E.D. NY) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Cemtrex, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms in\n cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Savage, Spencer, et al., v. Kay, Robert B., et al., Index No.: 162407/2015 (de facto\n lead counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of iBIO, Inc.\n consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Labare v. Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980 (D. N.J.) (co-counsel)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Marriott International Customer Security Data Breach Litigation \u2013 Derivative\n Track, Civil Action No.: 8:19-md-02879 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead\n Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re iRobot Corporation Derivative Litigation; Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-10034\n (D. Mass.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation;\n Consolidated Case No.: 2020-0011-JTL (Chancery Delaware) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Ormat Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:18-cv-\n 00439 (D. Nev.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 52 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 00479 (W.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Thiese v. Giles. et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-02558-RBJ (D. Co.) (Court\n Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Rev Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-0009 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re LendingClub Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 3:18-cv-04391(N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Zillow Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-\n cv-1568 (W.D. Wash) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel; motion to dismiss\n denied);\n\n \u2022 Bonessi v. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 4:19-\n cv-00567-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to\n dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Kates v. Metlife, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-01266-LPS-\n JLH (D. Del.) (co-counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Behrman, et al. v. Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-CV-00772-RGA (D. Del.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion\n to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Wajda v. Lipocine, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), C.A. No.: 2019-0122-JTL (Del.\n Chancery) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully\n briefed);\n\n \u2022 In Re stamps.com Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 2:19-cv-04272 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Taronis technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 2:19-cv-04547 (D. Ariz.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Cloudera, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 01422 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CVS Health Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-378 (D.\n RI) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 53 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Colony Capital Stockholder-Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-\n 03176 (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Arora, et al., Civil Action No.: 19-cv-01348 (N.D. Il.) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 Mina Pastagia, et al., v. Charles J. Philippin, et al., Case No.: 2018-CH-07432\n (Chancery Illinois, Cook County) (Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action\n involving Ulta Beauty, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Ruth v. CanaVest Corp. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-00481 (D.\n Nev.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.:\n 3:19-cv-18874-FLW-LHG (Court Appointed Executive Committee in the\n Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Beyond Meat, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-2524 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Lee v. TrueCar, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Case No 2019-0988 (Chancery\n Delaware) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Crown Castle International Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-\n cv-00606 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Acer Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 19-cv-01505\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Curo Group Holdings, Corp., Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-\n 00851 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Zoom Video Communications Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 1:20-cv-00797-LPS (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:20-\n cv-01962 (E.D. Pa.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Exela Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 3:20-CV-1800 (N.D. Tex) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 54 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 2020-019815-CA-01 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Tyson Foods Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-00730\n (E.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Quantumscape Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No: 21- 00989\n (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel;\n\n \u2022 In re Velodyne Lidar, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-cv-00369 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Peabody Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01747\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Plug Power Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-02753\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Co-Diagnostics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00654 (D.\n UT) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Stryde Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01731 (D. Del.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Tricida Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-00205\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Cytodyn Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-cv-05422\n MLP (W.D. Wash.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel); and\n\n \u2022 In Re AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-\n cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nSecurities Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re VimpelCom Ltd. Securities Litig., Civil Action: No.: 1:15-cv-08672 (ALC)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Fogel v. Vega, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-02282-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action against Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB de\n CV, Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.);\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 55 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Jason v. Junfeng Chen, et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-1041 (S.D.N.Y) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01647\n PSG (FMOx) (C.D. Cal.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Araj v. JML Portfolio Mgmt. Ltd., et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00903 (M.D. Fla.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Hanson et al, v. Frazer, LLP., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-3166 (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Labit v. Glenn Zagoren, et al., Civil Action No.: 03-cv-2298; (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Karp v. SI Financial Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No: 19-cv-199 (D. Conn.)\n (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action).\n\nERISA Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re Comcast Corp. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-00773-HB (E.D. Pa.)\n (recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Simeon v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1592\n (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.5 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Herrera v. Wyeth, et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-04688 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.) (recovery\n of $2 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Douglas J. Coppess v. Healthways, Inc., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-00109 (M.D.\n Tenn.) (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.25 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 56 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Int\u2019l Game Tech. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00584 (D. Nev.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $500,000 for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Jones v. NovaStar Fin., Inc., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-490 (NKL) (W.D.\n Mo.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $925,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1447 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $300,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Fulmer v. Scott Klein, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2354-N (N.D. Tex.) (Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pilgrims Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-\n 000472-TJW-CE (E.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re UBS ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-6696 (S.D.N.Y) (Co-Lead Counsel\n in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Rinehart v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-5598\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Usenko v. Sunedison Semiconductor, LLC., et al., Civil Action No.: 17-cv-2227\n (E.D. Mo.) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Harris and Ramos v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-5442 (C.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Russell v. Harman Int\u2019l Industries Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-02212 (D.\n of Columbia) (de facto Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Mellot v. Choicepoint, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1340 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litig., MASTER FILE NO. 6:12-CV-06051-DGL\n (W.D.N.Y.) (Co-Counsel in ERISA Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Sheedy v. Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation., et al., Civil\n Action No.: 6:16-cv-01893-GAP (M.D. Fl.) (Interim Lead Counsel in ERISA\n Action).\n\nAnti-Trust Class Actions\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 57 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re: Package Seafood Products Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n (JLS) (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328\n (Member of the committee in anti-trust action) (settlement obtained from several\n defendants); and\n\n \u2022 In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.\n 2542 (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action).\n\nFLSA Actions\n\n \u2022 Affen v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03820-CCC-JBC\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-00746-BJD-MCR\n (M.D. Fla.);\n\n \u2022 Sifferman v. Sterling Financial Corp., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-00183 (W.D.\n Wash.); and\n\n \u2022 Winfield, et al., v. Citibank, N.A., Case No.: 10-cv-7304 (S.D.N.Y).\n\nConsumer Actions\n\n \u2022 In re USAA Data Security Litigation, Civil Action No.: 7:21-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03208\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Placko v. Michigan State University, Court of Claims No. 20-000120-MK (Mi.\n State Court of Claims) (Court Appointed Co- Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Kincheloe v. University of Chicago et al, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03015 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Jairo Jara, et al., v. DeVry Education Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:16-\n cv-10168 (N.D. Ill.);\n\n \u2022 Dumont v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-2677-ER-LMS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd\n LLP were plaintiffs\u2019 co-lead counsel in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the\n United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 58 of 62\n\n\n\n\n thousands of homeowners in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The\n lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Litton Loan Servicing (\u201cLitton\u201d) and\n Ocwen Loan Servicing (\u201cOcwen\u201d) engaged in a deceptive scheme to delay or deny\n permanent mortgage loan modifications through the federal Home Affordable\n Modification Program (\u201cHAMP\u201d) to desperate homeowners, systematically\n breaching their contractual obligations to homeowners, committing deceptive trade\n practices, and causing significant financial harm);\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Bank of America, et al., Civil\n Action No.: 07-cv-1363 (PGS) (D.N.J.) (Class Counsel in nationwide class action\n on behalf of United States Military Service members overcharged on their\n mortgages in violation of the Service members\u2019 Civil Relief Act; recovery of\n $5.962 million for more than 17,000 service members); and\n\n \u2022 Stamm v. My Pillow, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation, a/k/a My Pillow Direct, LLC,\n Index No.: 651472/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).\n\nIV. Attorneys\n\nBarry J. Gainey received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston University and received his\nJ.D. in 1984 from Washington and Lee University School of Law where he was a Law Review\nNotes and Comments Editor and authored two published articles. Mr. Gainey was a partner at\nWilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker in New York City, and the founding partner of\nRenzulli, Gainey & Rutherford (which later became Gainey & McKenna and now Gainey\nMcKenna & Egleston), with offices in New York City and New Jersey. Mr. Gainey has worked\non many high profile actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, et al., Civil Action\n No.: 07-cv-1363 (D.N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in nationwide class action on behalf\n of United States Military Service members with Countrywide mortgages);\n\n \u2022 Klyachman v. Vitamin Shoppe, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1528 (D.N.J.) (Appointed\n Class Counsel in nationwide consumer fraud case);\n\n \u2022 Kleck v. Bluegreen Corp., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-81047 (S.D. Fl.) (Appointed Class\n Counsel with Florida firm in nationwide class action);\n\n \u2022 Resnik v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No.: L-1230-06 (N.J.) (Appointed Co-Class\n Counsel in class action);\n\n \u2022 Alamo v. Bluegreen Corp. et al., Case No.: L-6716-05 (N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in\n consumer fraud case); and\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 59 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Blumer, et al. v. Acu-Gen Biolabs, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-10359 (D. Mass)\n (Appointed Class Counsel in consumer fraud case).\n\nMr. Gainey is admitted to practice in the Federal and State Courts of New York and New Jersey.\nHe is also a past or current member of the American Association for Justice, New Jersey\nAssociation for Justice, New York State Bar Association, American Bar Association, New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, New Jersey State Bar Association, and Bergen County Bar\nAssociation.\n\nThomas J. McKenna received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston College (magna cum\nlaude) and received his J.D. in 1984 from Syracuse University College of Law (cum laude) where\nhe was a Law Review Editor and a Member of the Justinian Honorary Law Society. Following\nlaw school, Mr. McKenna clerked in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\nLouisiana for the Honorable Veronica D. Wicker from 1984 through 1986.\n\nBefore starting his own law practice, Mr. McKenna was associated with Cahill, Gordon & Reindel\n(\u201cCahill\u201d) in New York City, practicing class actions and securities law, insurance coverage\nlitigation and general commercial litigation. After his association with Cahill, he was an attorney\nat Grutman Greene & Humphrey in New York City where he concentrated on class actions and\ntrial practice in complex commercial and tort litigation. In 1996, Mr. McKenna started his own\nlaw firm and then formed Gainey & McKenna in 1998 where he focused his practice on trials,\nclass actions and commercial disputes. Mr. McKenna has worked on many important actions such\nas:\n\n \u2022 Allapattah Services, Inc., et al., v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No.: 91-cv-0983 (S.D. Fla.)\n (Nationwide class action for class of Exxon service station operators against Exxon for\n allegedly overcharging them for gasoline, eventually settled for over $1 billion);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case under ERISA);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432 (D.N.J.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel) (claim on behalf of employees and ex-employees against 401(k)\n fiduciaries for breaches of duty in connection with Vytorin);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Class Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case involving harm to retirement plan in\n connection with alleged risky real estate investments); and\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty claims involving alleged improper investment\n practices).\n\nMr. McKenna is a member of the Bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice before\nthe United States Supreme Court and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n 14\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 60 of 62\n\n\n\n\nDistricts of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth\nand Eleventh Circuits. He has also been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other courts. Mr.\nMcKenna is also a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Association for Justice (formerly the American\nTrial Lawyers Association) and past member of the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\nGregory M. Egleston received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1992 from Fordham University (magna\ncum laude), his master\u2019s degree in 1994 from Columbia University, and received his J.D. in 1997\nfrom New York Law School. Before joining the Firm, Mr. Egleston had his own law firm and\nprior to that, Mr. Egleston was an attorney specializing in securities class action litigation,\nshareholder derivative actions, and consumer fraud litigation at a prominent Manhattan plaintiffs\u2019\nclass action firm. Mr. Egleston has worked on many high-profile class actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (recovery of\n $3.35 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Mayer v. Administrative Committee of Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. Retirement Plans,\n Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02984 (N.D. Ill.) (recovery of $7.75 million for the company\u2019s\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re YRC Worldwide Inc. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02593 JWL/JPO (D. Kan.)\n (recovery of $6.5 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Beazer Homes U.S.A., Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-725-CC (N.D. Ga.)\n ($30.5 million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Willbros Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1778 (S.D. Tex.) ($10.5\n million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-374 (JAP) (D.N.J.)\n (U.S. settlement with a minimum cash value of $138.3 million with a potential value of\n more than $180 million, in addition to a related European settlement of $350 million);\n\n \u2022 In re Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-8144 (CM)\n (S.D.N.Y.) ($400 Million settlement in a Securities Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 In re Lumenis Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 02-cv-1989 (S.D.N.Y.) ($20.1 million\n settlement in a Securities Class Action).\n\nMr. Egleston was also involved in a high-profile landlord/tenant action entitled Roberts v. Tishman\nSpeyer, L.P., et al., N.Y. Sup. Ct., Index No. 07600475. The core legal issue was whether\nlandlords could permissibly deregulate and charge market rents for certain so-called \u201cluxury\u201d\napartment units in these complexes in years in which the landlords were simultaneously receiving\ntax abatements from New York City known as \u201cJ-51\u201d benefits. The Court of Appeals ruled that\nthe New York statutory scheme prevents landlords of rent stabilized buildings from charging\n 15\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 61 of 62\n\n\n\n\nmarket rents while receiving J-51 benefits for as long as they continue to receive those tax benefits.\nThe action recently settled for $68.8 million.\n\nMr. Egleston is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and Connecticut. He is also\nadmitted to practice before the Bars of the federal district courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Connecticut.\n\nRobert J. Schupler received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1979 from Drexel University (Philadelphia,\nPA), and received his J.D. in 1982 from Southwestern University School of Law (Los Angeles,\nCA).\n\nMr. Schupler began his legal career at a boutique law firm in Los Angeles where he focused on\ncivil litigation and transactional matters. He returned \u201chome\u201d to the Philadelphia area in the 90\u2019s\nand shortly thereafter began focusing on class action litigation and complex tort and commercial\ndisputes, assisting in litigation matters which included Sunbeam and WorldCom.\n\nMr. Schupler has the unique experience of working for both plaintiff and defense litigation firms.\nWhile working at an internationally recognized defense law firm, Mr. Schupler concentrated on\nhealthcare related products liability litigation matters. In one of these matters, Mr. Schupler was\nresponsible for the administration of a multi-billion dollar settlement involving tens of thousands\nof plaintiff claimants.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Schupler began working with Gainey McKenna & Egleston. He has assisted GME\nin prosecuting numerous class action and shareholder derivative actions, including:\n\n \u2022 In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n JLS (MDD) (S. D. Cal.);\n\n \u2022 George Dumont, et al. vs. Litton Loan Servicing LP, et al., Civil Action No.: 7:12-cv-\n 02677-ER-LMS (S.D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 Gordon Niedermayer, et al. v. Steven A. Kriegsman, et al., Civil Action No.: 11800-VCMR\n (Chancery Delaware);\n\n \u2022 Arthur P. Cardi, et al. v. FXCM Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-4699-PAC-HBP (S.\n D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 In Re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04625-PJH (N.D.\n Cal.);\n\n \u2022 Douglas Labare v. Charles Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980-FLW-LHG\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Waseem Hamdan vs. Mark Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-03706 (D. N.J);\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 36-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 62 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In Re VimpelCom, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-08672-ALC\n (S.D.N.Y); and\n\n \u2022 Shuli Chiu, et al., v. Michelle Dipp, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-11382 (D. Mass.).\n\nMr. Schupler is a member of the Bar of the State of Pennsylvania and is also admitted to practice\nbefore the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nDavid A. Silva received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1982 from New York University and received his\nJ.D. in 1985 from Brooklyn Law School where he was a member of the Moot Court National\nTeam. Between the years of 1985 and 1988, Mr. Silva worked as an Assistant Corporation Counsel\nin the Law Department of the City of New York. While at the Law Department, Mr. Silva\nrepresented various city agencies in Article 78 proceedings as well as defended the\nconstitutionality of various aspects of the New York City Public Health Law, as well as the\nBuilding Code and Zoning Resolution. In addition, he was lead counsel on Federal civil rights\nactions defending the City and its employees.\n\nIn 1988, Mr. Silva left the City and joined Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass as an associate\nand worked there for 25 years becoming a partner in 1995 and a senior partner in 2002.\n\nMr. Silva has served as counsel to both insurers and reinsurers in dozens of reinsurance arbitrations\nand court proceedings across the United States. He has also acted as lead counsel in arbitrations in\nboth Bermuda and England, involving some of the highest profile issues in the industry. Mr. Silva\nregularly advises clients on a wide range of issues including workers\u2019 compensation carve out and\nspiral business; life, personal accident and medical reinsurance issues; long term care reinsurance;\nactuarial disputes; coverage of declaratory judgment expenses; rescission claims; claims for pre-\nanswer security; letter of credit disputes; commutation valuations; allocation of losses; contract\ndrafting; records inspection rights, and audits. He also has substantial experience in other\nreinsurance-related matters, including issues involving domestic and off-shore captive reinsurers,\nsurplus relief treaties, and many matters relating to life, accident, health, and long-term care\ninsurance. He also has substantial involvement in all aspects of property and casualty insurance\nlitigation including first- and third-party coverage and claims defense, business interruption,\nproducts liability defense, and disputes between primary and excess carriers.\n\nMr. Silva has been recognized in the Chambers USA Directory, Best Lawyers in America, and\nSuper Lawyers as a leading individual in the field of insurance and reinsurance. Mr. Silva has also\nserved as a lecturer and panelist for various reinsurance programs, including the Reinsurance\nAssociation of America, ARIAS U.S., as well as Harris Martin and HB Litigation Conferences.\n\nMr. Silva is admitted to practice in the federal and state courts of New York and is a past member\nof the New York State Bar Association as well as the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:54:01.065861-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462244","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.421074-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.540712-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-23.004","pacer_sequence_number":165,"description":"MOTION TO TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. Responses due by 6/6/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563195/","id":199563195,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292041/","id":205292041,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/35/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.414820-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.526844-07:00","sha1":"c99be5b6cc6da526e8db3601f3bf0e4caadd0388","page_count":14,"file_size":185541,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.35.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.35.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 1 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 2 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 3 (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n\n 5 G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 6 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 7\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 8 Las Vegas, NV 89106\n (702) 384-7111\n 9\n10 [Proposed] Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE\n12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n13\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n14\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n15 Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n16 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION (2)\n17 APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n Plaintiff, COUNSEL AND (3) TO TEMPORARILY\n18 STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n v. BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n19 SUPPORT\n20 FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n21\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n22 and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n23 Defendants,\n24\n -and-\n25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n26 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n27 Nominal Defendant.\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff,\n 4 v.\n 5\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 6 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n 7 AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 8 Defendants,\n 9 -and-\n10 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n11 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n12 Nominal Defendant.\n\n13\n14 STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED\n15 Should the Court (1) consolidate the two above-referenced actions, (2) appoint Wolf and\n16 GM&E as interim co-lead counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3)\n17 temporarily stay the current motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of\n18 a consolidated complaint?\n19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n20 I. INTRODUCTION\n21 Plaintiffs, shareholders of Marathon, request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2)\n22 appoint Wolf and GM&E as interim co-lead counsel to prosecute this action on behalf of the\n23 Plaintiffs suing derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Holdings, Inc.\n24 (\u201cMarathon\u201d or \u201cthe Company\u201d) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3) temporarily\n25 stay the motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated\n26 complaint.\n27 ///\n28 ///\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -2-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Both actions concern the same alleged general conduct and misconduct of the Board of the\n 2 Company in permitting the officers of Marathon to allegedly breach their fiduciary duties. The\n 3 consolidation of these two actions would serve the interests of judicial economy.\n 4 Moreover, Wolf and GM&E have capably represented the Plaintiffs and the nominal\n 5 defendant Marathon from the inception of the litigation, investigating and developing potential\n 6 claims, analyzing public reports and admissions about the allegations at issue, filing separate\n 7 complaints and then coordinating together in an effort to prosecute the derivative litigation in an\n 8 efficient manner. The firms have many years of experience prosecuting complex shareholder\n 9 actions, have successfully litigated the types of claims asserted in this case, and have the resources\n10 necessary to vigorously prosecute the case and protect the interests of the nominal defendant.\n11 In addition, in order ensure efficient proceedings in the two matters, Plaintiffs respectfully\n12 submit that the briefing on the pending motions to dismiss made in each action be stayed until this\n13 Court rules on the instant motion and sets a new schedule for the filing of a consolidated\n14 complaint. In the alternative, should the motion for consolidation and/or appointment of interim\n15 co lead counsel be denied, then the Plaintiffs request that their response to the pending motions to\n16 dismiss be due twenty-one (21) days after an Order is entered by the Court on this motion.\n17 Defendants have no objection to the proposed consolidation of the two actions, take no\n18 position on Plaintiffs\u2019 request for a leadership appointment and oppose Plaintiff\u2019s request to stay\n19 the briefing on the current motions to dismiss.\n20 II. BACKGROUND\n21 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n22 These are two shareholder derivative actions brought on behalf of and for the benefit of\n23 Marathon, against certain of its officers and directors named as defendants herein seeking to remedy\n24 their breaches of fiduciary duties. Defendants\u2019 actions have caused, and will continue to cause,\n25 substantial financial harm and reputational damage to Marathon. See Bernard Complaint, \u00b6 1.\n26 The Company is a corporation with principal executive offices located at 1180 North Town\n27 Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. Id. \u00b6 7. Marathon is a digital asset\n28 technology company that mines cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -3-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known as \u201cMarathon Patent\n 2 Group, Inc.\u201d and changed its name to \u201cMarathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\u201d on March 1, 2021. Id. \u00b6\n 3 28.\n 4 In October 2020, the Company announced the formation of a new joint venture with\n 5 Beowulf Joint Venture (\u201cBeowulf\u201d)\u2014a private, independent infrastructure holding company\n 6 that develops, builds, owns, and operates power generation and industrial infrastructure\n 7 facilities worldwide. Beowulf was purportedly focused on delivering low-cost power to the\n 8 Company\u2019s Bitcoin mining operations. In connection with that joint venture, the Company\n 9 entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties, including affiliates of Beowulf and\n10 Two Point One, LLC (\u201c2Pl\u201d), a Delaware limited liability company, to design and build a\n11 data center in Hardin, Montana, issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the parties of\n12 those agreements.\n13 On March 16, 2021, Defendants caused the Company to issue a press release announcing\n14 the Company\u2019s fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 results (the \u201c4Q/FY20 Press Release\u201d). That\n15 4Q/FY20 Press Release highlighted the fact that the Company \u201c[i]nitiated construction of [the]\n16 mining facility adjacent to Beowulf\u2019s energy plant in Hardin, MT, supplying Marathon long-term\n17 access to electricity at 2.8\u00a2/kWh[,]\u201d and the \u201cinstall[ation of] 3,697 S-19 ASIC miners at the\n18 mining facility Hardin, MT, increasing Marathon\u2019s current active mining fleet to 5,690 miners\n19 with an additional 6,641 already delivered . . . and in the process of being installed[.]\u201d\n20 Additionally, the 4Q/FY20 Press Release quoted Defendant Okamoto: \u201cwe established\n21 our 105 MW mining facility in Hardin, MT, where we have consistent access to electricity at\n22 rates far below market average, we presciently purchased more than 100,000 of the industry\u2019s top\n23 performing Bitcoin miners . . . and we enhanced our balance sheet[,]\u201d and that \u201c[w]ith a solid\n24 foundation to grow the business established, we are now focused on continuing to build out our\n25 mining facility and bring our miners . . . online.\u201d\n26 The statements referenced above were materially false and misleading.\n27 Specifically, Defendants caused the Company to make false and/or misleading statements and/or\n28 fail to disclose that: (i) Beowulf\u2019s activities, as it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -4-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a result, Beowulf\n 2 subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably\n 3 likely to have a material negative impact on the Company\u2019s business and commercial prospects;\n 4 and (iv) as a result, the Company\u2019s public statements were materially false and misleading at all\n 5 relevant times.\n 6 B. Procedural History\n 7 Presently pending in this District are the following two (2) related shareholder derivative\n 8 actions:\n 9\n Case Name Case No. Filing Date\n10\n11 Bernard v. Theil, et al. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305 February 18, 2022\n12\n Strassman v. Theil, et al. Case No.; 2:22-cv-00724 May 5, 2022\n13\n14 Each of the related actions is brought for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Marathon against\n15 members of Marathon\u2019s Board of Directors (\u201cBoard\u201d) and certain of the Company\u2019s officers. There\n16 is also a significant overlap of facts and legal claims among the cases, including for violation of\n17 federal or state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.\n18 III. ARGUMENT\n19 A. Consolidation\n20 Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:\n When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending\n21 before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters\n in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may\n22 make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid\n23 unnecessary costs or delay.\n\n24 Plaintiffs believe consolidation is appropriate for the above-referenced actions and any\n25 subsequently filed derivative action filed with this Court because they will involve common\n26 questions of law and fact and allege virtually identical state law claims of breach of fiduciary duty.\n27 Accordingly, the two derivative actions should be consolidated for all purposes in the interests of\n28 judicial economy and overall efficiency. Defendants do not oppose consolidation.\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -5-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 B. The Court Should Appoint Wolf and GM&E as Co-Lead Counsel\n 2 Competing derivative actions and uncoordinated plaintiffs\u2019 counsel create a risk of inefficient\n 3 and inconsistent results that would be adverse to the Company\u2019s interests. For those reasons, courts\n 4 routinely appoint lead counsel in derivative actions to facilitate the litigation for the sake of both\n 5 plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint Wolf\n 6 and GM&E as Co-Lead Derivative Counsel.\n 7 In complex cases such as this one, it is well-established that the court may appoint a plaintiff\n 8 leadership structure to coordinate the prosecution of the litigation. Saprano v. Lief, Nos. 10cv2079\n 9 BTM(BLM), 10cv2132 BTM(BLM), 10cv2344 BTM(BLM), 2011 WL 830109, at *2 (S.D. Cal.\n10 Mar. 3, 2011) (\u201cThe benefits of appointing a lead counsel in consolidated derivative actions is clear:\n11 \u2018The benefits achieved by consolidation and the appointment of general counsel, i.e., elimination of\n12 duplication and repetition and in effect the creation of a coordinator of diffuse plaintiffs through\n13 whom motions and discovery proceedings will be channeled, will most certainly redound to the\n14 benefit of all parties to the litigation.\u2019\u201d) (quoting MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.\n15 1958)); see also In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 297 (6th Cir. 1988); In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec.\n16 Litig., No 05 MDL 1706 (RO), 2006 WL 1120491, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 2006); In re Comverse\n17 Tech., Inc. Deriv. Litig., 06 Civ. 1849(NGG)(RER), 2006 WL 3761986, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22,\n18 2006) (holding that courts have \u201cthe inherent power to provide for the conduct of the proceedings\u201d\n19 and can therefore appoint lead counsel in derivative actions) (citing Advisory Committee Note to\n20 Rule 23.1); Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 659, 66, 673 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (\u201cA court may disturb\n21 the lead plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel only if it appears necessary to \u2018protect the interest of the class\u2019\u201d).\n22 It is well-settled that a judge may appoint plaintiff\u2019s counsel as lead counsel. In re Bendectin, 857\n23 F.2d at 297.\n24 The relevant factors are the qualifications of counsel, their diligence in prosecuting the action\n25 and ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of their clients and the Nominal Defendant,\n26 and the reasonableness of their fees and expenses. Moreover, the Manual for Complex Litigation\n27 recognizes the benefits of appointing class counsel in complex, multiparty litigation:\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -6-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n Complex litigation often involves numerous parties with common or similar interest\n 1 but separate counsel. Traditional procedures in which all papers and documents are\n served on all attorneys, and each attorney files motions, presents arguments, and\n 2 examines witnesses, may waste time and money, confuse and misdirect the litigation,\n burden the court unnecessarily. Instituting special procedures for coordination of\n 3 counsel early in the litigation will help to avoid these problems.\n 4 Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) \u00a7 10.22.\n 5 The criteria for appointing lead counsel in shareholder derivative actions should be similar to\n 6 those utilized under Rule 23(g) in class actions. These factors are: (i) [t]he work counsel has done in\n 7 identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel\u2019s experience in handling class\n 8 actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel\u2019s\n 9 knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class.\n10 Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., Nos. 12\u201305980 CRB, 12\u201306003 CRB, 12\u201306074 CRB, 12\u201306410\n11 CRB, 12\u201306199 CRB, 13\u201300301 CRB, 2013 WL 792642, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Bernhard\n12 v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 08-4392, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92308, at *14 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2009)\n13 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)). The Court must decide if the proposed candidates are qualified,\n14 holding dispositive no single factor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(B).\n15 In the proposed Consolidated Action, the appointment of Wolf and GM&E as co-lead counsel\n16 will best serve the interest of Marathon. Further, supporting the appointment of proposed Co-Lead\n17 Counsel are the criteria for selecting counsel set forth in Newberg on Class Actions, which state that\n18 the relevant factors \u201cinclude experience and prior success, the number, the size, and extent of\n19 involvement of represented litigants, the advanced stage of proceedings in a particular suit, and the\n20 nature of the causes of action alleged.\u201d 3 Alba Conte & Herbet B. Newberg, Newberg on Class\n21 Actions \u00a7 9.35, at 388 (4th ed. 2002). Each of these factors supports the appointment of proposed\n22 Co-Lead in the proposed Consolidated Action.\n23 1. The Work Done by Counsel\n24 Before filing their respective complaints, Wolf and GM&E investigated the underlying\n25 conduct and the potential legal claims. Wolf and GM&E drafted complaints and worked to\n26 develop the factual allegations and legal claims asserted in their respective complaints, and to\n27 ensure their accuracy.\n28 ///\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -7-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Once the litigation commenced, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel worked together in the litigation to\n 2 organize and coordinate the litigation, propose the consolidation of the actions, continue to\n 3 investigate the facts, and research legal theories for an anticipated consolidated complaint. The\n 4 two firms have conferred with defense counsel to attempt to organize the two actions into a\n 5 consolidated action and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint. All of this work\n 6 was performed for the benefit of the Nominal Defendant on a consensus basis among the two\n 7 Plaintiff law firms, without duplication of effort or the need for judicial intervention.\n 8 2. Wolf and GM&E\u2019s Experience\n 9 The second Rule 23(g) factor also supports appointment of Wolf and GM&E as interim co-\n10 lead counsel. The two firms have extensive experience in litigating complex civil cases of all\n11 types including shareholder rights, have achieved significant relief for their clients through\n12 settlement and trial, and have served in leadership positions in multiple complex actions\n13 throughout the country.\n14 a. Wolf\u2019s Experience\n15 Wolf has been a leading national law firm with extensive experience in shareholder\n16 derivative actions for more than fifty years. Wolf has been lead or co-lead counsel in securities\n17 class and derivative actions that have recouped billions of dollars on behalf of investors, including\n18 stockholder rights class actions that have resulted in billions of dollars in increased merger\n19 consideration to shareholder classes and in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of\n20 dollars for corporations.\n21 Wolf\u2019s pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\n22 laws include: groundbreaking derivative claims under the Investment Company Act of 1940\n23 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment companies and their advisors toward their\n24 shareholders; claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors in connection with change\n25 of control transactions; breach of fiduciary duty claims involving director self-dealing and lack of\n26 oversight. For example, in In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.), the\n27 firm was lead derivative counsel in a large collection of cases against mutual fund companies\n28 accused of market timing which achieved more than $300 million in settlement. In American\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -8-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 769-VCS (Del. Ch.), Wolf was\n 2 co-lead counsel and achieved a $125 million settlement. In In Re Bank of America Stockholder\n 3 Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.), the firm was co-lead and achieved $42.5\n 4 million in settlement benefits.\n 5 Wolf has served as lead or co-lead in many other securities class actions, such as In re\n 6 BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D. Mo.), in which the\n 7 class recovered $490 million, and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92\n 8 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), in which the class recovered $586 million. A copy of the firm resume of the\n 9 Wolf firm is attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin as Exhibit 1.\n10 b. GM&E\u2019s Experience\n11 GM&E has extensive experience in handling shareholder actions and other similar\n12 complex lawsuits and has prosecuted numerous securities class action and derivative shareholder\n13 cases, and therefore, possess substantial knowledge about the applicable law. In addition, the firm\n14 is well capitalized, and fully capable and prepared to staff and finance this derivative litigation.\n15 See GM&E\u2019s Firm R\u00e9sum\u00e9 attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin at Exhibit 2.\n16 GM&E made law with its successful prosecution of an appeal to the United States\n17 Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of prudence\u201d that lower courts had\n18 been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer retirement plans who imprudently\n19 invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case, Fifth Third Bancorp v,\n20 Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 2014 WL 2864481 (Sup. Ct. June 25, 2014), GM&E argued with co-\n21 counsel that the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework.\n22 The Supreme Court agreed.\n23 GM&E has also been lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous derivative and\n24 shareholder actions and has produced substantial recoveries for shareholders. GM&E was lead\n25 counsel in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n26 (D.N.J.) (recovery of $12.25 million for breach of fiduciary duty to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In\n27 re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (recovery of $8.2\n28 million for breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Boyd, et al. v.\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -9-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (breach of fiduciary duty recovery\n 2 of $3.6 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil\n 3 Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (sole lead counsel producing a recovery of $4.5 million for\n 4 breach of fiduciary duties owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In re General Growth Properties,\n 5 Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement\n 6 Class producing a recovery of $5.75 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan).\n 7 3. The Resources Counsel Will Commit to Representing the Nominal\n Defendant\n 8\n 9 Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have the resources necessary to lead this litigation. The firms have\n10 sufficient numbers of attorneys and other professionals to staff this case, and they have\n11 successfully managed complex, resource-intensive cases in the past. The firms have invested in\n12 the technology support necessary to handle complex matters, and each has designated a primary\n13 team of attorneys who will bring their unique skills and experience to representing the nominal\n14 defendant. The firms routinely advance the costs of litigation and have demonstrated an ability\n15 and willingness to dedicate substantial resources to vigorously prosecute the derivative claims\n16 asserted in the instant action.\n17 The two firms are prepared to commit the resources necessary to prosecute this case to a\n18 successful conclusion. The proposed leadership structure is ideally suited to the particular\n19 circumstances of this litigation, which will require a lean team of dedicated lawyers with sufficient\n20 resources to prosecute this litigation against sophisticated and well-financed defendants. The\n21 firms are well established, reputable, and have demonstrated that they are capable of handling the\n22 challenges of this litigation and committing the necessary resources to effectively represent the\n23 proposed class.\n24 C. Motion To Stay\n25 The Court is vested with the inherent power and authority to manage its calendar. See\n26 Dambach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 324 P.3d 369, 373 (2014). This\n27 includes the discretion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the instant motion.\n28 Additionally, NRCP 16.1 reflects the Court's wide discretion in managing all aspects of cases\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 10 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 before it. Among the Court's powers is the right to take action to discourage \"wasteful pretrial\n 2 activities\", \"to improve the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation\", and to craft\n 3 any procedures \"appropriate in the circumstances of the case.\" NRCP 16.1 (a)(3) and (4); NRCP\n 4 16.1 (b)(5).\n 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek a limited, temporary stay to allow the instant motion to be decided,\n 6 the two similar cases consolidated, co-lead counsel for the prosecution of the action appointed and\n 7 a schedule set for the drafting and filing of the consolidated complaint. Consolidating the actions\n 8 and proceeding in an orderly fashion will save judicial resources.\n 9 V. CONCLUSION\n10 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2) appoint Wolf\n11 and GM&E to serve as interim co-lead counsel in this litigation and (3) order that the pending\n12 motion to dismiss briefing in each action be temporarily stayed until after the actions are\n13 consolidated and a schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated complaint. In the alternative, if\n14 the instant motion is denied, Plaintiffs ask that any response to the pending motions to dismiss be\n15 due twenty-one (21) after an order is entered on the instant motion.\n16 Dated: May 23, 2022\n17 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n18\n /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n19 Matthew L. Sharp\n20 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n21 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n22\n Gregory M. Egleston\n23 Pro-Hac Vice Application to be filed\n GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n24 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n New York, New York 10017\n25 Phone: (212) 983-1300\n Fax: (212) 983-0383\n26 Email: gegleston@gme-aw.com\n27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 11 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n /s/ G. Mark Albright\n 1\n G. Mark Albright, Esq. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 2 Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. (NV Bar # 14595)\n ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n 3 & ALBRIGHT\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 5 Tel: (702) 384-7111\n\n 6 Mark C. Rifkin\n 7 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n 8 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n New York, NY 10016\n 9 Tel: (212) 545-4600\n10\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n11 Strassman\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 12 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by\n 4 using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n 7 DATED this 23rd day of May 2022.\n 8\n /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n 9 An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 13 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:53:45.155610-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462239","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Appointment of Counsel","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371983026/","id":371983026,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/35/1/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2023-09-17T20:53:22.568652-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T04:30:43.254845-08:00","sha1":"0d08b8662de160eec5464e5048d0e4c8f2958f9d","page_count":62,"file_size":773426,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.35.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.35.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 62\n\n\n\n\n G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 1\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 2 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 3 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 4\n (702) 384-7111\n 5\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 6 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 7 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 8 (775) 324-1500\n matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 9\n10 Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n12\n13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n14 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n15 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN\n16 IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS\n17 Plaintiff, FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION AND\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n18 v. COUNSEL AND (2) TO TEMPORARILY\n STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n19 BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n20 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, SUPPORT\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n21\n and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n22\n Defendants,\n23 -and-\n24\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n25 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n26 Nominal Defendant.\n27\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 62\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n Plaintiff,\n 3\n v.\n 4\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n 6 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7\n Defendants,\n 8\n -and-\n 9\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n10 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n11\n Nominal Defendant.\n12\n13 I Marc C. Rifkin declare the following:\n\n14 1. I am a resident of the State of New York and a partner at the law firm Wolf\n\n15 Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n16 2. I submit this declaration in support of the Motions for (1) Consolidation and\n\n17 Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel and (2) to Temporarily Stay All Motion to Dismiss\n\n18 Briefing.\n\n19 3. True and correct copies of the following documents cited in the accompanying Motion\n\n20 are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2:\n\n21 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION\n\n22 1. Firm Resume of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n23 2. Firm Resume of Gainey McKenna & Egleston.\n\n24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n25 foregoing is true and correct based upon my knowledge, information and belief.\n\n26 Dated: May 23, 2022\n\n27 /s/ Mark C. Rifkin\n Mark C. Rifkin\n28\n DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2)\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION\n TO DISMISS BRIEFING\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Providing Exemplary Legal Services Since 1888\n\n\n\n\n firm resume\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 62\n\n\nFounded in 1888, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a full service law\nfirm specializing in complex litigation in federal and state courts nationwide. The\nfirm\u2019s practice includes litigation, both hourly and contingent, in securities, antitrust,\nwage & hour, consumer fraud, false marketing, ERISA, and general and commercial\nmatters, whistleblower, false claim, trust & estate, corporate investigation, and white\ncollar matters, and FINRA arbitration. The Firm has a particular specialty in complex\nclass action and other representative litigation \u2013 including investor, shareholder,\nantitrust, ERISA, consumer, employee, and biotechnology matters \u2013 under both federal\nand state law.\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s total practice approach distinguishes it from other firms. Our\nlongstanding tradition of a close attorney/client relationship ensures that each one of\nour clients receives prompt, individual attention and does not become lost in an\ninstitutional bureaucracy. Our team approach is at the very heart of Wolf Haldenstein\u2019s\npractice. All of our lawyers are readily available to all of our clients and to each other.\nThe result of this approach is that we provide our clients with an efficient legal team\nhaving the broad perspective, expertise and experience required for any matter at hand.\nWe are thus able to provide our clients with cost effective and thorough counsel focused\non our clients\u2019 overall goals.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-686-0114\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 62\n\n\n THE FIRM\n\nWolf Haldenstein has been recognized by state and federal courts throughout the\ncountry as being highly experienced in complex litigation, particularly with respect to\nsecurities, consumer, ERISA, FLSA and state overtime and expense deductions, and\nantitrust class actions and shareholder rights litigation.\n\nAmong its colleagues in the plaintiffs\u2019 bar, as well as among its adversaries in the\ndefense bar, Wolf Haldenstein is known for the high ability of its attorneys, and the\nexceptionally high quality of its written and oral advocacy.\n\nThe nature of the Firm\u2019s activities in both individual and representative litigation is\nextremely broad. In addition to a large case load of securities fraud and other investor\nclass actions, Wolf Haldenstein has represented classes of corn and rice farmers in\nconnection with the devaluation of their crops; canned tuna consumers for tuna\ncompanies\u2019 violations of antitrust laws; merchants compelled to accept certain types of\ndebit cards; insurance policyholders for insurance companies\u2019 deceptive sales practices;\nvictims of unlawful strip searches under the civil rights laws; and various cases\ninvolving violations of Internet users\u2019 on-line privacy rights.\n\nThe Firm\u2019s experience in class action securities litigation, in particular public\nshareholder rights under state law and securities fraud claims arising under the federal\nsecurities laws and regulations is particularly extensive. The Firm was one of the lead\nor other primary counsel in securities class action cases that have recouped billions of\ndollars on behalf of investor classes, in stockholder rights class actions that have\nresulted in billions of dollars in increased merger consideration to shareholder classes,\nand in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of dollars for corporations.\n\nIts pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\nlaws include: groundbreaking claims that have been successfully brought under the\nInvestment Company Act of 1940 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment\ncompanies and their advisors toward their shareholders; claims under ERISA involving\nfiduciary duties of ERISA trustees who are also insiders in possession of adverse\ninformation regarding their fund\u2019s primary stockholdings; the fiduciary duties of the\ndirectors of Delaware corporations in connection with change of control transactions;\nthe early application of the fraud-on-the-market theory to claims against public\naccounting firms in connection with their audits of publicly traded corporations; and\nthe application of federal securities class certification standards to state law claims often\nthought to be beyond the reach of class action treatment.\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 62\n\n\n Judicial Commendations\n\nWolf Haldenstein has repeatedly received favorable judicial recognition. The following\nrepresentative judicial comments over the past decade indicate the high regard in which\nthe Firm is held:\n\n \u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (Sup. Ct.\n N.Y. Co.) \u2013 On May 2, 2013, Justice O. Peter Sherwood praised the Firm in its\n role as chair of the committee of co-lead counsel as follows: \"It is apparent to\n me, having presided over this case, that class counsel has performed in an\n excellent manner, and you have represented your clients quite well. You\n should be complimented for that.\" In awarding attorneys' fees, the\n Court stated that the fee was \"intended to reward class counsel handsomely\n for the very good result achieved for the Class, assumption of the high risk of\n Plaintiffs prevailing and the efficiency of effort that resulted in the settlement\n of the case at an early stage without protracted motion practice.\" May 17, 2013\n slip. op. at 5 (citations omitted).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) \u2013 On April 9, 2013, Justice\n Richard B. Lowe III praised the Firm\u2019s efforts as follows: \u201c[W]hen you have\n challenging cases, the one thing you like to ask for is that the legal\n representation on both sides rise to that level. Because when you have lawyers\n who are professionals, who are confident, who are experienced, each of you\n know that each side has a job to do [. . . .] I want to tell you that I am very\n satisfied with your performance and with your, quite frankly, tenacity on both\n sides. And it took six years, but look at the history of the litigation. There were\n two appeals all of the way to the Court of Appeals [. . . .] And then look at the\n results. I mean, there are dissents in the Court of Appeals, so that shows you\n the complexity of the issues that were presented in this litigation [. . . .] [I]t\n shows you effort that went into this and the professionalism that was\n exhibited [. . . .] So let me just again express my appreciation to both sides.\u201d\n\n \u2022 K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555 (E.D. Mich.) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Rosen, at the June 7, 2010 final\n approval hearing, praised the Firm for doing \u201can outstanding job of\n representing [its] clients,\u201d and further commented that \u201cthe conduct of all\n counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties\n confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Klein, et al. v. Ryan Beck Holdings, Inc., et al., 06-cv-3460 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. 2010) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Deborah A. Batts described the\n Firm\u2019s successful establishment of a settlement fund as follows: \u201c[a] miracle\n that there is a settlement fund at all.\u201d Judge Batts continued: \"As I said earlier,\n there is no question that the litigation is complex and of a large and, if you\n will, pioneering magnitude ...\" (Emphasis added).\n\n\u2022 Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) \u2013 where\n the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), \u201c[a]ll\n of the attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really\n appreciate the quality of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this\n case.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) \u2013 where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August\n 15, 2007), \u201cI think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all,\n watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the\n results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put\n this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust]\n class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an\n exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really\n required the Court\u2019s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at\n organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case.\n There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs\u2019\n counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . .\n . So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed\n as well by both sides.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Sec. Litigation, 01 C 2110 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2005) \u2013 Judge Milton\n Shadur observed: \u201cIt has to be said . . . that the efforts that have been extended\n [by Wolf Haldenstein] on behalf of the plaintiff class in the face of these\n obstacles have been exemplary. And in my view [Wolf Haldenstein] reflected\n the kind of professionalism that the critics of class actions . . . are never willing\n to recognize. . . . I really cannot speak too highly of the services rendered by\n class counsel in an extraordinary difficult situation.\u201d\n\n\u2022 Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV\n 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2016) \u2013 Judge George H. King\n\n\n\n\n Page 5\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 62\n\n\n stated: \"Not all, or perhaps even most, plaintiffs' class counsel could have\n litigated this case as successfully as did class counsel against such a fierce and\n exceptionally accomplished opponent.\"\n\n \u2022 Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., (Case No. 1:18-cv-209, D. Haw., May 3,\n 2019): Judge Robert J. Bryan said, \u201cI\u2019ve been impressed by the quality of the\n work you\u2019ve done throughout here, and that is reflected, I think, in the fact\n that no one has objected to the settlement.\u201d\n\n Recent Noteworthy Results\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s performance in representative litigation has repeatedly resulted in\nfavorable results for its clients. The Firm has helped recover billions of dollars on\nbehalf of its clients in the cases listed below. Recent examples include the following:\n\n \u2022 On May 13, 2019, in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, the Supreme Court\n affirmed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that iPhone\n purchasers have standing to sue Apple for monopolizing the market for iPhone\n apps in this longstanding antitrust class action. Wolf Haldenstein has been\n Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs since 2007. The case was commenced in federal\n district court in Oakland. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision clears the way for the\n plaintiffs to proceed on the merits of their claim.\n\n \u2022 On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated\n decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael H. Resh, et al. Wolf Haldenstein\n represented the plaintiffs/respondents, having commenced the action on behalf\n of aggrieved shareholders of China Agritech after two prior cases had failed at\n the class certification stage.\n\n \u2022 In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, MDL 1811 (E.D. Mo.) - Wolf\n Haldenstein represented U.S. rice farmers in this landmark action against Bayer\n A.G. and its global affiliates, achieving a global recovery of $750 million. The\n case arose from the contamination of the nation's long grain rice crop by\n Bayer's experimental and unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice.\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) - a class action brought on\n behalf of over 27,500 current and former tenants of New York City's iconic\n Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village housing complexes. On April 9,\n 2013, Justice Richard B. Lowe III of the New York Supreme Court finally\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 62\n\n\n approved settlement of the action, which totals over $173 million, sets aside\n $68.75 million in damages, re-regulates the apartments at issue, and sets\n preferential rents for the units that will save tenants significant monies in the\n future. The settlement also enables the tenants to retain an estimated $105\n million in rent savings they enjoyed between 2009 and 2012. The settlement is\n by many magnitudes the largest tenant settlement in United States history.\n\n\u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., Index No. 650607/2012 \u2013 The\n firm served as Chair of the Executive Committee of Co-Lead Counsel for the\n Plaintiffs in a class action settlement finally approved on May 2, 2013 that\n provides for the establishment of a $55 million settlement fund for investors, in\n addition to substantial tax deferral benefits estimated to be in excess of $100\n million.\n\n\u2022 American International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 769-VCS (Del. Ch.) The Firm acted as co-lead counsel and the settlement\n addressed claims alleging that the D&O Defendants breached their fiduciary\n duties to the Company and otherwise committed wrongdoing to the detriment\n of AIG in connection with various allegedly fraudulent schemes during the\n 1999-2005 time period.\n\n\u2022 In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income\n Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Master File No. 09 MD 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (firm was\n co-lead counsel in parallel derivative action pending in Delaware (In Re Bank of\n America Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.)) (increase\n of settlement cash recovery from $20 million to $62.5 million).\n\n\u2022 The Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Service Transit Operating\n Authority Pension Plan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:09-cv-04408-SAS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $150 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Tremont Sec. Law, State Law and Insurance Litig., No. 08-civ-11117 (TPG)\n (SDNY) (class recovered $100 million). The firm was court-appointed co-lead\n counsel in the Insurance Action, 08 Civ. 557, and represented a class of persons\n who purchased or otherwise acquired Variable Universal Life (\u201cVUL\u201d)\n insurance policies or Deferred Variable Annuity (\u201cDVA\u201d) policies issued by\n Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus International Life Bermuda\n Limited from May 10, 1994 - December 11, 2008 to the extent the investment\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 62\n\n\n accounts of those policies were exposed to the massive Ponzi scheme\n orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff through one or more Rye funds.\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $586 million). Wolf Haldenstein served as Co-Lead Counsel of one\n of the largest securities fraud cases in history. Despite the United States Court\n of Appeals for the Second Circuit\u2019s decision to vacate the district court\u2019s class\n certification decision, on remand, counsel for plaintiffs were able to press on to\n a settlement on April 1, 2009, ultimately recovering in excess of a half-billion\n dollars.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 62\n\n\n FIRM PRACTICE AREAS\n\n Class Action Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in class and derivative action litigation and is currently or\nhas been the court-appointed lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or executive committee\nmember in some of the largest and most significant class action and derivative action\nlawsuits in the United States. For example, the class action Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13\nN.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) was recently described by a sitting member of the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives as the greatest legal victory for tenants in her lifetime. In Roberts, the\nFirm obtained a victory in the New York Court of Appeals requiring the reregulation of\nthousands of apartment units in the Stuyvesant Town complex in Manhattan, New\nYork. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful results are summarized within.\n\n Private Actions for Institutional Investors\n\nIn addition to its vast class action practice, the Firm also regularly represents\ninstitutional clients such as public funds, investment funds, limited partnerships, and\nqualified institutional buyers in private actions. The Firm has represented institutional\nclients in non-class federal and state actions concerning a variety of matters, including\nprivate placements, disputes with investment advisors, and disputes with corporate\nmanagement.\n\nThe Firm has also acted as special counsel to investors\u2019 committees in efforts to assert\nand advance the investors\u2019 interests without resorting to litigation. For example, the\nFirm served as Counsel to the Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partners Committee for\nseveral years in its dealings with Host Marriott Corporation, and as Special Counsel to\nthe Windsor Park Properties 7 and 8 limited partners to insure the fairness of their\nliquidation transactions.\n\n Antitrust Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in antitrust and competition litigation. The Firm actively\nseeks to enforce the federal and state antitrust laws to protect and strengthen the rights\nand claims of businesses, organizations, Taft-Hartley funds, and consumers throughout\nthe United States. To that end, Wolf Haldenstein commences large, often complex,\nantitrust and trade regulation class actions and other cases that target some of the most\npowerful and well-funded corporate interests in the world. Many of these interests\nexert strong influence over enforcement policy that is in the hands of elected officials, so\nthat private enforcement provides the only true assurance that unfair and\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 62\n\n\nanticompetitive conduct will be duly scrutinized for compliance with the law. These\ncases frequently bring to light concealed, unlawful behavior such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, market allocation, monopoly leveraging, essential facilities, tying\narrangements, vertical restraints, exclusive dealing, and refusals to deal. Wolf\nHaldenstein\u2019s Antitrust Practice Group has successfully prosecuted numerous antitrust\ncases and aggressively advocates remedies and restitution for businesses and investors\nwronged by violations of the antitrust laws. For example, in In re DRAM Antitrust\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) the firm successfully prosecuted an antitrust\ncase resulting in a $315 million recovery. Many of the firm\u2019s successful results are\nsummarized within.\n\nWolf Haldenstein attorneys currently serve as lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or as\nexecutive committee members in some of the largest and most significant antitrust class\naction lawsuits. The firm was most recently appointed lead counsel in the Salmon\nAntitrust Indirect Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District\nof Florida.\n\n Overtime and Compensation Class Actions\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader class action litigation on behalf of employees who have not\nbeen paid overtime or other compensation they are entitled to receive, or have had\nimproper deductions taken from their compensation. These claims under the federal\nFair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws allege improper failure to pay overtime\nand other wages, and improper deductions from compensation for various company\nexpenses. Wolf Haldenstein has served as lead or co-lead counsel, or other similar lead\nrole, in some of the most significant overtime class actions pending in the United States,\nand has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in recovered wages for its clients. For\nexample, in LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\na $108 million settlement was secured for the class. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful\nwage and hour results are summarized within.\n\nSubstantial Recoveries in Class Action and Derivative Cases in Which\nWolf Haldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n \u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litigation, Master File No. 09 Civ. 0777 (LBS) (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($219 million settlement in this and related action).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, No. 100956/2007 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) ($173 Million\n settlement).\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.) (derivative\n counsel in consolidated cases against numerous mutual fund companies\n involved in market timing resulting in class/derivative settlements totaling\n more than $300 million).\n\n\u2022 Inland Western Securities Litigation, Case No. 07 C 6174 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n value of shares valued between $61.5 million and $90 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust, No. 09-Civ-8011 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $8 million).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D.\n Mo.) (class recovered $490 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, (MD-02 1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) (class recovered $325 million).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (class\n recovered $160 million in cash and securities).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373, 94 Civ. 2546 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $116.5 million in cash).\n\n\u2022 In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $110\n million).\n\n\u2022 In Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Sec. Litigation, 2:02-CV-1226 (E.D.N.Y.)\n ($130 million settlement in this and two related actions).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 02-12338 (MEL) (D. Mass.)\n (classes recovered $52.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ\n (D. Mass) (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Iridium Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.) (class recovered $43\n million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 15 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1783 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n providing for adoption of corporate governance principles relating to potential\n corporate transactions requiring shareholder approval).\n\n\u2022 LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\n ($108 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv-2628 (BEN) (S.D. Cal.)\n ($50 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Poole v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Case No. CV-06-1657 (D. Or.)\n ($43.5 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 07-1807 DOC\n (C.D. Cal.) ($39 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation (Prudential), MDL No.\n 07-1807 DOC (C.D. Cal.) ($11 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Basile v. A.G. Edwards, Inc., 08-CV-00338-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal.) ($12 million\n settlement).\n\n\u2022 Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n (Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) (co-lead, $1.65 million settlement w/\n average class member recovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded\n separately).\n\n\u2022 Neil Weinstein, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D.Cal)\n (co-lead, $7.4 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Creighton v. Oppenheimer, Index No. 1:06 - cv - 04607 - BSJ - DCF (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($2.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-CV-3460 (DAB)(S.D.N.Y.) ($1.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated\n C.A. No. 1823-N (Del. Ch. Ct.) ($14.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Collins and Aikman Corp., 06-cv-13555 (E.D. Mich.) (class recovered\n $12 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 16 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, 02 CV\n 7854 (JFK) (SDNY); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund\n Securities Litigation, 02 CV 10221 (JFK) (SDNY) (class recovered $39 million in\n combined cases).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 6:04-cv-1231 (Orl-31)\n (class recovered $35 million, and lawsuit also instrumental in $225 million\n benefit to corporation).\n\n\u2022 In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06-CV-4130-DGT-AKT ($34.4 million recovery).\n\n\u2022 In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Stock Option Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06cv4622 (S.D.N.Y.) ($32 million recovery and corporate governance reforms).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Docket No. 98-1148 (S.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $29 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Arakis Energy Corporation Securities Litigation, 95 CV 3431 (E.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $24 million).\n\n\u2022 In re E.W. Blanche Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-258 (D. Minn.)\n (class recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation, No. CV 01-3285 (E.D.N.Y) (class\n recovered $18.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, CV-00-2018 (C.D. Cal.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110 (MIS) (N.D. Ill.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-CV-1270\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13.65 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 17 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2097 (MA) (W.D. Tenn) (class\n recovered $13.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6190 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.)\n (class recovered $12.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corp. Securities Litigation, 00-11972 (D. Mass.) (class recovered $12\n million).\n\n\u2022 Bamboo Partners LLC v. Robert Mondavi Corp., No. 26-27170 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (class\n recovered $10.8 million).\n\n\u2022 Curative Health Services Securities Litigation, 99-2074 (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Jones Intercable, 99 WM-1051 (D. Colo.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila, Inc., (ERISA Litigation), 04-865 (W.D. Mo.) ($10.5 million recovery\n for the class).\n\n\u2022 In re Tenfold Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:00-CV-652 (D. Utah) (class\n recovered $5.9 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Industrial Gas Antitrust Litigation, 80 C 3479 and related cases (N.D. Ill.)\n (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chor-Alkalai and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, 86-5428 and related cases\n (E.D. Pa.) (class recovered $55 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.) (class\n recovered $126 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:94-cv-00897,\n M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $715 million).\n\n\u2022 Landon v. Freel, M.D.L. No. 592 (S.D. Tex.) (class recovered $12 million).\n\n\u2022 Holloway v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., No. 84 C 814 EU (N.D. Okla.) (class\n recovered $38 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 18 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re The Chubb Corp. Drought Insurance Litigation, C-1-88-644 (S.D. Ohio)\n (class recovered $100 million).\n\n\u2022 Wong v. Megafoods, Civ-94-1702 (D. Ariz.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $12.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Del Val Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4854 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $11.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Home Shopping Network Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action\n No. 12868, (Del. Ch. 1995) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Paine Webber Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 Civ 8547 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4007 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $19 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Spectrum Information Technologies Securities Litigation, CV 93-2245\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chase Manhattan Securities Litigation, 90 Civ. 6092 (LJF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Prostic v. Xerox Corp., No. B-90-113 (EBB) (D. Conn.) (class recovered $9\n million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Hercules, Civil Action No. 90-442-RRM (D. Del.) (class recovered $18\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Ambase Securities Litigation, 90 Civ 2011 (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $14.6\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southmark Securities Litigation, CA No. 3-89-1402-D (N.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $70 million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., No. 86-M 456 (D. Colo. 1989) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Tucson Electric Power Derivative Litigation, 2:89 Civ. 01274 TUC. ACM\n (corporation recovered $30 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 19 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Alleco Stockholders Litigation, (Md. Cir. Ct. Pr. Georges County) (class recovered\n $16 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Revlon Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. 8362 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Taft Broadcasting Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 8897 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southland Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 87-8834-K (N.D.Tex.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Crocker Bank Securities Litigation, CA No. 7405 (Del. Ch.) (class recovered\n $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, No. 82 Civ. 8288 (JFK)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Joseph v. Shell Oil, CA No. 7450 (Del. Ch.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 4-82-874,\n MDL No. 517 (D. Minn.) (recovery of over $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Whittaker Corporation Securities Litigation, CA000817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los\n Angeles County) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Naevus International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 602191/99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)\n (consumer fraud) (class recovered $40 million).\n\n\u2022 Sewell v. Sprint PCS Limited Partnership, C.A. No. 97-188027/CC 3879 (Cir. Ct.\n for Baltimore City) (consumer fraud) (class recovered $45.2 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2:08-\n cv-285 (D.N.J.) (class recovered $41.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Verizon, No. 104784/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) \u2013 Wolf Haldenstein\n represented a class of New York Verizon Centrex customers in an action\n against Verizon stemming from overbilling of certain charges. The Firm\n secured a settlement with a total value to the Class of over $5 million, which\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 20 of 62\n\n\n provided, among other things, each class member with full refunds of certain\n disputed charges, plus interest.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Nahal Zelouf, Index No. 653652/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.\n 2015). In an important trial decision following an appraisal proceeding\n triggered by the freeze-out merger of a closely-held corporation, which also\n included shareholder derivative claims, Justice Kornreich of the New York\n Supreme Court refused to apply a discount for lack of marketability to the\n minority interest in the former corporation and found that the insiders stole\n more than $14 million dollars; the minority shareholder recovered over $9\n million.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 45 Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2014). The\n Court rejected application of a discount for lack of marketability and awarded\n a $10,031,438.28 judgment following an eleven day bench trial in the\n Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New\n York County) on the value of a minority interest in a closely held corporation.\n\n\u2022 Thompson et al. v. Bethpage Federal Credit Union et al., No. 2:17-cv-00921-GRB\n (E.D.N.Y.) ($3.6 million settlement)\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 21 of 62\n\n\n Representative Reported Opinions Since 1990 in Which Wolf\nHaldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n Federal Appellate and District Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)\n\n\u2022 Hymes v. Bank of America, 408 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 332 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. Cal. 2019)\n\n\u2022 China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal.\n 2017)\n\n\u2022 DeFrees v. Kirkland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52780 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 282 F.R.D. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\n\u2022 Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, No. 10-2514 (7th\n Cir. Jan. 13, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Text Message Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d, 622 (7th Cir. 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98270 (N.D. Cal. July\n 8, 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 745 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., 545 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litig., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).\n\n\u2022 Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, No. 06 C 4674, 2007 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 93877 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 2007 WL 2768383 (E.D. Mo.\n Sept. 20, 2007).\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 22 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund, 99 Civ. 4174 (LMM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61454\n (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-Civ. 3460 (WCC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51465 (S.D.N.Y.\n July 13, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Cannon v. MBNA Corp. No. 05-429 GMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48901 (D. Del.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202 (W.D. Mo. 2006).\n\n\u2022 Smith v. Aon Corp., 238 F.R.D. 609 (N.D. Ill. 2006).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 03-10165, 2005 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 29656 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group, S.p.A. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071\n (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38876,\n No. 6:04-cv-1231-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2005).\n\n\u2022 Johnson v. Aegon USA, Inc., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2004).\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 33018 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, 03-CV-1270 (E.D.N.Y. June\n 22, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 308 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2697 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7,\n 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (1st Cir. May 9,\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re PerkinElmer, Inc. Securities Litigation, 286 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2003).\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 23 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y.\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5047\n (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475 (2001), clarified, 279 F.3d 313 (5th\n Cir. 2002).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Cable TV Fund 14-B, 213 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corporation Securities Litigation, Docket No. 00-11972 - WGY, 2002\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18143 (D. Mass., Sept. 27, 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation, 212 F.Supp.2d 828 (N.D. Ill.\n 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Bankamerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 263 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, 166 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D. Ill. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457\n JN, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14780 (W.D. Tx. Aug. 15, 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Lindelow v. Hill, No. 00 C 3727, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10301 (N.D. Ill. July 19,\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 148 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the\n Electrical Industry, 172 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Carney v. Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass.\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 Weltz v. Lee, 199 F.R.D. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Schoers v. Pfizer, Inc., 00 Civ. 6121, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,\n 2001).\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 24 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83\n (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2001).\n\n\u2022 Goldberger v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 98 Civ. 8677 (JSM), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18714\n (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 99 C 6853, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 15190 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Stanley v. Safeskin Corp., Case No. 99 CV 454 BTM (LSP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 14100, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 221 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re USA Talks.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14823, Fed.\n Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 231 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Sotheby\u2019s Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 00 CIV. 1041 (DLC), 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 12504, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 059 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 10906 (E.D. La. July 21, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21424 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Carnegie International Corp. Securities Litigation, 107 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D.\n Md. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21423 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Imperial Credit Industries Securities Litigation, CV 98-8842 SVW, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 2340 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 82 F. Supp. 2d 227\n (S.D.N.Y. 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 25 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 619 (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 110 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 78 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Mo. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18378\n (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Nanophase Technologies Corp. Litigation, 98 C 3450, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 16171 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Clearly Canadian Securities Litigation, File No. C-93-1037-VRW, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 14273 Cal. Sept. 7, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (W.D. Okla. 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Spyglass, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99 C 512, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11382\n (N.D. Ill. July 20, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11595 (N.D. Ga. June 30, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 98 CV 3287, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11363 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1368, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90, 429 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Longman v. Food Lion, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 331 (M.D.N.C. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 669 (W.D. Pa. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 1998).\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 26 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga.\n 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re MobileMedia Securities Litigation, 28 F.Supp.2d 901 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 1865 (HB), 1998\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 999 F. Supp. 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-cv-3183-TWT, 1998 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 23222 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 1998).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Radica Games (In re Radica Games Securities Litigation), No. 96-17274,\n 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32775 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Robbins v. Koger Properties, 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 95\n Civ. 0167 (PKL), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18485 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 97 Civ. 2189 (SAS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13630\n (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23646 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23647 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 964 F.\n Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Companies, 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 4451 (S.D.N.Y. April 8, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Bobrow v. Mobilmedia, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-4715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 23806 (D.N.J. March 31, 1997).\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 27 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kalodner v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 200 (N.D.Tex. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 95 Civ.\n 8422 (LAK), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Alpern v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 95 Civ. 1924 (MBM),\n 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Simon v. American Power Conversion Corp., 945 F. Supp. 416 (D.R.I. 1996).\n\n\u2022 TII Industries, Inc., 96 Civ. 4412 (SAS), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14466 (S.D.N.Y.\n Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 941\n F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 9195 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Tricord Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil No. 3-94-746, 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 20943 (D. Minn. April 5, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1265 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Riley v. Simmons, 45 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1995).\n\n\u2022 Stepak v. Addison, 20 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1994).\n\n\u2022 Zitin v. Turley, [1991 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u00b6 96,123 (D.\n Ariz. June 20, 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 28 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation, 151 F.R.D.\n 597 (W.D.N.C. 1993).\n\n\u2022 County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\n\n Notable State Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 William Hughes, Jr. v. Xiaoming Hu, et al. [In re Kandi Technologies Group], C.A.\n No. 2019-0112-JTL (Del. Ch. April 27, 2020).\n\n\u2022 Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir, 179 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2020).\n\n\u2022 Cohen v. Saks, Inc., 169 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\n\u2022 Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 147 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep\u2019t 2016).\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 47 Misc. 3d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014).\n\n\u2022 McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, 56 Cal. 4th 613 (2013).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 89 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).\n\n\u2022 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 241 (2011).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009).\n\n\u2022 In re Tyson Foods, Inc., Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A.2d 563 (Del. Ch.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 Naevus Int\u2019l v. AT&T Corp., 283 A.D.2d 171, 724 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Western National Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.\n 15927, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 82 (May 22, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 2000 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 90 (May 5, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14634,\n 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 27, 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 29 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotels Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 24, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company, 132 N.C. App. 682, 513 S.E.2d\n 598 (Ct. App. 1999), aff\u2019d, 351 N.C. 349, 524 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Greenwald v. Batterson, C.A. No. 16475, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158 (July 26, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Perrette, Civil Action No. 13531, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 92 (May 18,\n 1999).\n\n\u2022 Seinfeld v. Robinson, 246 A.D.2d 291, 676 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Werner v. Alexander, 130 N.C. App. 435, 502 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 1997 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 146 (Oct. 15, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 1997 Del. Ch. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 17, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Cheyenne Software Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14941,\n 1996 Del. Ch. LEXIS 142 (Nov. 7, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. Super.\n Ct. 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 30 of 62\n\n\n ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES\n\nThe qualifications of the attorneys in the Wolf Haldenstein Litigation Group are set\nforth below and are followed by descriptions of some of the Firm\u2019s attorneys who\nnormally practice outside the Litigation Group who contribute significantly to the class\naction practice from time to time.\n Partners\n\nMARK C. RIFKIN: admitted: New York; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; U.S. Supreme\nCourt; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits; U.S.\nDistrict Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern and\nWestern Districts of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin and the Western District of Michigan. Education: Princeton University (A.B.\n1982); Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1985). Contributor, Packel & Poulin,\nPennsylvania Evidence (1987).\n\nA highly experienced securities class action and shareholder rights litigator, Mr. Rifkin\nhas recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate fraud and abuse\nin federal and state litigation across the country. Since 1990, Mr. Rifkin has served as\nlead counsel, co-lead counsel, or trial counsel in many class and derivative actions in\nsecurities, intellectual property, antitrust, insurance, consumer and mass tort litigation\nthroughout the country.\n\nUnique among his peers in the class action practice, Mr. Rifkin has extensive trial\nexperience. Over the past thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has tried many complex commercial\nactions in federal and state courts across the country in class and derivative actions,\nincluding In re National Media Corp. Derivative Litig., C.A. 90-7574 (E.D. Pa.), Upp v.\nMellon Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 91-5229 (E.D. Pa.), where the verdict awarded more than\n$60 million in damages to the Class (later reversed on appeal, 997 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir.\n1993)), and In re AST Research Securities Litigation, No. 94-1370 SVW (C.D. Cal.), as well\nas a number of commercial matters for individual clients, including Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v.\nZelouf, Index No. 653652/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), in which he obtained a $10 million\njudgment for his client.\n\nMr. Rifkin also has extensive appellate experience. Over thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has\nargued dozens of appeals on behalf of appellants and appellees in several federal\nappellate courts, and in the highest appellate courts in New York, Pennsylvania, New\nJersey, and Delaware.\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 31 of 62\n\n\n\n\nMr. Rifkin has earned the AV\u00ae-Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell\u00ae for more\nthan 20 years, and has been selected for inclusion in the New York Metro\nSuperLawyers\u00ae listing since 2010. In 2014, Mr. Rifkin was named a \u201cTitan of the\nPlaintiff\u2019s Bar\u201d by Law360\u00ae.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Rifkin received worldwide acclaim for his role as lead counsel for the class\nin Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV 13-\n04460-GHK (MRWx), in federal court in Los Angeles, successfully challenging the\ncopyright to \u201cHappy Birthday to You,\u201d the world\u2019s most famous song. In recognition of\nhis historic victory, Mr. Rifkin was named a Trailblazer in Intellectual Property by the\nNational Law Journal in 2016. In 2018, Mr. Rifkin led a team of lawyers from Wolf\nHaldenstein who represented the plaintiffs in We Shall Overcome Foundation, et al. v. The\nRichmond Organization, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02725-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), which successfully\nchallenged the copyright to \u201cWe Shall Overcome,\u201d called the \u201cmost powerful song of\nthe 20th century\u201d by the Librarian of Congress.\n\nMr. Rifkin lectures frequently to business and professional organizations on a variety of\nsecurities, shareholder, intellectual property, and corporate governance matters. Mr.\nRifkin is a guest lecturer to graduate and undergraduate economics and finance\nstudents on corporate governance and financial disclosure topics. He also serves as a\nmoot court judge for the A.B.A. and New York University Law School. Mr. Rifkin\nappears frequently in print and broadcast media on diverse law-related topics in\ncorporate, securities, intellectual property, antitrust, regulatory, and enforcement\nmatters.\n\nBETSY C. MANIFOLD: admitted: Wisconsin; New York; California; U.S. District Courts\nfor the Western District of Wisconsin, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California. Education: Elmira College;\nMiddlebury College (B.A., cum laude, 1980); Marquette University (J.D., 1986); New\nYork University. Thomas More Scholar. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award in\nAgency. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Languages:\nFrench.\n\nMs. Manifold served as co-lead counsel in the following cases to recovery on behalf of\nemployees: Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n(Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) ($1.65 million settlement w/ average class member\nrecovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded separately) and Neil Weinstein, et al.\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 32 of 62\n\n\nv. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D. Cal) ($7.4 million settlement).\nMs. Manifold also served as co-lead counsel in the following derivative actions: In re\nAtmel Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. CV 06-4592-JF (N.D. Cal.) ($9.65\nmillion payment to Atmel) and In re Silicon Storage Technology Inc. Derivative Litig., Case\nNo. C 06-04310 JF (N.D. Cal.) (cash payment and re-pricing of options with a total value\nof $5.45 million). Ms. Manifold also worked as lead counsel on the following class\naction: Lewis v. American Spectrum Realty, Case No. 01 CC 00394, Cal. Sup. Ct (Orange\nCounty) ($6.5 million settlement).\n\nBENJAMIN Y. KAUFMAN: admitted: New York, United States Supreme Court, United\nStates Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts\nof New York, District of New Jersey; and District of Colorado. Education: Yeshiva\nUniversity, B.A.; Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D; New\nYork University, Stern School of Business, M.B.A. Mr. Kaufman focuses on class actions\non behalf of defrauded shareholders, investors, and consumers. Mr. Kaufman has\nextensive experience in complex class actions representing clients including\ninstitutional investors such as public and labor pension funds, labor health and welfare\nbenefit funds, as well as private individuals and funds who suffered losses due to\ncorporate fraud. Mr. Kaufman also has extensive experience litigating complex\ncommercial cases in state and federal court.\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s successful securities litigations include In re Deutsche Telekom AG\nSecurities Litigation, No. 00-9475 (S.D.N.Y.), a complex international securities litigation\nrequiring evidentiary discovery in both the United States and Europe, which settled for\n$120 million. Mr. Kaufman was also part of the team that recovered $46 million for\ninvestors in In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation, No. 01-7351 (S.D.N.Y.); and $43.1\nmillion in Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.).\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s outstanding representative results in derivative and transactional\nlitigations include: In re Trump Hotels Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 96-cv-7820\n(S.D.N.Y.) (in settlement Trump personally contributed some of his holdings and the\ncompany adopted corporate reforms); Southwest Airlines Derivative Litigation (Carbon\nCounty Employee Retirement System v. Kelly) (Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty., Tex.) (derivative\nmatter that resulted in significant reforms to the air carrier\u2019s corporate governance and\nsafety and maintenance practices and procedures for the benefit of the company and its\nshareholders); Lynn v. Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 3:12-cv-01137 (M.D.\nTenn.) ($2.6 million settlement); In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, No. A-17-\n758912-B (D. Nev.) ($5 million settlement and corporate therapeutics). Mr. Kaufman\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 33 of 62\n\n\nalso argued the appeal in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litig., 56 A.D.3d 49\n(1st Dep\u2019t 2008) which led to the seminal New York Appellate Division opinion\nclarifying the standards of demand futility in New York and In re Topps Company, Inc.\nShareholders Litigation which resulted in a 2007 decision vindicating the rights of\nshareholders to pursue claims in the most relevant forum notwithstanding the state of\nincorporation. Mr. Kaufman has also lectured and taught in the subjects of corporate\ngovernance as well as transactional and derivative litigation.\n\nIn addition, Mr. Kaufman has represented many corporate clients in complex\ncommercial matters, including complex copyright royalty class actions against music\ncompanies. Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. );\nShropshire v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 06-3252 (S.D.N.Y.), and The Youngbloods v.\nBMG Music, No. 07-2394 (S.D.N.Y.). In Mich II Holdings LLC v. Schron, No. 600736/10\n(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.), Mr. Kaufman represented certain prominent real estate investors\nand successfully moved to dismiss all claims against those defendants. Mr. Kaufman\nhas also represented clients in arbitrations and litigations involving oppressed minority\nshareholders in closely held corporations.\n\nCurrently, Mr. Kaufman represents clients in a wide array of matters, including\nshareholders of a large cooperative complex alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the\nboard of directors and property manager; purchasers of New York City taxi medallions\nin a class action pending in New York Supreme Court, Queens County; a New York art\ngallery in an action against several European insurers over insurance coverage for\npaintings seized while on exhibit; and shareholders of Saks, Inc. alleging that the board\nof directors and its investment advisor sold the company for inadequate consideration.\nCohen v. Saks, 169 A.D.3d 51 (1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\nPrior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, and prior to joining Milberg LLP in 1998, Mr.\nKaufman was a Court Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, New York\nCounty (1988-1990) and Principal Law Clerk to Justice Herman Cahn of the Commercial\nDivision of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1990-1998).\n\nMr. Kaufman is an active member of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of\nthe New York State Bar Association, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers\nand Jurists and the Jewish Lawyers Guild in which he serves as a Vice President. Mr.\nKaufman was the Dinner Chair at the Jewish Lawyers Guild Annual Dinner in 2017,\n2018, and 2019. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Board of Trustees of Congregation\n\n\n\n\n Page 30\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 34 of 62\n\n\nBeth Sholom in Lawrence, NY and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the\nHebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaways from 2015-2019.\n\nMr. Kaufman has been recognized by SuperLawyers\u00ae each year since 2012.\n\nTHOMAS H. BURT: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan. Education: American\nUniversity (B.A. 1993); New York University (J.D. 1997). Articles Editor with New York\nUniversity Review of Law and Social Change. Mr. Burt is a litigator with a practice\nconcentrated in securities class actions and complex commercial litigation. After\npracticing criminal defense with noted defense lawyer Jack T. Litman for three years, he\njoined Wolf Haldenstein, where he has worked on such notable cases as In re Initial\nPublic Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (a novel and sweeping\namalgamation of over 300 class actions which resulted in a recovery of $586 million); In\nre MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (recovery of $192 million);\nIn re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust case\nresulting in $315 million recovery); In re Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Securities\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.)(settled, together with a related fraud case,\nfor over $133 million); K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555\n(E.D. Mich.) (recovery included personal assets from former Reagan Administration\nbudget director David A. Stockman); and Parker Friedland v. Iridium World\nCommunications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.)(recovery of $43.1 million). Mr. Burt has spoken\non several occasions to investor and activist groups regarding the intersection of\nlitigation and corporate social responsibility. Mr. Burt writes and speaks on both\nsecurities and antitrust litigation topics. He has served as a board member and officer\nof the St. Andrew\u2019s Society of the State of New York, New York\u2019s oldest charity.\n\nRACHELE R. BYRD: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California and the Northern District of\nIllinois; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court. Education:\nPoint Loma Nazarene College (B.A., 1994); University of California, Hastings College of\nthe Law (J.D., 1997). Member: State Bar of California. Ms. Byrd is located in the firm\u2019s\nSan Diego office and practices corporate derivative and class action litigation including\nsecurities, consumer, privacy and security, antitrust, employment and general corporate\nand business litigation. Ms. Byrd has played a significant role in litigating numerous\nclass and derivative actions, including Engquist v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC591331 (Los\nAngeles Super. Ct.) (gas tax refund action that recently settled for $32.5 million and\ninjunctive relief, valued at a minimum of $24.5 million over 3 years and $81.8 million\n\n\n\n\n Page 31\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 35 of 62\n\n\nover 10 years, following certification of the class and on the eve of a hearing on the\nparties\u2019 cross-motions for summary judgment); Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th\n241 (2011) (telephone tax refund action against the City of Los Angeles that settled for\n$92.5 million after a successful appeal and a groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, Cal. Supreme Ct. No.\nS202037, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3510 (April 25, 2013) (telephone tax refund action that settled\nfor $16.6 million after a successful appeal and another groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); Granados v. County of Los Angeles, BC361470 (Los Angeles\nSuper. Ct.) (telephone tax refund action that settled for $16.9 million following class\ncertification and a successful appeal); In re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy\nLitigation, No. 5:20-cv-0291 (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Steering Committee; $85\nmillion settlement pending preliminary approval); In re Robinhood Outage Litigation, No.\n20-cv-01626-JD (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Executive Committee); In re Apple\niPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust class action on\nbehalf of consumers against Apple over its monopolization of the iOS applications\naftermarket and that secured a favorable opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court: Apple Inc.\nv. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)); Defrees v. Kirkland, et al., 11-04272 (JLS) (C.D. Cal.)\n($12.2 million settlement reached in derivative action on the eve of trial); Bokelman et al.\nv. FCH Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-00209-RJB-RLP (D. Haw.) (settled data breach class\naction; final approval granted May 3, 2019); Christofferson v. Creation Entertainment, Inc.,\nNo. 19STCV11000 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.) (settled data breach class action; final\napproval of settlement granted on June 29, 2021); In re: Hanna Andersson and\nsalesforce.com Data Breach Litig., No. 3:20-cv-00812-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (recently settled data\nbreach class action; final approval granted on June 25, 2021); Gaston v. FabFitFun, Inc.,\nNo. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on April 2, 2021); Rossi v. Claire\u2019s Stores, No. 1:20-cv-05090\n(N.D. Ill) (recently settled data breach class action); and Riggs v. Kroto, Inc., D/B/A/\niCanvas, No. 1:20-cv-5822 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on July 8, 2021); In re: Scripps Health Data Incident\nLitigation, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00024103-CU-BT-CTL (ongoing); Thomas v.\nSan Diego Family Care, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00026758-CU-BT-CTL\n(ongoing); Marcaurel, et al. v. USA Waste Management Resources, LLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-\n06199 (S.D. N.Y.) (ongoing); Miller v. CSI Financial, LLC, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-\n2021-00030263-CU-BT-CT (ongoing); Fields v. The Regents of the University of California,\nAlameda Superior Court No. RG21107152 (ongoing); In re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach\nLitigation, No. 1:21-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.) (ongoing); Donovan, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,\nNo. 2:21-cv-01138 (W.D. Wa.) (ongoing); In re: CaptureRx Data Breach Litigation, No. 5:21-\n\n\n\n\n Page 32\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 36 of 62\n\n\ncv-00523-OLG (W.D. Tex.) (ongoing); Carrera Aguallo, et al. v. Kemper Corp., et al., No.\n1:21-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action where Ms. Byrd is\nInterim Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nMATTHEW M. GUINEY: admitted: New York State; United States Supreme Court;\nUnited States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits; U.S. District\nCourts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York and numerous others.\nEducation: The College of William & Mary (B.A. in Government and Economics 1998);\nGeorgetown University Law Center (J.D. 2002). Mr. Guiney\u2019s primary areas of practice\nare securities class actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of\n1934, complex commercial litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act\n(ERISA) actions on behalf of plan participants, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 actions\nconcerning overtime payment, and fiduciary duty actions under various state laws. Mr.\nGuiney has helped recover hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate\nfraud and abuse in federal and state litigation across the country. Mr. Guiney was on\nthe merits briefs at the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the\nplaintiffs/respondents in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) where the\nCourt affirmed plaintiffs\u2019 antitrust standing under Illinois Brick. Mr. Guiney also\nrepresented plaintiffs/respondents at the United States Supreme Court in China Agritech\nv. Resh, 584 U.S. __ (2018), where the Court addressed tolling in the class action context.\nMr. Guiney also initially served as counsel of record and briefed opposition to petition\nfor writ of certiorari, and argued and achieved a precedential reversal of motion to\ndismiss in a published opinion at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit in Resh v. China Agritech, No. 15-5543, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9029 (9th Cir. May\n24, 2017).\n\nSome of Mr. Guiney\u2019s notable results on behalf of investors include: Mallozzi v.\nIndustrial Enterprises of America, Inc., et al., 1:07-cv-10321-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) ($3.4 million\nsettlement on behalf of shareholders); In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation,\nNo. CV 01-3285 (JBW) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.) ($18.5 million settlement on behalf of\nshareholders); In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master Docket No. 05-429 (GMS), (D.\nDel) ($4.5 million settlement on behalf of plan participants).\n\nMALCOLM T. BROWN: admitted: United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, District of New Jersey and Eastern District of\nPennsylvania; United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Education:\nUniversity of Pennsylvania (B.A., Political Science 1988) and Rutgers University School\nof Law (J.D. 1994). Mr. Brown\u2019s primary areas of practice are securities, derivative,\n\n\n\n\n Page 33\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 37 of 62\n\n\nM&A litigation and consumer class actions. Recent notable decisions include: Johnson v.\nFord Motor Co., 309 F.R.D. 226 (S.D. W. Va. 2015); Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 43268 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2014); In re Merkin Sec. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n178084 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015). Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Mr. Brown was a\nbusiness litigation attorney who represented financial institutions, corporations and\npartnerships and advised clients on business disputes, reorganizations, dissolutions and\ninsurance coverage matters. Notable decisions include: Garment v. Zoeller, 2001 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 20736 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2001), aff\u2019d 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9966 (2d Cir. May\n24, 2002); Bainton v. Baran, 731 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1st Dep\u2019t 2001).\n\n Special Counsel\n\nJUSTICE HERMAN CAHN: admitted: New York. Education: Harvard Law School and a\nB.A. from City College of the City University of New York. Justice Herman Cahn was\nfirst elected as Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York in 1976. He\nsubsequently served as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court from 1980 until 1992,\nwhen he was elected to the Supreme Court. Throughout his decades on the bench, he\nprincipally handled civil cases, with the exception of 1981 until 1987, when he presided\nover criminal matters. Justice Cahn was instrumental in the creation of, and a founding\nJustice in, the Commercial Division within the New York State Supreme Court. He\nserved as a Justice of the Commercial Division from its inception in 1993.\n\nAmong his most notable recent cases are the consolidated cases stemming from the Bear\nStearns merger with JP Morgan (In re Bear Stearns Litigation); litigation regarding the\nAmerica\u2019s Cup Yacht Race (Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nautique de Gen\u00e8ve);\nlitigation stemming from the attempt to enjoin the construction of the new Yankee\nStadium (Save Our Parks v. City of New York); and the consolidated state cases regarding\nthe rebuilding of the World Trade Center site (World Trade Center Properties v. Alliance\nInsurance; Port Authority v. Alliance Insurance).\n\nJustice Cahn is a member of the Council on Judicial Administration of the Association\nof the Bar of the City of New York. He has also recently been appointed to the\nCharacter and Fitness Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department. He is on\nthe Register of Mediators for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\nBefore ascending the bench, Justice Cahn practiced law in Manhattan. He was first\nadmitted to the New York bar in 1956. He is admitted to practice in numerous courts,\n\n\n\n\n Page 34\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 38 of 62\n\n\nincluding the New York State courts, the Southern District of New York and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nDANIEL W. KRASNER: admitted: New York; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S.\nCourts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and\nEleventh Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\nYork, Central District of Illinois, and Northern District of Michigan. Education: Yale\nLaw School (LL.B., 1965); Yeshiva College (B.A., 1962). Mr. Krasner is of counsel at\nWolf Haldenstein. He began practicing law with Abraham L. Pomerantz, generally\ncredited as the \"Dean of the Class Action Bar.\" He founded the Class Litigation Group\nat Wolf Haldenstein in 1976.\nMr. Krasner received judicial praise for his class action acumen as early as 1978. See,\ne.g., Shapiro v. Consolidated Edison Co., [1978 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) &\n96,364 at 93,252 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (\u201cin the Court\u2019s opinion the reputation, skill and\nexpertise of . . . [Mr.] Krasner, considerably enhanced the probability of obtaining as\nlarge a cash settlement as was obtained\u201d); Steiner v. BOC Financial Corp., [1980 Transfer\nBinder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) & 97,656, at 98,491.4, (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (\u201cThis Court has\npreviously recognized the high quality of work of plaintiffs\u2019 lead counsel, Mr.\nKrasner\u201d). The New York Law Journal referred to Mr. Krasner as one of the \u201ctop rank\nplaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u201d in the securities and class action fields. In connection with a failed\n1989 management buyout of United Airlines, Mr. Krasner testified before Congress.\n\nMore recently, Mr. Krasner has been one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs in some of\nthe leading Federal multidistrict cases in the United States, including the IPO Litigation\nin the Southern District of New York, the Mutual Fund Market Timing Litigation in the\nDistrict of Maryland, and several Madoff-related litigations pending in the Southern\nDistrict of New York. Mr. Krasner has also been lead attorney in several precedent-\nsetting shareholder actions in Delaware Chancery Court and the New York Court of\nAppeals, including American International Group, Inc. v. Greenberg, 965 A.2d 763 (Del. Ch.\n2009) and the companion certified appeal, Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, Nos. 151, 152, 2010\nN.Y. LEXIS 2959 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010); Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and City of\nNew Orleans Employees' Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant\nAmerican International Group, Inc., v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 152 (New York,\nOctober 21, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch.\nLEXIS 119 (Del. Ch., May 25, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-\n\n\n\n\n Page 35\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 39 of 62\n\n\nVCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 139, (Del. Ch. July 5, 2010), appeal refused, 2010 Del. LEXIS\n324, 2010 WL 2690402 (Del. 2010).\n\nMr. Krasner has lectured at the Practicing Law Institute; Rutgers Graduate School of\nBusiness; Federal Bar Council; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Rockland\nCounty, New York State, and American Bar Associations; Federal Bar Council, and\nbefore numerous other bar, industry, and investor groups.\n\nPETER C. HARRAR: admitted; New York; United States Court of Appeals for the\nFourth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York. Education: Columbia Law School (J.D. 1984); Princeton\nUniversity, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude. Mr. Harrar is of counsel at the firm and\nhas extensive experience in complex securities and commercial litigation on behalf of\nindividual and institutional clients.\n\nHe has represented investment funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and other\ninstitutional investors in a variety of individual actions, class actions and disputes\ninvolving mortgage-backed securities and derivative instruments. Examples include In\nre EMAC Securities Litigation, a fraud case concerning private placements of securitized\nloan pools, and Steed Finance LDC v. LASER Advisors, Inc., a hybrid individual and class\naction concerning the mispricing of swaptions.\n\nOver the years, Mr. Harrar has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous\nsecurities class and derivative actions throughout the country, recovering hundreds of\nmillions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors and corporations. Recent examples\nare some of the largest recoveries achieved in resolution of derivative actions, including\nAmerican International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation) ($90 million), and Bank of\nAmerica/Merrill Derivative Litigation ($62.5 million).\n\nJEFFREY G. SMITH: admitted: New York; California; Supreme Court of the United\nStates; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,\nEighth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California\nand the Districts of Colorado and Nebraska. Education: Woodrow Wilson School of\nPublic and International Affairs, Princeton University (M.P.A., 1977); Yale Law School\n(J.D., 1978); Vassar College (A.B., cum laude generali, 1974). At Yale Law School, Mr.\nSmith was a teaching assistant for the Trial Practice course and a student supervisor in\nthe Legal Services Organization, a clinical program. Member: The Association of the\nBar of the City of New York; New York State and American (Section on Litigation) Bar\n\n\n\n\n Page 36\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 40 of 62\n\n\nAssociations; State Bar of California (Member: Litigation Section); American Association\nfor Justice. Mr. Smith has frequently lectured on corporate governance issues to\nprofessional groups of Fund trustees and investment advisors as well as to graduate\nand undergraduate business student groups, and has regularly served as a moot court\njudge for the A.B.A. and at New York University Law School. Mr. Smith has substantial\nexperience in complex civil litigation, including class and derivative actions, tender\noffer, merger, and takeover litigation. Mr. Smith is rated \u201cAV\u201d by Martindale Hubble\nand, since its inception in 2006, has been selected as among the top 5% of attorneys in\nthe New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in the Super Lawyers\nMagazine.\n\nJENNY YOUNG DU PONT: admitted: New York; Massachusetts; District of Columbia; U.S.\nSupreme Court. Education: Princeton University (A.B. cum laude); Georgetown\nUniversity Law Center/School of Foreign Service (J.D./M.S.F.S. magna cum laude); Order\nof the Coif; Georgetown Law Journal, Notes and Comments Editor.\n\nMs. du Pont has extensive experience representing domestic and international\ncompanies ranging in size from small privately-held firms to large public companies in\na variety of corporate, investment, banking, insurance, finance, and employment\nmatters. Ms. du Pont began her legal career at two AmLaw 100 firms in Washington,\nD.C. and London, U.K. and a decade later moved into in-house counsel roles, first with\nPlymouth Rock Assurance Corporation in Boston, MA, and later with Millennium\nManagement, LLC in New York. Ms. du Pont also advises and presents on issues\nrelated to family businesses, family offices, and managing wealth transfer across\ngenerations.\n\nIn addition to her legal experience, Ms. du Pont has significant experience in the non-\nprofit sector. Ms. du Pont was President and CEO of The Garden Conservancy in Cold\nSpring, New York and Executive Director of Miracle House of New York, Inc., and has\nacted a legal and strategic advisor to a variety of for profit and non-profit entities in\nNew York. For more than 20 years, Ms. du Pont also has been a director, trustee, and\nofficer for a broad range of educational, cultural, scientific, and service non-profit\nentities. Ms. du Pont served for a number of years as a Trustee of Phillips Exeter\nAcademy, in Exeter, NH, and as a member and Vice Chair of the Warrant Committee\nfor the Town of Dover in Massachusetts. She is currently a Director of the American\nFriends of the British Museum and of the American Patrons of the National Galleries\nand Library of Scotland, serves as an Advisory Council member for the Untermyer\nGardens Conservancy in Yonkers, NY and the Sing Sing Prison Museum Master\n\n\n\n\n Page 37\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 41 of 62\n\n\nNarrative Project, in Ossining, NY, and is chair of the Advisory Council for the\nConservation Law Foundation in Boston, MA.\n\nKATE MCGUIRE: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York. Education: University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A.\n1995), Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1998); Member: Georgetown Immigration\nLaw Journal.\n\nMs. McGuire has extensive experience prosecuting complex litigation. Her work\nencompasses consumer and data protection class actions, securities class and derivative\nshareholder cases and nationwide antitrust suits.\n\nShe is a member of the Firm\u2019s Consumer Protection practice group and, in that context,\nhas worked intensively to protect classes of consumers under a range of state and\nfederal laws. Recently, she served as a member of the co-lead counsel team in Simerlein\net al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., 3:17-CV-01021-VAB (D. Conn.), representing more\nthan a million owners of Sienna minivans in litigation that settled for class-wide\nbenefits valued at between $30 and $40 million. Presently, she serves on a team\nrepresenting plaintiffs in multi-district litigation against Fisher-Price and Mattel,\nrelating to Rock \u2018n Play infant sleepers which are alleged to be dangerous and\nmisleadingly marketed. She has also served as a member of the firm\u2019s lead or co-\ncounsel teams in other consumer protection cases, including litigation based upon\nallegations of misrepresentations and omissions concerning the purported safety of\nelectronic cigarettes.\n\nMs. McGuire has also represented plaintiffs with respect to the protection of their civil\nrights. For example, she represented a blind plaintiff in a suit under the Americans\nwith Disability Act against a major trading online trading company, and represented a\ngroup of minority business owners in federal civil rights litigation concerning disparate\ntreatment which settled for significant governance therapeutics.\n\nCARL MALMSTROM: admitted: Illinois; Minnesota; United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Seventh Circuit; Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern District of\nIndiana; District of Minnesota; Eastern District of Missouri; Western District of New\nYork. Education: University of Chicago (A.B., Biological Sciences, 1999; A.M., Social\nSciences, 2001); The University of Hawai\u2019i at Manoa (M.A., Anthropology, 2004); Loyola\nUniversity Chicago School of Law (J.D., 2007). Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Malmstrom\nworked for the City of Chicago Department of Law in the Municipal Prosecutions\n\n\n\n\n Page 38\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 42 of 62\n\n\nDivision; he is a member of the Chicago Bar Association. Mr. Malmstrom has\nsubstantial experience litigating complex class actions in several practice areas,\nincluding antitrust, consumer fraud, and data security. Representative cases in which\nhe has represented plaintiffs include Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., Case No.\n1:18-cv-209 (D. Haw.), involving customers of Zippy\u2019s Restaurants in Hawaii whose\npersonal data was stolen by hackers, In re: Experian Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:15-\ncv-1592 (C.D. Cal.); Freeman-Hargis v. Taxi Affiliation Services, LLC, Case No. 2016-CH-\n02519 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.), involving customers of several taxi services in Chicago who\nwere unlawfully charged fees for using credit cards in taxis.\n\n Associates\n\nBRITTANY N. DEJONG: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California. Education: University of Phoenix\n(B.S. 2005); Golden Gate University, School of Law (J.D. 2008), Graduated with Highest\nHonors, Editor \u2013 Law Review, Merit Scholarship Recipient, Member: State Bar of\nCalifornia. Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Ms. DeJong was an associate at a boutique\ntrial firm in San Francisco where her practice focused on multiparty litigation involving\ncatastrophic property damage. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. DeJong worked as\na Research Attorney for the Honorable Peter Busch in the Law & Motion Department at\nthe San Francisco Superior Court. Additionally, while in law school, Ms. DeJong\nexterned for the Honorable Susan Illston of the Northern District of California and the\nU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.\n\nPATRICK DONOVAN: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; United States Court of Appeals for the Second and\nFourth Circuits. Education: Iona College (B.A., Business Management, 2007); St. John's\nUniversity School of Law (J.D. 2011). Mr. Donovan\u2019s primary areas of focus are\nsecurities, derivative and M&A litigation.\n\nMARISA LIVESAY: admitted: California; United States District Courts for the Southern,\nCentral and Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit. Education: University of\nArizona (B.A., History & Spanish, 1999); University California Los Angeles Law School\n(J.D. 2002).\n\n PARAPROFESSIONALS\n\nGREGORY STONE: Education: University of Pennsylvania (B.S., Economics, 1979);\nUniversity of California, Los Angeles (MBA, 1983). Mr. Stone is the Firm\u2019s Director of\n\n\n\n\n Page 39\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 43 of 62\n\n\nCase and Financial Analysis. He assists partners and associates in identifying and\nresearching potential federal class action securities, derivative litigation and merger &\nacquisition (M&A) litigation. Mr. Stone has worked with leading securities class action\nfirms in an analytical and investigative role for over 18 year throughout the United\nStates, and has an extensive professional background in the accounting and investment\nprofessions. He plays a key role in new case development, including performing\ninvestigations into potential securities fraud class actions, derivative and other\ncorporate governance related actions. By using a broad spectrum of financial news and\nlegal industry research tools, Mr. Stone analyzes information that helps identify and\nsupport the theories behind the firm\u2019s litigation efforts.\n\n\n\n\n Page 40\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 44 of 62\n\n\n Non-Discrimination Policies\n\nWolf Haldenstein does not discriminate or tolerate harassment against any employee or\napplicant because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital\nstatus, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status and designs its hiring\npractices to ensure that minority group members and women are afforded equal\nemployment opportunities without discrimination. The Firm is in compliance with all\napplicable Federal, State, County, and City equal employment opportunity laws.\n\nWolf Haldenstein is proud of its long history of support for the rights of, and\nemployment opportunities for, women, the disadvantaged, and minority group\npersons, including the participation in civil rights and voter registration activities in the\nSouth in the early 1960s by partners of the Firm; the part-time employment of\ndisadvantaged youth through various public school programs; the varied pro bono\nactivities performed by many of the Firm\u2019s lawyers; the employment of many women\nand minority group persons in various capacities at the Firm, including at the partner\nlevel; the hiring of ex-offenders in supported job training programs; and the use of\nminority and women-owned businesses to provide services and supplies to the Firm.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-545-4653\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 41\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 45 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 46 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston\n Attorneys at Law\n www.gme-law.com\n\n 501 FIFTH AVENUE 375 ABBOT ROAD\n 19TH FLOOR PARAMUS, NJ 07652\n NEW YORK, NY 10017 TEL: (201) 225-2001\n TEL: (212) 983-1300 FAX: (201) 225-9002\n FAX: (212) 983-0383\n\n\n\n\n FIRM R\u00c9SUM\u00c9\n\nI. Introduction\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston (the \u201cFirm\u201d) is based in New York and New Jersey and\nlitigates throughout the country in both state and federal court. Members of the Firm have been\nengaged in the practice of law for over thirty years. The Firm concentrates its practice on civil\nlitigation of all types and especially in class action litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and\nsmall businesses.\n\n The Firm has broad experience in the following areas: breach of fiduciary duty claims\nunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\u201cERISA\u201d), securities, shareholder\nderivative, consumer fraud and other types of complex commercial and tort litigation. The Firm\nalso has experience in federal and state minimum wage laws, overtime laws or other employment\nlaws regulating the payment of wages and benefits to employees.\n\n Many of the Firm\u2019s cases involve multi-district litigation. The Firm is experienced in, and\nthoroughly familiar with, all aspects of complex litigation, including the underlying substantive\nlaw, the procedures recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation and the substance and\nprocedure of class certification.\n\n The Firm\u2019s approach to each case is the same. It presents an aggressive position for its\nclients and uses all available resources necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for its\nclients. In short, the Firm works hard to produce victories for its clients and takes pride in providing\na high level of legal service. It also develops a strong working relationship with its clients and\nwill do whatever it takes within the bounds of the law to get results.\n\n The Firm was formed with the goal of combining the experience gained through practicing\nlaw at large firms with the closeness, flexibility and attention to detail that characterize many\nsmaller firms. In essence, the Firm has designed itself to be able to handle both large and small\nmatters, offering what we believe our clients want most: quality legal work with an emphasis on\ncommunication.\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 47 of 62\n\n\n\n\n We also represent plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of complex civil and commercial\nlitigations, including real estate and business disputes, breach of contract and commercial disputes,\nemployment cases (discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination), insurance coverage\ndisputes, professional malpractice (accounting, legal and medical), products liability, and personal\ninjury lawsuits.\n\n The Firm recently made law in the field of ERISA with its successful prosecution of an\nappeal to the United States Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of\nprudence\u201d that lower courts had been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer\nretirement plans who imprudently invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case,\nFifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the Firm argued with co-counsel\nthat the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework. The\nSupreme Court agreed.\n\n We have also been retained strictly as trial counsel in many matters. Members of the Firm\nare admitted to practice in all the courts of the State of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and\nConnecticut as well as in the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New\nYork, the United States District Court of New Jersey, United States District Court for the Eastern\nDistrict of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court of Connecticut, the United States Court\nof Appeals for the Second Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit and\nEleventh Circuit. Members of the firm have also been admitted pro hac vice in a number of other\nstate and federal jurisdictions.\n\nII. Notable Achievements\n\n Below are just some of the cases the attorneys at the Firm have successfully prosecuted by\nproducing a recovery for their clients:\n\n \u2022 Dudenhoeffer, et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-538\n (S.D. Ohio) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $6,000,000\n in cash and structural relief to the 401(k) Plan);\n\n \u2022 Borboa, et al. v. Thoedore L. Chandler, et al., Case No.: 3:13-cv-844-JAG (E.D.\n Va.) (counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Gordon et al., Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-00123-AB (C.D. Cal.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Opus Bank consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re CytRx Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation II, Civil Action No.:\n C.A. No. 11800-VCMR (Chancery Delaware) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in\n 2\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 48 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of CytRx Corp. consisting of\n corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $2.1 million for benefit of\n class);\n\n \u2022 In re Wilmington Trust Corp. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-001114-SLR\n (D. Del.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $3 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n (D.N.J.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $12.25 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $8.2 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Salvato v. Zale Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1124 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k)\n plan);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680\n (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in ERISA class action)\n (recovery of $5.75 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.)\n (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Taylor v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-8322 (AKH)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.25 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Boyd, et al. v. Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery $3.6 million for the employees\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $975,000 for benefit of class);\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.35 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 49 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-01001 (M.D. Tenn.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Bagley, et al., v. KB Home, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1754 (C.D. Cal.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Maxwell v. Radioshack Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-499 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $2.4 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litig., Master Docket No.: 05-cv-429 (D. Del.) (Class\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Guidant Corp. ERIS Litig., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1009 (S.D. Ind.) (recovery\n of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re ING Groep, N.V. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-00400 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $850,000 for benefit of class).\n\nIII. The Firm Serving As \u201cLead,\u201d \u201cCo-Lead\u201d or \u201cCounsel\u201d\n\n The Firm has significant experience in prosecuting complex cases, including class actions\nunder ERISA involving breach of fiduciary duty, consumer class actions, securities fraud class\nactions, derivative cases and transactional matters. By way of example, the following are some of\nthe other cases the Firm has been involved in serving as \u201cLead or \u201cCo-Lead\u201d Counsel:\n\nDerivative Actions\n\n \u2022 Recupero v. Friedli, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00381-JKB (D. Md.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Fifth Street Finance Corp., Stockholder Litig., C.A. No.: 12157-VCG (Del.\n Chancery) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n monetary and non-monetary corporate benefits conferred on corporation);\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 50 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Hamdan v. Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-03706-PGS (D. N.J.) (Lead\n Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Intercloud\n Systems, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n CV16-01569-DMG (C.D. Cal) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative\n Action);\n\n \u2022 Nahar, et al., v. Bianco, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-00756-RSL (W.D. Wash.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of CTI Biopharma Corp. in cooperation with other derivative actions venued\n elsewhere consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Derivative Litig., Civil Action No.: 3:14-\n cv-00372-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.) (Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of\n Company);\n\n \u2022 Loyd v. Giles, et al., Case No.: 2015CV33429 (Colo., Denver County) (settlement\n consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Ampio\n Pharmaceuticals, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Vacek v. Awad, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-02820 (E.D. Pa.) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Walter Investment Management Corp. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Giesbrecht v. Lee, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-0697 (D. Nev.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on L&L Energy, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Hapka v. Dennis Crowley, et al., 50-2005 CA (15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm\n Beach County, Florida) (de facto Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Spear & Jackson, Inc. for monetary benefits conferred on\n corporation);\n\n \u2022 Nieman v. Ira B. Lampert, et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-60574 (S.D. Fl.) (de facto\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting of corporate\n governance reforms achieved on behalf of Concord Camera Corp.);\n\n \u2022 Riley v. Jorge Mas, et al., Case No.: 04-cv-27000 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for\n Dade County, Florida) (Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting\n of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Mastec, Inc.);\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 51 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Ramseur v. Callidus Software, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-4419 (N.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Callidus\n Software, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Emond v. Murphy, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:18-cv-09040 (C.D. Cal.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on Izea Worldwide, Inc. consisting of corporate\n reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re India Globalization Capital, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 1:18-cv-3698 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action);\n\n \u2022 In re Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. Derivative Action, Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-cv-03913 (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Kelly Nicole Desmond-Newman v. Saagar Govil, et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-\n 03992 (E.D. NY) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Cemtrex, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms in\n cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Savage, Spencer, et al., v. Kay, Robert B., et al., Index No.: 162407/2015 (de facto\n lead counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of iBIO, Inc.\n consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Labare v. Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980 (D. N.J.) (co-counsel)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Marriott International Customer Security Data Breach Litigation \u2013 Derivative\n Track, Civil Action No.: 8:19-md-02879 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead\n Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re iRobot Corporation Derivative Litigation; Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-10034\n (D. Mass.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation;\n Consolidated Case No.: 2020-0011-JTL (Chancery Delaware) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Ormat Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:18-cv-\n 00439 (D. Nev.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 52 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 00479 (W.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Thiese v. Giles. et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-02558-RBJ (D. Co.) (Court\n Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Rev Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-0009 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re LendingClub Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 3:18-cv-04391(N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Zillow Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-\n cv-1568 (W.D. Wash) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel; motion to dismiss\n denied);\n\n \u2022 Bonessi v. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 4:19-\n cv-00567-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to\n dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Kates v. Metlife, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-01266-LPS-\n JLH (D. Del.) (co-counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Behrman, et al. v. Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-CV-00772-RGA (D. Del.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion\n to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Wajda v. Lipocine, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), C.A. No.: 2019-0122-JTL (Del.\n Chancery) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully\n briefed);\n\n \u2022 In Re stamps.com Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 2:19-cv-04272 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Taronis technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 2:19-cv-04547 (D. Ariz.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Cloudera, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 01422 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CVS Health Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-378 (D.\n RI) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 53 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Colony Capital Stockholder-Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-\n 03176 (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Arora, et al., Civil Action No.: 19-cv-01348 (N.D. Il.) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 Mina Pastagia, et al., v. Charles J. Philippin, et al., Case No.: 2018-CH-07432\n (Chancery Illinois, Cook County) (Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action\n involving Ulta Beauty, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Ruth v. CanaVest Corp. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-00481 (D.\n Nev.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.:\n 3:19-cv-18874-FLW-LHG (Court Appointed Executive Committee in the\n Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Beyond Meat, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-2524 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Lee v. TrueCar, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Case No 2019-0988 (Chancery\n Delaware) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Crown Castle International Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-\n cv-00606 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Acer Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 19-cv-01505\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Curo Group Holdings, Corp., Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-\n 00851 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Zoom Video Communications Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 1:20-cv-00797-LPS (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:20-\n cv-01962 (E.D. Pa.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Exela Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 3:20-CV-1800 (N.D. Tex) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 54 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 2020-019815-CA-01 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Tyson Foods Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-00730\n (E.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Quantumscape Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No: 21- 00989\n (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel;\n\n \u2022 In re Velodyne Lidar, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-cv-00369 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Peabody Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01747\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Plug Power Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-02753\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Co-Diagnostics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00654 (D.\n UT) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Stryde Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01731 (D. Del.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Tricida Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-00205\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Cytodyn Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-cv-05422\n MLP (W.D. Wash.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel); and\n\n \u2022 In Re AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-\n cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nSecurities Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re VimpelCom Ltd. Securities Litig., Civil Action: No.: 1:15-cv-08672 (ALC)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Fogel v. Vega, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-02282-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action against Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB de\n CV, Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.);\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 55 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Jason v. Junfeng Chen, et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-1041 (S.D.N.Y) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01647\n PSG (FMOx) (C.D. Cal.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Araj v. JML Portfolio Mgmt. Ltd., et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00903 (M.D. Fla.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Hanson et al, v. Frazer, LLP., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-3166 (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Labit v. Glenn Zagoren, et al., Civil Action No.: 03-cv-2298; (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Karp v. SI Financial Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No: 19-cv-199 (D. Conn.)\n (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action).\n\nERISA Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re Comcast Corp. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-00773-HB (E.D. Pa.)\n (recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Simeon v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1592\n (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.5 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Herrera v. Wyeth, et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-04688 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.) (recovery\n of $2 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Douglas J. Coppess v. Healthways, Inc., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-00109 (M.D.\n Tenn.) (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.25 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 56 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Int\u2019l Game Tech. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00584 (D. Nev.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $500,000 for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Jones v. NovaStar Fin., Inc., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-490 (NKL) (W.D.\n Mo.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $925,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1447 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $300,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Fulmer v. Scott Klein, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2354-N (N.D. Tex.) (Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pilgrims Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-\n 000472-TJW-CE (E.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re UBS ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-6696 (S.D.N.Y) (Co-Lead Counsel\n in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Rinehart v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-5598\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Usenko v. Sunedison Semiconductor, LLC., et al., Civil Action No.: 17-cv-2227\n (E.D. Mo.) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Harris and Ramos v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-5442 (C.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Russell v. Harman Int\u2019l Industries Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-02212 (D.\n of Columbia) (de facto Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Mellot v. Choicepoint, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1340 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litig., MASTER FILE NO. 6:12-CV-06051-DGL\n (W.D.N.Y.) (Co-Counsel in ERISA Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Sheedy v. Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation., et al., Civil\n Action No.: 6:16-cv-01893-GAP (M.D. Fl.) (Interim Lead Counsel in ERISA\n Action).\n\nAnti-Trust Class Actions\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 57 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re: Package Seafood Products Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n (JLS) (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328\n (Member of the committee in anti-trust action) (settlement obtained from several\n defendants); and\n\n \u2022 In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.\n 2542 (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action).\n\nFLSA Actions\n\n \u2022 Affen v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03820-CCC-JBC\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-00746-BJD-MCR\n (M.D. Fla.);\n\n \u2022 Sifferman v. Sterling Financial Corp., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-00183 (W.D.\n Wash.); and\n\n \u2022 Winfield, et al., v. Citibank, N.A., Case No.: 10-cv-7304 (S.D.N.Y).\n\nConsumer Actions\n\n \u2022 In re USAA Data Security Litigation, Civil Action No.: 7:21-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03208\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Placko v. Michigan State University, Court of Claims No. 20-000120-MK (Mi.\n State Court of Claims) (Court Appointed Co- Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Kincheloe v. University of Chicago et al, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03015 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Jairo Jara, et al., v. DeVry Education Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:16-\n cv-10168 (N.D. Ill.);\n\n \u2022 Dumont v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-2677-ER-LMS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd\n LLP were plaintiffs\u2019 co-lead counsel in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the\n United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 58 of 62\n\n\n\n\n thousands of homeowners in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The\n lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Litton Loan Servicing (\u201cLitton\u201d) and\n Ocwen Loan Servicing (\u201cOcwen\u201d) engaged in a deceptive scheme to delay or deny\n permanent mortgage loan modifications through the federal Home Affordable\n Modification Program (\u201cHAMP\u201d) to desperate homeowners, systematically\n breaching their contractual obligations to homeowners, committing deceptive trade\n practices, and causing significant financial harm);\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Bank of America, et al., Civil\n Action No.: 07-cv-1363 (PGS) (D.N.J.) (Class Counsel in nationwide class action\n on behalf of United States Military Service members overcharged on their\n mortgages in violation of the Service members\u2019 Civil Relief Act; recovery of\n $5.962 million for more than 17,000 service members); and\n\n \u2022 Stamm v. My Pillow, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation, a/k/a My Pillow Direct, LLC,\n Index No.: 651472/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).\n\nIV. Attorneys\n\nBarry J. Gainey received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston University and received his\nJ.D. in 1984 from Washington and Lee University School of Law where he was a Law Review\nNotes and Comments Editor and authored two published articles. Mr. Gainey was a partner at\nWilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker in New York City, and the founding partner of\nRenzulli, Gainey & Rutherford (which later became Gainey & McKenna and now Gainey\nMcKenna & Egleston), with offices in New York City and New Jersey. Mr. Gainey has worked\non many high profile actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, et al., Civil Action\n No.: 07-cv-1363 (D.N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in nationwide class action on behalf\n of United States Military Service members with Countrywide mortgages);\n\n \u2022 Klyachman v. Vitamin Shoppe, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1528 (D.N.J.) (Appointed\n Class Counsel in nationwide consumer fraud case);\n\n \u2022 Kleck v. Bluegreen Corp., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-81047 (S.D. Fl.) (Appointed Class\n Counsel with Florida firm in nationwide class action);\n\n \u2022 Resnik v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No.: L-1230-06 (N.J.) (Appointed Co-Class\n Counsel in class action);\n\n \u2022 Alamo v. Bluegreen Corp. et al., Case No.: L-6716-05 (N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in\n consumer fraud case); and\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 59 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Blumer, et al. v. Acu-Gen Biolabs, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-10359 (D. Mass)\n (Appointed Class Counsel in consumer fraud case).\n\nMr. Gainey is admitted to practice in the Federal and State Courts of New York and New Jersey.\nHe is also a past or current member of the American Association for Justice, New Jersey\nAssociation for Justice, New York State Bar Association, American Bar Association, New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, New Jersey State Bar Association, and Bergen County Bar\nAssociation.\n\nThomas J. McKenna received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston College (magna cum\nlaude) and received his J.D. in 1984 from Syracuse University College of Law (cum laude) where\nhe was a Law Review Editor and a Member of the Justinian Honorary Law Society. Following\nlaw school, Mr. McKenna clerked in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\nLouisiana for the Honorable Veronica D. Wicker from 1984 through 1986.\n\nBefore starting his own law practice, Mr. McKenna was associated with Cahill, Gordon & Reindel\n(\u201cCahill\u201d) in New York City, practicing class actions and securities law, insurance coverage\nlitigation and general commercial litigation. After his association with Cahill, he was an attorney\nat Grutman Greene & Humphrey in New York City where he concentrated on class actions and\ntrial practice in complex commercial and tort litigation. In 1996, Mr. McKenna started his own\nlaw firm and then formed Gainey & McKenna in 1998 where he focused his practice on trials,\nclass actions and commercial disputes. Mr. McKenna has worked on many important actions such\nas:\n\n \u2022 Allapattah Services, Inc., et al., v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No.: 91-cv-0983 (S.D. Fla.)\n (Nationwide class action for class of Exxon service station operators against Exxon for\n allegedly overcharging them for gasoline, eventually settled for over $1 billion);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case under ERISA);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432 (D.N.J.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel) (claim on behalf of employees and ex-employees against 401(k)\n fiduciaries for breaches of duty in connection with Vytorin);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Class Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case involving harm to retirement plan in\n connection with alleged risky real estate investments); and\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty claims involving alleged improper investment\n practices).\n\nMr. McKenna is a member of the Bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice before\nthe United States Supreme Court and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n 14\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 60 of 62\n\n\n\n\nDistricts of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth\nand Eleventh Circuits. He has also been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other courts. Mr.\nMcKenna is also a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Association for Justice (formerly the American\nTrial Lawyers Association) and past member of the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\nGregory M. Egleston received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1992 from Fordham University (magna\ncum laude), his master\u2019s degree in 1994 from Columbia University, and received his J.D. in 1997\nfrom New York Law School. Before joining the Firm, Mr. Egleston had his own law firm and\nprior to that, Mr. Egleston was an attorney specializing in securities class action litigation,\nshareholder derivative actions, and consumer fraud litigation at a prominent Manhattan plaintiffs\u2019\nclass action firm. Mr. Egleston has worked on many high-profile class actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (recovery of\n $3.35 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Mayer v. Administrative Committee of Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. Retirement Plans,\n Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02984 (N.D. Ill.) (recovery of $7.75 million for the company\u2019s\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re YRC Worldwide Inc. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02593 JWL/JPO (D. Kan.)\n (recovery of $6.5 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Beazer Homes U.S.A., Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-725-CC (N.D. Ga.)\n ($30.5 million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Willbros Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1778 (S.D. Tex.) ($10.5\n million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-374 (JAP) (D.N.J.)\n (U.S. settlement with a minimum cash value of $138.3 million with a potential value of\n more than $180 million, in addition to a related European settlement of $350 million);\n\n \u2022 In re Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-8144 (CM)\n (S.D.N.Y.) ($400 Million settlement in a Securities Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 In re Lumenis Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 02-cv-1989 (S.D.N.Y.) ($20.1 million\n settlement in a Securities Class Action).\n\nMr. Egleston was also involved in a high-profile landlord/tenant action entitled Roberts v. Tishman\nSpeyer, L.P., et al., N.Y. Sup. Ct., Index No. 07600475. The core legal issue was whether\nlandlords could permissibly deregulate and charge market rents for certain so-called \u201cluxury\u201d\napartment units in these complexes in years in which the landlords were simultaneously receiving\ntax abatements from New York City known as \u201cJ-51\u201d benefits. The Court of Appeals ruled that\nthe New York statutory scheme prevents landlords of rent stabilized buildings from charging\n 15\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 61 of 62\n\n\n\n\nmarket rents while receiving J-51 benefits for as long as they continue to receive those tax benefits.\nThe action recently settled for $68.8 million.\n\nMr. Egleston is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and Connecticut. He is also\nadmitted to practice before the Bars of the federal district courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Connecticut.\n\nRobert J. Schupler received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1979 from Drexel University (Philadelphia,\nPA), and received his J.D. in 1982 from Southwestern University School of Law (Los Angeles,\nCA).\n\nMr. Schupler began his legal career at a boutique law firm in Los Angeles where he focused on\ncivil litigation and transactional matters. He returned \u201chome\u201d to the Philadelphia area in the 90\u2019s\nand shortly thereafter began focusing on class action litigation and complex tort and commercial\ndisputes, assisting in litigation matters which included Sunbeam and WorldCom.\n\nMr. Schupler has the unique experience of working for both plaintiff and defense litigation firms.\nWhile working at an internationally recognized defense law firm, Mr. Schupler concentrated on\nhealthcare related products liability litigation matters. In one of these matters, Mr. Schupler was\nresponsible for the administration of a multi-billion dollar settlement involving tens of thousands\nof plaintiff claimants.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Schupler began working with Gainey McKenna & Egleston. He has assisted GME\nin prosecuting numerous class action and shareholder derivative actions, including:\n\n \u2022 In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n JLS (MDD) (S. D. Cal.);\n\n \u2022 George Dumont, et al. vs. Litton Loan Servicing LP, et al., Civil Action No.: 7:12-cv-\n 02677-ER-LMS (S.D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 Gordon Niedermayer, et al. v. Steven A. Kriegsman, et al., Civil Action No.: 11800-VCMR\n (Chancery Delaware);\n\n \u2022 Arthur P. Cardi, et al. v. FXCM Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-4699-PAC-HBP (S.\n D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 In Re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04625-PJH (N.D.\n Cal.);\n\n \u2022 Douglas Labare v. Charles Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980-FLW-LHG\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Waseem Hamdan vs. Mark Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-03706 (D. N.J);\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 35-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 62 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In Re VimpelCom, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-08672-ALC\n (S.D.N.Y); and\n\n \u2022 Shuli Chiu, et al., v. Michelle Dipp, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-11382 (D. Mass.).\n\nMr. Schupler is a member of the Bar of the State of Pennsylvania and is also admitted to practice\nbefore the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nDavid A. Silva received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1982 from New York University and received his\nJ.D. in 1985 from Brooklyn Law School where he was a member of the Moot Court National\nTeam. Between the years of 1985 and 1988, Mr. Silva worked as an Assistant Corporation Counsel\nin the Law Department of the City of New York. While at the Law Department, Mr. Silva\nrepresented various city agencies in Article 78 proceedings as well as defended the\nconstitutionality of various aspects of the New York City Public Health Law, as well as the\nBuilding Code and Zoning Resolution. In addition, he was lead counsel on Federal civil rights\nactions defending the City and its employees.\n\nIn 1988, Mr. Silva left the City and joined Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass as an associate\nand worked there for 25 years becoming a partner in 1995 and a senior partner in 2002.\n\nMr. Silva has served as counsel to both insurers and reinsurers in dozens of reinsurance arbitrations\nand court proceedings across the United States. He has also acted as lead counsel in arbitrations in\nboth Bermuda and England, involving some of the highest profile issues in the industry. Mr. Silva\nregularly advises clients on a wide range of issues including workers\u2019 compensation carve out and\nspiral business; life, personal accident and medical reinsurance issues; long term care reinsurance;\nactuarial disputes; coverage of declaratory judgment expenses; rescission claims; claims for pre-\nanswer security; letter of credit disputes; commutation valuations; allocation of losses; contract\ndrafting; records inspection rights, and audits. He also has substantial experience in other\nreinsurance-related matters, including issues involving domestic and off-shore captive reinsurers,\nsurplus relief treaties, and many matters relating to life, accident, health, and long-term care\ninsurance. He also has substantial involvement in all aspects of property and casualty insurance\nlitigation including first- and third-party coverage and claims defense, business interruption,\nproducts liability defense, and disputes between primary and excess carriers.\n\nMr. Silva has been recognized in the Chambers USA Directory, Best Lawyers in America, and\nSuper Lawyers as a leading individual in the field of insurance and reinsurance. Mr. Silva has also\nserved as a lecturer and panelist for various reinsurance programs, including the Reinsurance\nAssociation of America, ARIAS U.S., as well as Harris Martin and HB Litigation Conferences.\n\nMr. Silva is admitted to practice in the federal and state courts of New York and is a past member\nof the New York State Bar Association as well as the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:53:45.720019-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462240","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.407143-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.508589-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-23.003","pacer_sequence_number":163,"description":"MOTION for Appointment of Counsel Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563194/","id":199563194,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292040/","id":205292040,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/34/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.400611-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.495638-07:00","sha1":"c483eedf2d2dec3abe0434726c6efeacac050961","page_count":14,"file_size":185542,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 1 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 2 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 3 (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n\n 5 G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 6 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 7\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 8 Las Vegas, NV 89106\n (702) 384-7111\n 9\n10 [Proposed] Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE\n12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n13\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n14\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n15 Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n16 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION (2)\n17 APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n Plaintiff, COUNSEL AND (3) TO TEMPORARILY\n18 STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n v. BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n19 SUPPORT\n20 FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n21\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n22 and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n23 Defendants,\n24\n -and-\n25\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n26 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n27 Nominal Defendant.\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n 3 Plaintiff,\n 4 v.\n 5\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 6 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n 7 AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n 8 Defendants,\n 9 -and-\n10 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n11 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n12 Nominal Defendant.\n\n13\n14 STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED\n15 Should the Court (1) consolidate the two above-referenced actions, (2) appoint Wolf and\n16 GM&E as interim co-lead counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3)\n17 temporarily stay the current motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of\n18 a consolidated complaint?\n19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n20 I. INTRODUCTION\n21 Plaintiffs, shareholders of Marathon, request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2)\n22 appoint Wolf and GM&E as interim co-lead counsel to prosecute this action on behalf of the\n23 Plaintiffs suing derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Holdings, Inc.\n24 (\u201cMarathon\u201d or \u201cthe Company\u201d) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and (3) temporarily\n25 stay the motion to dismiss briefing until a new schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated\n26 complaint.\n27 ///\n28 ///\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -2-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Both actions concern the same alleged general conduct and misconduct of the Board of the\n 2 Company in permitting the officers of Marathon to allegedly breach their fiduciary duties. The\n 3 consolidation of these two actions would serve the interests of judicial economy.\n 4 Moreover, Wolf and GM&E have capably represented the Plaintiffs and the nominal\n 5 defendant Marathon from the inception of the litigation, investigating and developing potential\n 6 claims, analyzing public reports and admissions about the allegations at issue, filing separate\n 7 complaints and then coordinating together in an effort to prosecute the derivative litigation in an\n 8 efficient manner. The firms have many years of experience prosecuting complex shareholder\n 9 actions, have successfully litigated the types of claims asserted in this case, and have the resources\n10 necessary to vigorously prosecute the case and protect the interests of the nominal defendant.\n11 In addition, in order ensure efficient proceedings in the two matters, Plaintiffs respectfully\n12 submit that the briefing on the pending motions to dismiss made in each action be stayed until this\n13 Court rules on the instant motion and sets a new schedule for the filing of a consolidated\n14 complaint. In the alternative, should the motion for consolidation and/or appointment of interim\n15 co lead counsel be denied, then the Plaintiffs request that their response to the pending motions to\n16 dismiss be due twenty-one (21) days after an Order is entered by the Court on this motion.\n17 Defendants have no objection to the proposed consolidation of the two actions, take no\n18 position on Plaintiffs\u2019 request for a leadership appointment and oppose Plaintiff\u2019s request to stay\n19 the briefing on the current motions to dismiss.\n20 II. BACKGROUND\n21 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Allegations\n22 These are two shareholder derivative actions brought on behalf of and for the benefit of\n23 Marathon, against certain of its officers and directors named as defendants herein seeking to remedy\n24 their breaches of fiduciary duties. Defendants\u2019 actions have caused, and will continue to cause,\n25 substantial financial harm and reputational damage to Marathon. See Bernard Complaint, \u00b6 1.\n26 The Company is a corporation with principal executive offices located at 1180 North Town\n27 Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. Id. \u00b6 7. Marathon is a digital asset\n28 technology company that mines cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -3-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known as \u201cMarathon Patent\n 2 Group, Inc.\u201d and changed its name to \u201cMarathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\u201d on March 1, 2021. Id. \u00b6\n 3 28.\n 4 In October 2020, the Company announced the formation of a new joint venture with\n 5 Beowulf Joint Venture (\u201cBeowulf\u201d)\u2014a private, independent infrastructure holding company\n 6 that develops, builds, owns, and operates power generation and industrial infrastructure\n 7 facilities worldwide. Beowulf was purportedly focused on delivering low-cost power to the\n 8 Company\u2019s Bitcoin mining operations. In connection with that joint venture, the Company\n 9 entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties, including affiliates of Beowulf and\n10 Two Point One, LLC (\u201c2Pl\u201d), a Delaware limited liability company, to design and build a\n11 data center in Hardin, Montana, issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the parties of\n12 those agreements.\n13 On March 16, 2021, Defendants caused the Company to issue a press release announcing\n14 the Company\u2019s fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 results (the \u201c4Q/FY20 Press Release\u201d). That\n15 4Q/FY20 Press Release highlighted the fact that the Company \u201c[i]nitiated construction of [the]\n16 mining facility adjacent to Beowulf\u2019s energy plant in Hardin, MT, supplying Marathon long-term\n17 access to electricity at 2.8\u00a2/kWh[,]\u201d and the \u201cinstall[ation of] 3,697 S-19 ASIC miners at the\n18 mining facility Hardin, MT, increasing Marathon\u2019s current active mining fleet to 5,690 miners\n19 with an additional 6,641 already delivered . . . and in the process of being installed[.]\u201d\n20 Additionally, the 4Q/FY20 Press Release quoted Defendant Okamoto: \u201cwe established\n21 our 105 MW mining facility in Hardin, MT, where we have consistent access to electricity at\n22 rates far below market average, we presciently purchased more than 100,000 of the industry\u2019s top\n23 performing Bitcoin miners . . . and we enhanced our balance sheet[,]\u201d and that \u201c[w]ith a solid\n24 foundation to grow the business established, we are now focused on continuing to build out our\n25 mining facility and bring our miners . . . online.\u201d\n26 The statements referenced above were materially false and misleading.\n27 Specifically, Defendants caused the Company to make false and/or misleading statements and/or\n28 fail to disclose that: (i) Beowulf\u2019s activities, as it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -4-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a result, Beowulf\n 2 subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably\n 3 likely to have a material negative impact on the Company\u2019s business and commercial prospects;\n 4 and (iv) as a result, the Company\u2019s public statements were materially false and misleading at all\n 5 relevant times.\n 6 B. Procedural History\n 7 Presently pending in this District are the following two (2) related shareholder derivative\n 8 actions:\n 9\n Case Name Case No. Filing Date\n10\n11 Bernard v. Theil, et al. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305 February 18, 2022\n12\n Strassman v. Theil, et al. Case No.; 2:22-cv-00724 May 5, 2022\n13\n14 Each of the related actions is brought for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Marathon against\n15 members of Marathon\u2019s Board of Directors (\u201cBoard\u201d) and certain of the Company\u2019s officers. There\n16 is also a significant overlap of facts and legal claims among the cases, including for violation of\n17 federal or state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.\n18 III. ARGUMENT\n19 A. Consolidation\n20 Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:\n When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending\n21 before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters\n in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may\n22 make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid\n23 unnecessary costs or delay.\n\n24 Plaintiffs believe consolidation is appropriate for the above-referenced actions and any\n25 subsequently filed derivative action filed with this Court because they will involve common\n26 questions of law and fact and allege virtually identical state law claims of breach of fiduciary duty.\n27 Accordingly, the two derivative actions should be consolidated for all purposes in the interests of\n28 judicial economy and overall efficiency. Defendants do not oppose consolidation.\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -5-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 B. The Court Should Appoint Wolf and GM&E as Co-Lead Counsel\n 2 Competing derivative actions and uncoordinated plaintiffs\u2019 counsel create a risk of inefficient\n 3 and inconsistent results that would be adverse to the Company\u2019s interests. For those reasons, courts\n 4 routinely appoint lead counsel in derivative actions to facilitate the litigation for the sake of both\n 5 plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint Wolf\n 6 and GM&E as Co-Lead Derivative Counsel.\n 7 In complex cases such as this one, it is well-established that the court may appoint a plaintiff\n 8 leadership structure to coordinate the prosecution of the litigation. Saprano v. Lief, Nos. 10cv2079\n 9 BTM(BLM), 10cv2132 BTM(BLM), 10cv2344 BTM(BLM), 2011 WL 830109, at *2 (S.D. Cal.\n10 Mar. 3, 2011) (\u201cThe benefits of appointing a lead counsel in consolidated derivative actions is clear:\n11 \u2018The benefits achieved by consolidation and the appointment of general counsel, i.e., elimination of\n12 duplication and repetition and in effect the creation of a coordinator of diffuse plaintiffs through\n13 whom motions and discovery proceedings will be channeled, will most certainly redound to the\n14 benefit of all parties to the litigation.\u2019\u201d) (quoting MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.\n15 1958)); see also In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 297 (6th Cir. 1988); In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec.\n16 Litig., No 05 MDL 1706 (RO), 2006 WL 1120491, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 2006); In re Comverse\n17 Tech., Inc. Deriv. Litig., 06 Civ. 1849(NGG)(RER), 2006 WL 3761986, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22,\n18 2006) (holding that courts have \u201cthe inherent power to provide for the conduct of the proceedings\u201d\n19 and can therefore appoint lead counsel in derivative actions) (citing Advisory Committee Note to\n20 Rule 23.1); Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 659, 66, 673 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (\u201cA court may disturb\n21 the lead plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel only if it appears necessary to \u2018protect the interest of the class\u2019\u201d).\n22 It is well-settled that a judge may appoint plaintiff\u2019s counsel as lead counsel. In re Bendectin, 857\n23 F.2d at 297.\n24 The relevant factors are the qualifications of counsel, their diligence in prosecuting the action\n25 and ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of their clients and the Nominal Defendant,\n26 and the reasonableness of their fees and expenses. Moreover, the Manual for Complex Litigation\n27 recognizes the benefits of appointing class counsel in complex, multiparty litigation:\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -6-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n Complex litigation often involves numerous parties with common or similar interest\n 1 but separate counsel. Traditional procedures in which all papers and documents are\n served on all attorneys, and each attorney files motions, presents arguments, and\n 2 examines witnesses, may waste time and money, confuse and misdirect the litigation,\n burden the court unnecessarily. Instituting special procedures for coordination of\n 3 counsel early in the litigation will help to avoid these problems.\n 4 Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) \u00a7 10.22.\n 5 The criteria for appointing lead counsel in shareholder derivative actions should be similar to\n 6 those utilized under Rule 23(g) in class actions. These factors are: (i) [t]he work counsel has done in\n 7 identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel\u2019s experience in handling class\n 8 actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel\u2019s\n 9 knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class.\n10 Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., Nos. 12\u201305980 CRB, 12\u201306003 CRB, 12\u201306074 CRB, 12\u201306410\n11 CRB, 12\u201306199 CRB, 13\u201300301 CRB, 2013 WL 792642, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Bernhard\n12 v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 08-4392, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92308, at *14 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2009)\n13 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)). The Court must decide if the proposed candidates are qualified,\n14 holding dispositive no single factor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(B).\n15 In the proposed Consolidated Action, the appointment of Wolf and GM&E as co-lead counsel\n16 will best serve the interest of Marathon. Further, supporting the appointment of proposed Co-Lead\n17 Counsel are the criteria for selecting counsel set forth in Newberg on Class Actions, which state that\n18 the relevant factors \u201cinclude experience and prior success, the number, the size, and extent of\n19 involvement of represented litigants, the advanced stage of proceedings in a particular suit, and the\n20 nature of the causes of action alleged.\u201d 3 Alba Conte & Herbet B. Newberg, Newberg on Class\n21 Actions \u00a7 9.35, at 388 (4th ed. 2002). Each of these factors supports the appointment of proposed\n22 Co-Lead in the proposed Consolidated Action.\n23 1. The Work Done by Counsel\n24 Before filing their respective complaints, Wolf and GM&E investigated the underlying\n25 conduct and the potential legal claims. Wolf and GM&E drafted complaints and worked to\n26 develop the factual allegations and legal claims asserted in their respective complaints, and to\n27 ensure their accuracy.\n28 ///\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -7-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Once the litigation commenced, Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel worked together in the litigation to\n 2 organize and coordinate the litigation, propose the consolidation of the actions, continue to\n 3 investigate the facts, and research legal theories for an anticipated consolidated complaint. The\n 4 two firms have conferred with defense counsel to attempt to organize the two actions into a\n 5 consolidated action and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint. All of this work\n 6 was performed for the benefit of the Nominal Defendant on a consensus basis among the two\n 7 Plaintiff law firms, without duplication of effort or the need for judicial intervention.\n 8 2. Wolf and GM&E\u2019s Experience\n 9 The second Rule 23(g) factor also supports appointment of Wolf and GM&E as interim co-\n10 lead counsel. The two firms have extensive experience in litigating complex civil cases of all\n11 types including shareholder rights, have achieved significant relief for their clients through\n12 settlement and trial, and have served in leadership positions in multiple complex actions\n13 throughout the country.\n14 a. Wolf\u2019s Experience\n15 Wolf has been a leading national law firm with extensive experience in shareholder\n16 derivative actions for more than fifty years. Wolf has been lead or co-lead counsel in securities\n17 class and derivative actions that have recouped billions of dollars on behalf of investors, including\n18 stockholder rights class actions that have resulted in billions of dollars in increased merger\n19 consideration to shareholder classes and in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of\n20 dollars for corporations.\n21 Wolf\u2019s pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\n22 laws include: groundbreaking derivative claims under the Investment Company Act of 1940\n23 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment companies and their advisors toward their\n24 shareholders; claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors in connection with change\n25 of control transactions; breach of fiduciary duty claims involving director self-dealing and lack of\n26 oversight. For example, in In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.), the\n27 firm was lead derivative counsel in a large collection of cases against mutual fund companies\n28 accused of market timing which achieved more than $300 million in settlement. In American\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -8-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 769-VCS (Del. Ch.), Wolf was\n 2 co-lead counsel and achieved a $125 million settlement. In In Re Bank of America Stockholder\n 3 Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.), the firm was co-lead and achieved $42.5\n 4 million in settlement benefits.\n 5 Wolf has served as lead or co-lead in many other securities class actions, such as In re\n 6 BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D. Mo.), in which the\n 7 class recovered $490 million, and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92\n 8 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), in which the class recovered $586 million. A copy of the firm resume of the\n 9 Wolf firm is attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin as Exhibit 1.\n10 b. GM&E\u2019s Experience\n11 GM&E has extensive experience in handling shareholder actions and other similar\n12 complex lawsuits and has prosecuted numerous securities class action and derivative shareholder\n13 cases, and therefore, possess substantial knowledge about the applicable law. In addition, the firm\n14 is well capitalized, and fully capable and prepared to staff and finance this derivative litigation.\n15 See GM&E\u2019s Firm R\u00e9sum\u00e9 attached to the Declaration of Mark Rifkin at Exhibit 2.\n16 GM&E made law with its successful prosecution of an appeal to the United States\n17 Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of prudence\u201d that lower courts had\n18 been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer retirement plans who imprudently\n19 invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case, Fifth Third Bancorp v,\n20 Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 2014 WL 2864481 (Sup. Ct. June 25, 2014), GM&E argued with co-\n21 counsel that the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework.\n22 The Supreme Court agreed.\n23 GM&E has also been lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous derivative and\n24 shareholder actions and has produced substantial recoveries for shareholders. GM&E was lead\n25 counsel in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n26 (D.N.J.) (recovery of $12.25 million for breach of fiduciary duty to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In\n27 re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (recovery of $8.2\n28 million for breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Boyd, et al. v.\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n -9-\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (breach of fiduciary duty recovery\n 2 of $3.6 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil\n 3 Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (sole lead counsel producing a recovery of $4.5 million for\n 4 breach of fiduciary duties owed to the company\u2019s 401(k) plan); In re General Growth Properties,\n 5 Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement\n 6 Class producing a recovery of $5.75 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan).\n 7 3. The Resources Counsel Will Commit to Representing the Nominal\n Defendant\n 8\n 9 Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have the resources necessary to lead this litigation. The firms have\n10 sufficient numbers of attorneys and other professionals to staff this case, and they have\n11 successfully managed complex, resource-intensive cases in the past. The firms have invested in\n12 the technology support necessary to handle complex matters, and each has designated a primary\n13 team of attorneys who will bring their unique skills and experience to representing the nominal\n14 defendant. The firms routinely advance the costs of litigation and have demonstrated an ability\n15 and willingness to dedicate substantial resources to vigorously prosecute the derivative claims\n16 asserted in the instant action.\n17 The two firms are prepared to commit the resources necessary to prosecute this case to a\n18 successful conclusion. The proposed leadership structure is ideally suited to the particular\n19 circumstances of this litigation, which will require a lean team of dedicated lawyers with sufficient\n20 resources to prosecute this litigation against sophisticated and well-financed defendants. The\n21 firms are well established, reputable, and have demonstrated that they are capable of handling the\n22 challenges of this litigation and committing the necessary resources to effectively represent the\n23 proposed class.\n24 C. Motion To Stay\n25 The Court is vested with the inherent power and authority to manage its calendar. See\n26 Dambach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 324 P.3d 369, 373 (2014). This\n27 includes the discretion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the instant motion.\n28 Additionally, NRCP 16.1 reflects the Court's wide discretion in managing all aspects of cases\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 10 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 before it. Among the Court's powers is the right to take action to discourage \"wasteful pretrial\n 2 activities\", \"to improve the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation\", and to craft\n 3 any procedures \"appropriate in the circumstances of the case.\" NRCP 16.1 (a)(3) and (4); NRCP\n 4 16.1 (b)(5).\n 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek a limited, temporary stay to allow the instant motion to be decided,\n 6 the two similar cases consolidated, co-lead counsel for the prosecution of the action appointed and\n 7 a schedule set for the drafting and filing of the consolidated complaint. Consolidating the actions\n 8 and proceeding in an orderly fashion will save judicial resources.\n 9 V. CONCLUSION\n10 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (1) consolidate the actions, (2) appoint Wolf\n11 and GM&E to serve as interim co-lead counsel in this litigation and (3) order that the pending\n12 motion to dismiss briefing in each action be temporarily stayed until after the actions are\n13 consolidated and a schedule is set for the filing of a consolidated complaint. In the alternative, if\n14 the instant motion is denied, Plaintiffs ask that any response to the pending motions to dismiss be\n15 due twenty-one (21) after an order is entered on the instant motion.\n16 Dated: May 23, 2022\n17 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n18\n /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n19 Matthew L. Sharp\n20 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n21 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n22\n Gregory M. Egleston\n23 Pro-Hac Vice Application to be filed\n GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n24 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n New York, New York 10017\n25 Phone: (212) 983-1300\n Fax: (212) 983-0383\n26 Email: gegleston@gme-aw.com\n27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bernard\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 11 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n /s/ G. Mark Albright\n 1\n G. Mark Albright, Esq. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 2 Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. (NV Bar # 14595)\n ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n 3 & ALBRIGHT\n 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n 4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 5 Tel: (702) 384-7111\n\n 6 Mark C. Rifkin\n 7 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER\n FREEMAN & HERZ LLP\n 8 270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl\n New York, NY 10016\n 9 Tel: (212) 545-4600\n10\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n11 Strassman\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 12 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by\n 4 using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n 7 DATED this 23rd day of May 2022.\n 8\n /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n 9 An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2) APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO\n (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT\n\n - 13 -\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:53:30.479083-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462235","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion to Consolidate Cases","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371983024/","id":371983024,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/34/1/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2023-09-17T20:53:07.545759-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T04:30:43.176461-08:00","sha1":"495ec6b616af4445d1d0961b1b1d91caef2bd4e2","page_count":62,"file_size":773426,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.34.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.34.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 62\n\n\n\n\n G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ. (NV Bar # 1394)\n 1\n DANIEL R. ORMSBY, ESQ. (NV Bar # 14595)\n 2 ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK\n & ALBRIGHT\n 3 801 S Rancho Dr., Ste D4\n Las Vegas, NV 89106\n 4\n (702) 384-7111\n 5\n Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n 6 Nevada Bar No. 4746\n MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 7 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n 8 (775) 324-1500\n matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 9\n10 Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n11\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n12\n13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n14 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n15 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN\n16 IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS\n17 Plaintiff, FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION AND\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD\n18 v. COUNSEL AND (2) TO TEMPORARILY\n STAY ALL MOTION TO DISMISS\n19 BRIEFING AND MEMORANDUM IN\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n20 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, SUPPORT\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n21\n and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n22\n Defendants,\n23 -and-\n24\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n25 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n26 Nominal Defendant.\n27\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 62\n\n\n\n\n ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY\n 1\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n 2 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n Plaintiff,\n 3\n v.\n 4\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n 5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n 6 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n AND SIMEON SALZMAN,\n 7\n Defendants,\n 8\n -and-\n 9\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n10 (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n11\n Nominal Defendant.\n12\n13 I Marc C. Rifkin declare the following:\n\n14 1. I am a resident of the State of New York and a partner at the law firm Wolf\n\n15 Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n16 2. I submit this declaration in support of the Motions for (1) Consolidation and\n\n17 Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel and (2) to Temporarily Stay All Motion to Dismiss\n\n18 Briefing.\n\n19 3. True and correct copies of the following documents cited in the accompanying Motion\n\n20 are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2:\n\n21 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION\n\n22 1. Firm Resume of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.\n\n23 2. Firm Resume of Gainey McKenna & Egleston.\n\n24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n25 foregoing is true and correct based upon my knowledge, information and belief.\n\n26 Dated: May 23, 2022\n\n27 /s/ Mark C. Rifkin\n Mark C. Rifkin\n28\n DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR (1) CONSOLIDATION, (2)\n APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND TO (3) TEMPORARILY STAY ALL MOTION\n TO DISMISS BRIEFING\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Providing Exemplary Legal Services Since 1888\n\n\n\n\n firm resume\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 62\n\n\nFounded in 1888, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a full service law\nfirm specializing in complex litigation in federal and state courts nationwide. The\nfirm\u2019s practice includes litigation, both hourly and contingent, in securities, antitrust,\nwage & hour, consumer fraud, false marketing, ERISA, and general and commercial\nmatters, whistleblower, false claim, trust & estate, corporate investigation, and white\ncollar matters, and FINRA arbitration. The Firm has a particular specialty in complex\nclass action and other representative litigation \u2013 including investor, shareholder,\nantitrust, ERISA, consumer, employee, and biotechnology matters \u2013 under both federal\nand state law.\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s total practice approach distinguishes it from other firms. Our\nlongstanding tradition of a close attorney/client relationship ensures that each one of\nour clients receives prompt, individual attention and does not become lost in an\ninstitutional bureaucracy. Our team approach is at the very heart of Wolf Haldenstein\u2019s\npractice. All of our lawyers are readily available to all of our clients and to each other.\nThe result of this approach is that we provide our clients with an efficient legal team\nhaving the broad perspective, expertise and experience required for any matter at hand.\nWe are thus able to provide our clients with cost effective and thorough counsel focused\non our clients\u2019 overall goals.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-686-0114\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 62\n\n\n THE FIRM\n\nWolf Haldenstein has been recognized by state and federal courts throughout the\ncountry as being highly experienced in complex litigation, particularly with respect to\nsecurities, consumer, ERISA, FLSA and state overtime and expense deductions, and\nantitrust class actions and shareholder rights litigation.\n\nAmong its colleagues in the plaintiffs\u2019 bar, as well as among its adversaries in the\ndefense bar, Wolf Haldenstein is known for the high ability of its attorneys, and the\nexceptionally high quality of its written and oral advocacy.\n\nThe nature of the Firm\u2019s activities in both individual and representative litigation is\nextremely broad. In addition to a large case load of securities fraud and other investor\nclass actions, Wolf Haldenstein has represented classes of corn and rice farmers in\nconnection with the devaluation of their crops; canned tuna consumers for tuna\ncompanies\u2019 violations of antitrust laws; merchants compelled to accept certain types of\ndebit cards; insurance policyholders for insurance companies\u2019 deceptive sales practices;\nvictims of unlawful strip searches under the civil rights laws; and various cases\ninvolving violations of Internet users\u2019 on-line privacy rights.\n\nThe Firm\u2019s experience in class action securities litigation, in particular public\nshareholder rights under state law and securities fraud claims arising under the federal\nsecurities laws and regulations is particularly extensive. The Firm was one of the lead\nor other primary counsel in securities class action cases that have recouped billions of\ndollars on behalf of investor classes, in stockholder rights class actions that have\nresulted in billions of dollars in increased merger consideration to shareholder classes,\nand in derivative litigation that has recovered billions of dollars for corporations.\n\nIts pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection\nlaws include: groundbreaking claims that have been successfully brought under the\nInvestment Company Act of 1940 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment\ncompanies and their advisors toward their shareholders; claims under ERISA involving\nfiduciary duties of ERISA trustees who are also insiders in possession of adverse\ninformation regarding their fund\u2019s primary stockholdings; the fiduciary duties of the\ndirectors of Delaware corporations in connection with change of control transactions;\nthe early application of the fraud-on-the-market theory to claims against public\naccounting firms in connection with their audits of publicly traded corporations; and\nthe application of federal securities class certification standards to state law claims often\nthought to be beyond the reach of class action treatment.\n\n\n\n\n Page 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 62\n\n\n Judicial Commendations\n\nWolf Haldenstein has repeatedly received favorable judicial recognition. The following\nrepresentative judicial comments over the past decade indicate the high regard in which\nthe Firm is held:\n\n \u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (Sup. Ct.\n N.Y. Co.) \u2013 On May 2, 2013, Justice O. Peter Sherwood praised the Firm in its\n role as chair of the committee of co-lead counsel as follows: \"It is apparent to\n me, having presided over this case, that class counsel has performed in an\n excellent manner, and you have represented your clients quite well. You\n should be complimented for that.\" In awarding attorneys' fees, the\n Court stated that the fee was \"intended to reward class counsel handsomely\n for the very good result achieved for the Class, assumption of the high risk of\n Plaintiffs prevailing and the efficiency of effort that resulted in the settlement\n of the case at an early stage without protracted motion practice.\" May 17, 2013\n slip. op. at 5 (citations omitted).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) \u2013 On April 9, 2013, Justice\n Richard B. Lowe III praised the Firm\u2019s efforts as follows: \u201c[W]hen you have\n challenging cases, the one thing you like to ask for is that the legal\n representation on both sides rise to that level. Because when you have lawyers\n who are professionals, who are confident, who are experienced, each of you\n know that each side has a job to do [. . . .] I want to tell you that I am very\n satisfied with your performance and with your, quite frankly, tenacity on both\n sides. And it took six years, but look at the history of the litigation. There were\n two appeals all of the way to the Court of Appeals [. . . .] And then look at the\n results. I mean, there are dissents in the Court of Appeals, so that shows you\n the complexity of the issues that were presented in this litigation [. . . .] [I]t\n shows you effort that went into this and the professionalism that was\n exhibited [. . . .] So let me just again express my appreciation to both sides.\u201d\n\n \u2022 K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555 (E.D. Mich.) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Rosen, at the June 7, 2010 final\n approval hearing, praised the Firm for doing \u201can outstanding job of\n representing [its] clients,\u201d and further commented that \u201cthe conduct of all\n counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties\n confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Klein, et al. v. Ryan Beck Holdings, Inc., et al., 06-cv-3460 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. 2010) \u2013\n where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Deborah A. Batts described the\n Firm\u2019s successful establishment of a settlement fund as follows: \u201c[a] miracle\n that there is a settlement fund at all.\u201d Judge Batts continued: \"As I said earlier,\n there is no question that the litigation is complex and of a large and, if you\n will, pioneering magnitude ...\" (Emphasis added).\n\n\u2022 Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) \u2013 where\n the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), \u201c[a]ll\n of the attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really\n appreciate the quality of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this\n case.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) \u2013 where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August\n 15, 2007), \u201cI think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all,\n watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the\n results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put\n this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust]\n class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an\n exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really\n required the Court\u2019s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at\n organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case.\n There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs\u2019\n counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . .\n . So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed\n as well by both sides.\u201d\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Sec. Litigation, 01 C 2110 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2005) \u2013 Judge Milton\n Shadur observed: \u201cIt has to be said . . . that the efforts that have been extended\n [by Wolf Haldenstein] on behalf of the plaintiff class in the face of these\n obstacles have been exemplary. And in my view [Wolf Haldenstein] reflected\n the kind of professionalism that the critics of class actions . . . are never willing\n to recognize. . . . I really cannot speak too highly of the services rendered by\n class counsel in an extraordinary difficult situation.\u201d\n\n\u2022 Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV\n 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2016) \u2013 Judge George H. King\n\n\n\n\n Page 5\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 62\n\n\n stated: \"Not all, or perhaps even most, plaintiffs' class counsel could have\n litigated this case as successfully as did class counsel against such a fierce and\n exceptionally accomplished opponent.\"\n\n \u2022 Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., (Case No. 1:18-cv-209, D. Haw., May 3,\n 2019): Judge Robert J. Bryan said, \u201cI\u2019ve been impressed by the quality of the\n work you\u2019ve done throughout here, and that is reflected, I think, in the fact\n that no one has objected to the settlement.\u201d\n\n Recent Noteworthy Results\n\nWolf Haldenstein\u2019s performance in representative litigation has repeatedly resulted in\nfavorable results for its clients. The Firm has helped recover billions of dollars on\nbehalf of its clients in the cases listed below. Recent examples include the following:\n\n \u2022 On May 13, 2019, in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, the Supreme Court\n affirmed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that iPhone\n purchasers have standing to sue Apple for monopolizing the market for iPhone\n apps in this longstanding antitrust class action. Wolf Haldenstein has been\n Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs since 2007. The case was commenced in federal\n district court in Oakland. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision clears the way for the\n plaintiffs to proceed on the merits of their claim.\n\n \u2022 On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated\n decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael H. Resh, et al. Wolf Haldenstein\n represented the plaintiffs/respondents, having commenced the action on behalf\n of aggrieved shareholders of China Agritech after two prior cases had failed at\n the class certification stage.\n\n \u2022 In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, MDL 1811 (E.D. Mo.) - Wolf\n Haldenstein represented U.S. rice farmers in this landmark action against Bayer\n A.G. and its global affiliates, achieving a global recovery of $750 million. The\n case arose from the contamination of the nation's long grain rice crop by\n Bayer's experimental and unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice.\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) - a class action brought on\n behalf of over 27,500 current and former tenants of New York City's iconic\n Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village housing complexes. On April 9,\n 2013, Justice Richard B. Lowe III of the New York Supreme Court finally\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 62\n\n\n approved settlement of the action, which totals over $173 million, sets aside\n $68.75 million in damages, re-regulates the apartments at issue, and sets\n preferential rents for the units that will save tenants significant monies in the\n future. The settlement also enables the tenants to retain an estimated $105\n million in rent savings they enjoyed between 2009 and 2012. The settlement is\n by many magnitudes the largest tenant settlement in United States history.\n\n\u2022 In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., Index No. 650607/2012 \u2013 The\n firm served as Chair of the Executive Committee of Co-Lead Counsel for the\n Plaintiffs in a class action settlement finally approved on May 2, 2013 that\n provides for the establishment of a $55 million settlement fund for investors, in\n addition to substantial tax deferral benefits estimated to be in excess of $100\n million.\n\n\u2022 American International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 769-VCS (Del. Ch.) The Firm acted as co-lead counsel and the settlement\n addressed claims alleging that the D&O Defendants breached their fiduciary\n duties to the Company and otherwise committed wrongdoing to the detriment\n of AIG in connection with various allegedly fraudulent schemes during the\n 1999-2005 time period.\n\n\u2022 In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income\n Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Master File No. 09 MD 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (firm was\n co-lead counsel in parallel derivative action pending in Delaware (In Re Bank of\n America Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.)) (increase\n of settlement cash recovery from $20 million to $62.5 million).\n\n\u2022 The Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Service Transit Operating\n Authority Pension Plan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:09-cv-04408-SAS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $150 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Tremont Sec. Law, State Law and Insurance Litig., No. 08-civ-11117 (TPG)\n (SDNY) (class recovered $100 million). The firm was court-appointed co-lead\n counsel in the Insurance Action, 08 Civ. 557, and represented a class of persons\n who purchased or otherwise acquired Variable Universal Life (\u201cVUL\u201d)\n insurance policies or Deferred Variable Annuity (\u201cDVA\u201d) policies issued by\n Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus International Life Bermuda\n Limited from May 10, 1994 - December 11, 2008 to the extent the investment\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 62\n\n\n accounts of those policies were exposed to the massive Ponzi scheme\n orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff through one or more Rye funds.\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $586 million). Wolf Haldenstein served as Co-Lead Counsel of one\n of the largest securities fraud cases in history. Despite the United States Court\n of Appeals for the Second Circuit\u2019s decision to vacate the district court\u2019s class\n certification decision, on remand, counsel for plaintiffs were able to press on to\n a settlement on April 1, 2009, ultimately recovering in excess of a half-billion\n dollars.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 62\n\n\n FIRM PRACTICE AREAS\n\n Class Action Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in class and derivative action litigation and is currently or\nhas been the court-appointed lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or executive committee\nmember in some of the largest and most significant class action and derivative action\nlawsuits in the United States. For example, the class action Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13\nN.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) was recently described by a sitting member of the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives as the greatest legal victory for tenants in her lifetime. In Roberts, the\nFirm obtained a victory in the New York Court of Appeals requiring the reregulation of\nthousands of apartment units in the Stuyvesant Town complex in Manhattan, New\nYork. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful results are summarized within.\n\n Private Actions for Institutional Investors\n\nIn addition to its vast class action practice, the Firm also regularly represents\ninstitutional clients such as public funds, investment funds, limited partnerships, and\nqualified institutional buyers in private actions. The Firm has represented institutional\nclients in non-class federal and state actions concerning a variety of matters, including\nprivate placements, disputes with investment advisors, and disputes with corporate\nmanagement.\n\nThe Firm has also acted as special counsel to investors\u2019 committees in efforts to assert\nand advance the investors\u2019 interests without resorting to litigation. For example, the\nFirm served as Counsel to the Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partners Committee for\nseveral years in its dealings with Host Marriott Corporation, and as Special Counsel to\nthe Windsor Park Properties 7 and 8 limited partners to insure the fairness of their\nliquidation transactions.\n\n Antitrust Litigation\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader in antitrust and competition litigation. The Firm actively\nseeks to enforce the federal and state antitrust laws to protect and strengthen the rights\nand claims of businesses, organizations, Taft-Hartley funds, and consumers throughout\nthe United States. To that end, Wolf Haldenstein commences large, often complex,\nantitrust and trade regulation class actions and other cases that target some of the most\npowerful and well-funded corporate interests in the world. Many of these interests\nexert strong influence over enforcement policy that is in the hands of elected officials, so\nthat private enforcement provides the only true assurance that unfair and\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 62\n\n\nanticompetitive conduct will be duly scrutinized for compliance with the law. These\ncases frequently bring to light concealed, unlawful behavior such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, market allocation, monopoly leveraging, essential facilities, tying\narrangements, vertical restraints, exclusive dealing, and refusals to deal. Wolf\nHaldenstein\u2019s Antitrust Practice Group has successfully prosecuted numerous antitrust\ncases and aggressively advocates remedies and restitution for businesses and investors\nwronged by violations of the antitrust laws. For example, in In re DRAM Antitrust\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) the firm successfully prosecuted an antitrust\ncase resulting in a $315 million recovery. Many of the firm\u2019s successful results are\nsummarized within.\n\nWolf Haldenstein attorneys currently serve as lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or as\nexecutive committee members in some of the largest and most significant antitrust class\naction lawsuits. The firm was most recently appointed lead counsel in the Salmon\nAntitrust Indirect Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District\nof Florida.\n\n Overtime and Compensation Class Actions\n\nWolf Haldenstein is a leader class action litigation on behalf of employees who have not\nbeen paid overtime or other compensation they are entitled to receive, or have had\nimproper deductions taken from their compensation. These claims under the federal\nFair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws allege improper failure to pay overtime\nand other wages, and improper deductions from compensation for various company\nexpenses. Wolf Haldenstein has served as lead or co-lead counsel, or other similar lead\nrole, in some of the most significant overtime class actions pending in the United States,\nand has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in recovered wages for its clients. For\nexample, in LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\na $108 million settlement was secured for the class. Many of the firm\u2019s other successful\nwage and hour results are summarized within.\n\nSubstantial Recoveries in Class Action and Derivative Cases in Which\nWolf Haldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n \u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litigation, Master File No. 09 Civ. 0777 (LBS) (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($219 million settlement in this and related action).\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, No. 100956/2007 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) ($173 Million\n settlement).\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.) (derivative\n counsel in consolidated cases against numerous mutual fund companies\n involved in market timing resulting in class/derivative settlements totaling\n more than $300 million).\n\n\u2022 Inland Western Securities Litigation, Case No. 07 C 6174 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n value of shares valued between $61.5 million and $90 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust, No. 09-Civ-8011 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $8 million).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D.\n Mo.) (class recovered $490 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, (MD-02 1486 (N.D.\n Cal.) (class recovered $325 million).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (class\n recovered $160 million in cash and securities).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373, 94 Civ. 2546 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $116.5 million in cash).\n\n\u2022 In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $110\n million).\n\n\u2022 In Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Sec. Litigation, 2:02-CV-1226 (E.D.N.Y.)\n ($130 million settlement in this and two related actions).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 02-12338 (MEL) (D. Mass.)\n (classes recovered $52.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ\n (D. Mass) (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Iridium Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.) (class recovered $43\n million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 15 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1783 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement\n providing for adoption of corporate governance principles relating to potential\n corporate transactions requiring shareholder approval).\n\n\u2022 LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))\n ($108 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv-2628 (BEN) (S.D. Cal.)\n ($50 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Poole v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Case No. CV-06-1657 (D. Or.)\n ($43.5 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 07-1807 DOC\n (C.D. Cal.) ($39 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation (Prudential), MDL No.\n 07-1807 DOC (C.D. Cal.) ($11 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Basile v. A.G. Edwards, Inc., 08-CV-00338-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal.) ($12 million\n settlement).\n\n\u2022 Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n (Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) (co-lead, $1.65 million settlement w/\n average class member recovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded\n separately).\n\n\u2022 Neil Weinstein, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D.Cal)\n (co-lead, $7.4 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Creighton v. Oppenheimer, Index No. 1:06 - cv - 04607 - BSJ - DCF (S.D.N.Y.)\n ($2.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-CV-3460 (DAB)(S.D.N.Y.) ($1.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 In re American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated\n C.A. No. 1823-N (Del. Ch. Ct.) ($14.3 million settlement).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Collins and Aikman Corp., 06-cv-13555 (E.D. Mich.) (class recovered\n $12 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 16 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, 02 CV\n 7854 (JFK) (SDNY); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund\n Securities Litigation, 02 CV 10221 (JFK) (SDNY) (class recovered $39 million in\n combined cases).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 6:04-cv-1231 (Orl-31)\n (class recovered $35 million, and lawsuit also instrumental in $225 million\n benefit to corporation).\n\n\u2022 In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06-CV-4130-DGT-AKT ($34.4 million recovery).\n\n\u2022 In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Stock Option Derivative Litigation, Master File No.\n 06cv4622 (S.D.N.Y.) ($32 million recovery and corporate governance reforms).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Docket No. 98-1148 (S.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $29 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Arakis Energy Corporation Securities Litigation, 95 CV 3431 (E.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $24 million).\n\n\u2022 In re E.W. Blanche Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-258 (D. Minn.)\n (class recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation, No. CV 01-3285 (E.D.N.Y) (class\n recovered $18.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, CV-00-2018 (C.D. Cal.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110 (MIS) (N.D. Ill.) (class\n recovered $13.75 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-CV-1270\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13.65 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 17 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2097 (MA) (W.D. Tenn) (class\n recovered $13.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6190 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.)\n (class recovered $12.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corp. Securities Litigation, 00-11972 (D. Mass.) (class recovered $12\n million).\n\n\u2022 Bamboo Partners LLC v. Robert Mondavi Corp., No. 26-27170 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (class\n recovered $10.8 million).\n\n\u2022 Curative Health Services Securities Litigation, 99-2074 (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Jones Intercable, 99 WM-1051 (D. Colo.) (class recovered\n $10.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila, Inc., (ERISA Litigation), 04-865 (W.D. Mo.) ($10.5 million recovery\n for the class).\n\n\u2022 In re Tenfold Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:00-CV-652 (D. Utah) (class\n recovered $5.9 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Industrial Gas Antitrust Litigation, 80 C 3479 and related cases (N.D. Ill.)\n (class recovered $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chor-Alkalai and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, 86-5428 and related cases\n (E.D. Pa.) (class recovered $55 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.) (class\n recovered $126 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:94-cv-00897,\n M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $715 million).\n\n\u2022 Landon v. Freel, M.D.L. No. 592 (S.D. Tex.) (class recovered $12 million).\n\n\u2022 Holloway v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., No. 84 C 814 EU (N.D. Okla.) (class\n recovered $38 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 18 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re The Chubb Corp. Drought Insurance Litigation, C-1-88-644 (S.D. Ohio)\n (class recovered $100 million).\n\n\u2022 Wong v. Megafoods, Civ-94-1702 (D. Ariz.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $12.25 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Del Val Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4854 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $11.5 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Home Shopping Network Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action\n No. 12868, (Del. Ch. 1995) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Paine Webber Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 Civ 8547 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4007 (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $19 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Spectrum Information Technologies Securities Litigation, CV 93-2245\n (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Chase Manhattan Securities Litigation, 90 Civ. 6092 (LJF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class\n recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Prostic v. Xerox Corp., No. B-90-113 (EBB) (D. Conn.) (class recovered $9\n million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Hercules, Civil Action No. 90-442-RRM (D. Del.) (class recovered $18\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Ambase Securities Litigation, 90 Civ 2011 (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $14.6\n million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southmark Securities Litigation, CA No. 3-89-1402-D (N.D. Tex.) (class\n recovered $70 million).\n\n\u2022 Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., No. 86-M 456 (D. Colo. 1989) (securities\n fraud) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Tucson Electric Power Derivative Litigation, 2:89 Civ. 01274 TUC. ACM\n (corporation recovered $30 million).\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 19 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Alleco Stockholders Litigation, (Md. Cir. Ct. Pr. Georges County) (class recovered\n $16 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Revlon Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. 8362 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Taft Broadcasting Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 8897 (Del. Ch.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Southland Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 87-8834-K (N.D.Tex.) (class\n recovered $20 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Crocker Bank Securities Litigation, CA No. 7405 (Del. Ch.) (class recovered\n $30 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, No. 82 Civ. 8288 (JFK)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $17.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Joseph v. Shell Oil, CA No. 7450 (Del. Ch.) (securities fraud) (class recovered\n $200 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 4-82-874,\n MDL No. 517 (D. Minn.) (recovery of over $50 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Whittaker Corporation Securities Litigation, CA000817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los\n Angeles County) (class recovered $18 million).\n\n\u2022 Naevus International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 602191/99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)\n (consumer fraud) (class recovered $40 million).\n\n\u2022 Sewell v. Sprint PCS Limited Partnership, C.A. No. 97-188027/CC 3879 (Cir. Ct.\n for Baltimore City) (consumer fraud) (class recovered $45.2 million).\n\n\u2022 In re Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2:08-\n cv-285 (D.N.J.) (class recovered $41.5 million).\n\n\u2022 Egleston v. Verizon, No. 104784/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) \u2013 Wolf Haldenstein\n represented a class of New York Verizon Centrex customers in an action\n against Verizon stemming from overbilling of certain charges. The Firm\n secured a settlement with a total value to the Class of over $5 million, which\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 20 of 62\n\n\n provided, among other things, each class member with full refunds of certain\n disputed charges, plus interest.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Nahal Zelouf, Index No. 653652/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.\n 2015). In an important trial decision following an appraisal proceeding\n triggered by the freeze-out merger of a closely-held corporation, which also\n included shareholder derivative claims, Justice Kornreich of the New York\n Supreme Court refused to apply a discount for lack of marketability to the\n minority interest in the former corporation and found that the insiders stole\n more than $14 million dollars; the minority shareholder recovered over $9\n million.\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 45 Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2014). The\n Court rejected application of a discount for lack of marketability and awarded\n a $10,031,438.28 judgment following an eleven day bench trial in the\n Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New\n York County) on the value of a minority interest in a closely held corporation.\n\n\u2022 Thompson et al. v. Bethpage Federal Credit Union et al., No. 2:17-cv-00921-GRB\n (E.D.N.Y.) ($3.6 million settlement)\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 21 of 62\n\n\n Representative Reported Opinions Since 1990 in Which Wolf\nHaldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role\n\n Federal Appellate and District Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)\n\n\u2022 Hymes v. Bank of America, 408 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 332 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. Cal. 2019)\n\n\u2022 China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018)\n\n\u2022 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal.\n 2017)\n\n\u2022 DeFrees v. Kirkland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52780 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 282 F.R.D. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\n\u2022 Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, No. 10-2514 (7th\n Cir. Jan. 13, 2012).\n\n\u2022 In re Text Message Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d, 622 (7th Cir. 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98270 (N.D. Cal. July\n 8, 2010).\n\n\u2022 In re Beacon Associates Litig., 745 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., 545 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).\n\n\u2022 In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litig., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).\n\n\u2022 Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, No. 06 C 4674, 2007 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 93877 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 2007 WL 2768383 (E.D. Mo.\n Sept. 20, 2007).\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 22 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund, 99 Civ. 4174 (LMM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61454\n (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-Civ. 3460 (WCC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51465 (S.D.N.Y.\n July 13, 2007).\n\n\u2022 Cannon v. MBNA Corp. No. 05-429 GMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48901 (D. Del.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202 (W.D. Mo. 2006).\n\n\u2022 Smith v. Aon Corp., 238 F.R.D. 609 (N.D. Ill. 2006).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 03-10165, 2005 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 29656 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re Luxottica Group, S.p.A. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071\n (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005).\n\n\u2022 In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38876,\n No. 6:04-cv-1231-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2005).\n\n\u2022 Johnson v. Aegon USA, Inc., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2004).\n\n\u2022 Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 33018 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, 03-CV-1270 (E.D.N.Y. June\n 22, 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 308 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2697 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7,\n 2004).\n\n\u2022 In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (1st Cir. May 9,\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re PerkinElmer, Inc. Securities Litigation, 286 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2003).\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 23 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y.\n 2003).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5047\n (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475 (2001), clarified, 279 F.3d 313 (5th\n Cir. 2002).\n\n\u2022 City Partnership Co. v. Cable TV Fund 14-B, 213 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Allaire Corporation Securities Litigation, Docket No. 00-11972 - WGY, 2002\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18143 (D. Mass., Sept. 27, 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation, 212 F.Supp.2d 828 (N.D. Ill.\n 2002).\n\n\u2022 In re Bankamerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 263 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, 166 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D. Ill. 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457\n JN, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14780 (W.D. Tx. Aug. 15, 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Lindelow v. Hill, No. 00 C 3727, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10301 (N.D. Ill. July 19,\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 148 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Va. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the\n Electrical Industry, 172 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Carney v. Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass.\n 2001).\n\n\u2022 Weltz v. Lee, 199 F.R.D. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n\u2022 Schoers v. Pfizer, Inc., 00 Civ. 6121, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,\n 2001).\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 24 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83\n (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2001).\n\n\u2022 Goldberger v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 98 Civ. 8677 (JSM), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18714\n (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 99 C 6853, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 15190 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Stanley v. Safeskin Corp., Case No. 99 CV 454 BTM (LSP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 14100, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 221 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re USA Talks.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14823, Fed.\n Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 231 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Sotheby\u2019s Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 00 CIV. 1041 (DLC), 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 12504, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 059 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 10906 (E.D. La. July 21, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21424 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Carnegie International Corp. Securities Litigation, 107 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D.\n Md. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 21423 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Imperial Credit Industries Securities Litigation, CV 98-8842 SVW, 2000 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 2340 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 82 F. Supp. 2d 227\n (S.D.N.Y. 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 25 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840, 2000 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 619 (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 110 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Va. 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 78 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Mo. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18378\n (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Nanophase Technologies Corp. Litigation, 98 C 3450, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 16171 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Clearly Canadian Securities Litigation, File No. C-93-1037-VRW, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 14273 Cal. Sept. 7, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (W.D. Okla. 1999).\n\n\u2022 In re Spyglass, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99 C 512, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11382\n (N.D. Ill. July 20, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11595 (N.D. Ga. June 30, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 98 CV 3287, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 11363 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1368, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90, 429 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Longman v. Food Lion, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 331 (M.D.N.C. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 669 (W.D. Pa. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 1998).\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 26 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga.\n 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re MobileMedia Securities Litigation, 28 F.Supp.2d 901 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 1865 (HB), 1998\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 999 F. Supp. 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-cv-3183-TWT, 1998 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 23222 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 1998).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Radica Games (In re Radica Games Securities Litigation), No. 96-17274,\n 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32775 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Robbins v. Koger Properties, 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 95\n Civ. 0167 (PKL), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18485 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Wright v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 97 Civ. 2189 (SAS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13630\n (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23646 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23647 (C.D. Ill. July 7,\n 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 964 F.\n Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Companies, 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 4451 (S.D.N.Y. April 8, 1997).\n\n\u2022 Bobrow v. Mobilmedia, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-4715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 23806 (D.N.J. March 31, 1997).\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 27 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 Kalodner v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 200 (N.D.Tex. 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).\n\n\u2022 A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 95 Civ.\n 8422 (LAK), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Alpern v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996).\n\n\u2022 Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 95 Civ. 1924 (MBM),\n 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Simon v. American Power Conversion Corp., 945 F. Supp. 416 (D.R.I. 1996).\n\n\u2022 TII Industries, Inc., 96 Civ. 4412 (SAS), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14466 (S.D.N.Y.\n Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 941\n F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 9195 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Tricord Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil No. 3-94-746, 1996 U.S. Dist.\n LEXIS 20943 (D. Minn. April 5, 1996).\n\n\u2022 In re Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S.\n Dist. LEXIS 1265 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Riley v. Simmons, 45 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1995).\n\n\u2022 Stepak v. Addison, 20 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1994).\n\n\u2022 Zitin v. Turley, [1991 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u00b6 96,123 (D.\n Ariz. June 20, 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 28 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation, 151 F.R.D.\n 597 (W.D.N.C. 1993).\n\n\u2022 County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\n\n Notable State Court Opinions\n\n\u2022 William Hughes, Jr. v. Xiaoming Hu, et al. [In re Kandi Technologies Group], C.A.\n No. 2019-0112-JTL (Del. Ch. April 27, 2020).\n\n\u2022 Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir, 179 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2020).\n\n\u2022 Cohen v. Saks, Inc., 169 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\n\u2022 Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 147 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep\u2019t 2016).\n\n\u2022 Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v. Zelouf, 47 Misc. 3d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014).\n\n\u2022 McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, 56 Cal. 4th 613 (2013).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 89 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).\n\n\u2022 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 241 (2011).\n\n\u2022 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009).\n\n\u2022 In re Tyson Foods, Inc., Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A.2d 563 (Del. Ch.\n 2007).\n\n\u2022 Naevus Int\u2019l v. AT&T Corp., 283 A.D.2d 171, 724 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2001).\n\n\u2022 In re Western National Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.\n 15927, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 82 (May 22, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 2000 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 90 (May 5, 2000).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14634,\n 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 27, 2000).\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 29 of 62\n\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotels Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 24, 2000).\n\n\u2022 Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company, 132 N.C. App. 682, 513 S.E.2d\n 598 (Ct. App. 1999), aff\u2019d, 351 N.C. 349, 524 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. 2000).\n\n\u2022 Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999).\n\n\u2022 Greenwald v. Batterson, C.A. No. 16475, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158 (July 26, 1999).\n\n\u2022 Brown v. Perrette, Civil Action No. 13531, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 92 (May 18,\n 1999).\n\n\u2022 Seinfeld v. Robinson, 246 A.D.2d 291, 676 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. 1998).\n\n\u2022 Werner v. Alexander, 130 N.C. App. 435, 502 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).\n\n\u2022 In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 1997 Del. Ch.\n LEXIS 146 (Oct. 15, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,\n Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 1997 Del. Ch. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 17, 1997).\n\n\u2022 In re Cheyenne Software Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14941,\n 1996 Del. Ch. LEXIS 142 (Nov. 7, 1996).\n\n\u2022 Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. Super.\n Ct. 1994).\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 30 of 62\n\n\n ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES\n\nThe qualifications of the attorneys in the Wolf Haldenstein Litigation Group are set\nforth below and are followed by descriptions of some of the Firm\u2019s attorneys who\nnormally practice outside the Litigation Group who contribute significantly to the class\naction practice from time to time.\n Partners\n\nMARK C. RIFKIN: admitted: New York; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; U.S. Supreme\nCourt; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits; U.S.\nDistrict Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern and\nWestern Districts of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin and the Western District of Michigan. Education: Princeton University (A.B.\n1982); Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1985). Contributor, Packel & Poulin,\nPennsylvania Evidence (1987).\n\nA highly experienced securities class action and shareholder rights litigator, Mr. Rifkin\nhas recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate fraud and abuse\nin federal and state litigation across the country. Since 1990, Mr. Rifkin has served as\nlead counsel, co-lead counsel, or trial counsel in many class and derivative actions in\nsecurities, intellectual property, antitrust, insurance, consumer and mass tort litigation\nthroughout the country.\n\nUnique among his peers in the class action practice, Mr. Rifkin has extensive trial\nexperience. Over the past thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has tried many complex commercial\nactions in federal and state courts across the country in class and derivative actions,\nincluding In re National Media Corp. Derivative Litig., C.A. 90-7574 (E.D. Pa.), Upp v.\nMellon Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 91-5229 (E.D. Pa.), where the verdict awarded more than\n$60 million in damages to the Class (later reversed on appeal, 997 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir.\n1993)), and In re AST Research Securities Litigation, No. 94-1370 SVW (C.D. Cal.), as well\nas a number of commercial matters for individual clients, including Zelouf Int\u2019l Corp. v.\nZelouf, Index No. 653652/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), in which he obtained a $10 million\njudgment for his client.\n\nMr. Rifkin also has extensive appellate experience. Over thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has\nargued dozens of appeals on behalf of appellants and appellees in several federal\nappellate courts, and in the highest appellate courts in New York, Pennsylvania, New\nJersey, and Delaware.\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 31 of 62\n\n\n\n\nMr. Rifkin has earned the AV\u00ae-Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell\u00ae for more\nthan 20 years, and has been selected for inclusion in the New York Metro\nSuperLawyers\u00ae listing since 2010. In 2014, Mr. Rifkin was named a \u201cTitan of the\nPlaintiff\u2019s Bar\u201d by Law360\u00ae.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Rifkin received worldwide acclaim for his role as lead counsel for the class\nin Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV 13-\n04460-GHK (MRWx), in federal court in Los Angeles, successfully challenging the\ncopyright to \u201cHappy Birthday to You,\u201d the world\u2019s most famous song. In recognition of\nhis historic victory, Mr. Rifkin was named a Trailblazer in Intellectual Property by the\nNational Law Journal in 2016. In 2018, Mr. Rifkin led a team of lawyers from Wolf\nHaldenstein who represented the plaintiffs in We Shall Overcome Foundation, et al. v. The\nRichmond Organization, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02725-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), which successfully\nchallenged the copyright to \u201cWe Shall Overcome,\u201d called the \u201cmost powerful song of\nthe 20th century\u201d by the Librarian of Congress.\n\nMr. Rifkin lectures frequently to business and professional organizations on a variety of\nsecurities, shareholder, intellectual property, and corporate governance matters. Mr.\nRifkin is a guest lecturer to graduate and undergraduate economics and finance\nstudents on corporate governance and financial disclosure topics. He also serves as a\nmoot court judge for the A.B.A. and New York University Law School. Mr. Rifkin\nappears frequently in print and broadcast media on diverse law-related topics in\ncorporate, securities, intellectual property, antitrust, regulatory, and enforcement\nmatters.\n\nBETSY C. MANIFOLD: admitted: Wisconsin; New York; California; U.S. District Courts\nfor the Western District of Wisconsin, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California. Education: Elmira College;\nMiddlebury College (B.A., cum laude, 1980); Marquette University (J.D., 1986); New\nYork University. Thomas More Scholar. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award in\nAgency. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Languages:\nFrench.\n\nMs. Manifold served as co-lead counsel in the following cases to recovery on behalf of\nemployees: Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe\u2019s Home Center, Inc. et al. \u2013 Case No. GIC 841120\n(Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) ($1.65 million settlement w/ average class member\nrecovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded separately) and Neil Weinstein, et al.\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 32 of 62\n\n\nv. MetLife, Inc., et al. \u2013 Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D. Cal) ($7.4 million settlement).\nMs. Manifold also served as co-lead counsel in the following derivative actions: In re\nAtmel Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. CV 06-4592-JF (N.D. Cal.) ($9.65\nmillion payment to Atmel) and In re Silicon Storage Technology Inc. Derivative Litig., Case\nNo. C 06-04310 JF (N.D. Cal.) (cash payment and re-pricing of options with a total value\nof $5.45 million). Ms. Manifold also worked as lead counsel on the following class\naction: Lewis v. American Spectrum Realty, Case No. 01 CC 00394, Cal. Sup. Ct (Orange\nCounty) ($6.5 million settlement).\n\nBENJAMIN Y. KAUFMAN: admitted: New York, United States Supreme Court, United\nStates Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts\nof New York, District of New Jersey; and District of Colorado. Education: Yeshiva\nUniversity, B.A.; Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D; New\nYork University, Stern School of Business, M.B.A. Mr. Kaufman focuses on class actions\non behalf of defrauded shareholders, investors, and consumers. Mr. Kaufman has\nextensive experience in complex class actions representing clients including\ninstitutional investors such as public and labor pension funds, labor health and welfare\nbenefit funds, as well as private individuals and funds who suffered losses due to\ncorporate fraud. Mr. Kaufman also has extensive experience litigating complex\ncommercial cases in state and federal court.\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s successful securities litigations include In re Deutsche Telekom AG\nSecurities Litigation, No. 00-9475 (S.D.N.Y.), a complex international securities litigation\nrequiring evidentiary discovery in both the United States and Europe, which settled for\n$120 million. Mr. Kaufman was also part of the team that recovered $46 million for\ninvestors in In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation, No. 01-7351 (S.D.N.Y.); and $43.1\nmillion in Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.).\n\nMr. Kaufman\u2019s outstanding representative results in derivative and transactional\nlitigations include: In re Trump Hotels Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 96-cv-7820\n(S.D.N.Y.) (in settlement Trump personally contributed some of his holdings and the\ncompany adopted corporate reforms); Southwest Airlines Derivative Litigation (Carbon\nCounty Employee Retirement System v. Kelly) (Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty., Tex.) (derivative\nmatter that resulted in significant reforms to the air carrier\u2019s corporate governance and\nsafety and maintenance practices and procedures for the benefit of the company and its\nshareholders); Lynn v. Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 3:12-cv-01137 (M.D.\nTenn.) ($2.6 million settlement); In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, No. A-17-\n758912-B (D. Nev.) ($5 million settlement and corporate therapeutics). Mr. Kaufman\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 33 of 62\n\n\nalso argued the appeal in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litig., 56 A.D.3d 49\n(1st Dep\u2019t 2008) which led to the seminal New York Appellate Division opinion\nclarifying the standards of demand futility in New York and In re Topps Company, Inc.\nShareholders Litigation which resulted in a 2007 decision vindicating the rights of\nshareholders to pursue claims in the most relevant forum notwithstanding the state of\nincorporation. Mr. Kaufman has also lectured and taught in the subjects of corporate\ngovernance as well as transactional and derivative litigation.\n\nIn addition, Mr. Kaufman has represented many corporate clients in complex\ncommercial matters, including complex copyright royalty class actions against music\ncompanies. Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. );\nShropshire v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 06-3252 (S.D.N.Y.), and The Youngbloods v.\nBMG Music, No. 07-2394 (S.D.N.Y.). In Mich II Holdings LLC v. Schron, No. 600736/10\n(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.), Mr. Kaufman represented certain prominent real estate investors\nand successfully moved to dismiss all claims against those defendants. Mr. Kaufman\nhas also represented clients in arbitrations and litigations involving oppressed minority\nshareholders in closely held corporations.\n\nCurrently, Mr. Kaufman represents clients in a wide array of matters, including\nshareholders of a large cooperative complex alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the\nboard of directors and property manager; purchasers of New York City taxi medallions\nin a class action pending in New York Supreme Court, Queens County; a New York art\ngallery in an action against several European insurers over insurance coverage for\npaintings seized while on exhibit; and shareholders of Saks, Inc. alleging that the board\nof directors and its investment advisor sold the company for inadequate consideration.\nCohen v. Saks, 169 A.D.3d 51 (1st Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\nPrior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, and prior to joining Milberg LLP in 1998, Mr.\nKaufman was a Court Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, New York\nCounty (1988-1990) and Principal Law Clerk to Justice Herman Cahn of the Commercial\nDivision of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1990-1998).\n\nMr. Kaufman is an active member of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of\nthe New York State Bar Association, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers\nand Jurists and the Jewish Lawyers Guild in which he serves as a Vice President. Mr.\nKaufman was the Dinner Chair at the Jewish Lawyers Guild Annual Dinner in 2017,\n2018, and 2019. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Board of Trustees of Congregation\n\n\n\n\n Page 30\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 34 of 62\n\n\nBeth Sholom in Lawrence, NY and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the\nHebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaways from 2015-2019.\n\nMr. Kaufman has been recognized by SuperLawyers\u00ae each year since 2012.\n\nTHOMAS H. BURT: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan. Education: American\nUniversity (B.A. 1993); New York University (J.D. 1997). Articles Editor with New York\nUniversity Review of Law and Social Change. Mr. Burt is a litigator with a practice\nconcentrated in securities class actions and complex commercial litigation. After\npracticing criminal defense with noted defense lawyer Jack T. Litman for three years, he\njoined Wolf Haldenstein, where he has worked on such notable cases as In re Initial\nPublic Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (a novel and sweeping\namalgamation of over 300 class actions which resulted in a recovery of $586 million); In\nre MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (recovery of $192 million);\nIn re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust case\nresulting in $315 million recovery); In re Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Securities\nLitigation, No. 02-cv-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.)(settled, together with a related fraud case,\nfor over $133 million); K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555\n(E.D. Mich.) (recovery included personal assets from former Reagan Administration\nbudget director David A. Stockman); and Parker Friedland v. Iridium World\nCommunications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.)(recovery of $43.1 million). Mr. Burt has spoken\non several occasions to investor and activist groups regarding the intersection of\nlitigation and corporate social responsibility. Mr. Burt writes and speaks on both\nsecurities and antitrust litigation topics. He has served as a board member and officer\nof the St. Andrew\u2019s Society of the State of New York, New York\u2019s oldest charity.\n\nRACHELE R. BYRD: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California and the Northern District of\nIllinois; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court. Education:\nPoint Loma Nazarene College (B.A., 1994); University of California, Hastings College of\nthe Law (J.D., 1997). Member: State Bar of California. Ms. Byrd is located in the firm\u2019s\nSan Diego office and practices corporate derivative and class action litigation including\nsecurities, consumer, privacy and security, antitrust, employment and general corporate\nand business litigation. Ms. Byrd has played a significant role in litigating numerous\nclass and derivative actions, including Engquist v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC591331 (Los\nAngeles Super. Ct.) (gas tax refund action that recently settled for $32.5 million and\ninjunctive relief, valued at a minimum of $24.5 million over 3 years and $81.8 million\n\n\n\n\n Page 31\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 35 of 62\n\n\nover 10 years, following certification of the class and on the eve of a hearing on the\nparties\u2019 cross-motions for summary judgment); Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th\n241 (2011) (telephone tax refund action against the City of Los Angeles that settled for\n$92.5 million after a successful appeal and a groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, Cal. Supreme Ct. No.\nS202037, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3510 (April 25, 2013) (telephone tax refund action that settled\nfor $16.6 million after a successful appeal and another groundbreaking opinion from the\nCalifornia Supreme Court); Granados v. County of Los Angeles, BC361470 (Los Angeles\nSuper. Ct.) (telephone tax refund action that settled for $16.9 million following class\ncertification and a successful appeal); In re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy\nLitigation, No. 5:20-cv-0291 (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Steering Committee; $85\nmillion settlement pending preliminary approval); In re Robinhood Outage Litigation, No.\n20-cv-01626-JD (N.D. Cal.) (member of Plaintiffs\u2019 Executive Committee); In re Apple\niPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust class action on\nbehalf of consumers against Apple over its monopolization of the iOS applications\naftermarket and that secured a favorable opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court: Apple Inc.\nv. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)); Defrees v. Kirkland, et al., 11-04272 (JLS) (C.D. Cal.)\n($12.2 million settlement reached in derivative action on the eve of trial); Bokelman et al.\nv. FCH Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-00209-RJB-RLP (D. Haw.) (settled data breach class\naction; final approval granted May 3, 2019); Christofferson v. Creation Entertainment, Inc.,\nNo. 19STCV11000 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.) (settled data breach class action; final\napproval of settlement granted on June 29, 2021); In re: Hanna Andersson and\nsalesforce.com Data Breach Litig., No. 3:20-cv-00812-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (recently settled data\nbreach class action; final approval granted on June 25, 2021); Gaston v. FabFitFun, Inc.,\nNo. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on April 2, 2021); Rossi v. Claire\u2019s Stores, No. 1:20-cv-05090\n(N.D. Ill) (recently settled data breach class action); and Riggs v. Kroto, Inc., D/B/A/\niCanvas, No. 1:20-cv-5822 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action;\npreliminary approval granted on July 8, 2021); In re: Scripps Health Data Incident\nLitigation, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00024103-CU-BT-CTL (ongoing); Thomas v.\nSan Diego Family Care, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00026758-CU-BT-CTL\n(ongoing); Marcaurel, et al. v. USA Waste Management Resources, LLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-\n06199 (S.D. N.Y.) (ongoing); Miller v. CSI Financial, LLC, San Diego Super. Ct. No. 37-\n2021-00030263-CU-BT-CT (ongoing); Fields v. The Regents of the University of California,\nAlameda Superior Court No. RG21107152 (ongoing); In re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach\nLitigation, No. 1:21-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.) (ongoing); Donovan, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,\nNo. 2:21-cv-01138 (W.D. Wa.) (ongoing); In re: CaptureRx Data Breach Litigation, No. 5:21-\n\n\n\n\n Page 32\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 36 of 62\n\n\ncv-00523-OLG (W.D. Tex.) (ongoing); Carrera Aguallo, et al. v. Kemper Corp., et al., No.\n1:21-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill.) (recently settled data breach class action where Ms. Byrd is\nInterim Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nMATTHEW M. GUINEY: admitted: New York State; United States Supreme Court;\nUnited States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits; U.S. District\nCourts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York and numerous others.\nEducation: The College of William & Mary (B.A. in Government and Economics 1998);\nGeorgetown University Law Center (J.D. 2002). Mr. Guiney\u2019s primary areas of practice\nare securities class actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of\n1934, complex commercial litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act\n(ERISA) actions on behalf of plan participants, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 actions\nconcerning overtime payment, and fiduciary duty actions under various state laws. Mr.\nGuiney has helped recover hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate\nfraud and abuse in federal and state litigation across the country. Mr. Guiney was on\nthe merits briefs at the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the\nplaintiffs/respondents in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) where the\nCourt affirmed plaintiffs\u2019 antitrust standing under Illinois Brick. Mr. Guiney also\nrepresented plaintiffs/respondents at the United States Supreme Court in China Agritech\nv. Resh, 584 U.S. __ (2018), where the Court addressed tolling in the class action context.\nMr. Guiney also initially served as counsel of record and briefed opposition to petition\nfor writ of certiorari, and argued and achieved a precedential reversal of motion to\ndismiss in a published opinion at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit in Resh v. China Agritech, No. 15-5543, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9029 (9th Cir. May\n24, 2017).\n\nSome of Mr. Guiney\u2019s notable results on behalf of investors include: Mallozzi v.\nIndustrial Enterprises of America, Inc., et al., 1:07-cv-10321-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) ($3.4 million\nsettlement on behalf of shareholders); In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation,\nNo. CV 01-3285 (JBW) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.) ($18.5 million settlement on behalf of\nshareholders); In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master Docket No. 05-429 (GMS), (D.\nDel) ($4.5 million settlement on behalf of plan participants).\n\nMALCOLM T. BROWN: admitted: United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, District of New Jersey and Eastern District of\nPennsylvania; United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Education:\nUniversity of Pennsylvania (B.A., Political Science 1988) and Rutgers University School\nof Law (J.D. 1994). Mr. Brown\u2019s primary areas of practice are securities, derivative,\n\n\n\n\n Page 33\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 37 of 62\n\n\nM&A litigation and consumer class actions. Recent notable decisions include: Johnson v.\nFord Motor Co., 309 F.R.D. 226 (S.D. W. Va. 2015); Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 43268 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2014); In re Merkin Sec. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n178084 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015). Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Mr. Brown was a\nbusiness litigation attorney who represented financial institutions, corporations and\npartnerships and advised clients on business disputes, reorganizations, dissolutions and\ninsurance coverage matters. Notable decisions include: Garment v. Zoeller, 2001 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 20736 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2001), aff\u2019d 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9966 (2d Cir. May\n24, 2002); Bainton v. Baran, 731 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1st Dep\u2019t 2001).\n\n Special Counsel\n\nJUSTICE HERMAN CAHN: admitted: New York. Education: Harvard Law School and a\nB.A. from City College of the City University of New York. Justice Herman Cahn was\nfirst elected as Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York in 1976. He\nsubsequently served as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court from 1980 until 1992,\nwhen he was elected to the Supreme Court. Throughout his decades on the bench, he\nprincipally handled civil cases, with the exception of 1981 until 1987, when he presided\nover criminal matters. Justice Cahn was instrumental in the creation of, and a founding\nJustice in, the Commercial Division within the New York State Supreme Court. He\nserved as a Justice of the Commercial Division from its inception in 1993.\n\nAmong his most notable recent cases are the consolidated cases stemming from the Bear\nStearns merger with JP Morgan (In re Bear Stearns Litigation); litigation regarding the\nAmerica\u2019s Cup Yacht Race (Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nautique de Gen\u00e8ve);\nlitigation stemming from the attempt to enjoin the construction of the new Yankee\nStadium (Save Our Parks v. City of New York); and the consolidated state cases regarding\nthe rebuilding of the World Trade Center site (World Trade Center Properties v. Alliance\nInsurance; Port Authority v. Alliance Insurance).\n\nJustice Cahn is a member of the Council on Judicial Administration of the Association\nof the Bar of the City of New York. He has also recently been appointed to the\nCharacter and Fitness Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department. He is on\nthe Register of Mediators for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\nBefore ascending the bench, Justice Cahn practiced law in Manhattan. He was first\nadmitted to the New York bar in 1956. He is admitted to practice in numerous courts,\n\n\n\n\n Page 34\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 38 of 62\n\n\nincluding the New York State courts, the Southern District of New York and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nDANIEL W. KRASNER: admitted: New York; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S.\nCourts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and\nEleventh Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\nYork, Central District of Illinois, and Northern District of Michigan. Education: Yale\nLaw School (LL.B., 1965); Yeshiva College (B.A., 1962). Mr. Krasner is of counsel at\nWolf Haldenstein. He began practicing law with Abraham L. Pomerantz, generally\ncredited as the \"Dean of the Class Action Bar.\" He founded the Class Litigation Group\nat Wolf Haldenstein in 1976.\nMr. Krasner received judicial praise for his class action acumen as early as 1978. See,\ne.g., Shapiro v. Consolidated Edison Co., [1978 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) &\n96,364 at 93,252 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (\u201cin the Court\u2019s opinion the reputation, skill and\nexpertise of . . . [Mr.] Krasner, considerably enhanced the probability of obtaining as\nlarge a cash settlement as was obtained\u201d); Steiner v. BOC Financial Corp., [1980 Transfer\nBinder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) & 97,656, at 98,491.4, (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (\u201cThis Court has\npreviously recognized the high quality of work of plaintiffs\u2019 lead counsel, Mr.\nKrasner\u201d). The New York Law Journal referred to Mr. Krasner as one of the \u201ctop rank\nplaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u201d in the securities and class action fields. In connection with a failed\n1989 management buyout of United Airlines, Mr. Krasner testified before Congress.\n\nMore recently, Mr. Krasner has been one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs in some of\nthe leading Federal multidistrict cases in the United States, including the IPO Litigation\nin the Southern District of New York, the Mutual Fund Market Timing Litigation in the\nDistrict of Maryland, and several Madoff-related litigations pending in the Southern\nDistrict of New York. Mr. Krasner has also been lead attorney in several precedent-\nsetting shareholder actions in Delaware Chancery Court and the New York Court of\nAppeals, including American International Group, Inc. v. Greenberg, 965 A.2d 763 (Del. Ch.\n2009) and the companion certified appeal, Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, Nos. 151, 152, 2010\nN.Y. LEXIS 2959 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010); Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and City of\nNew Orleans Employees' Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant\nAmerican International Group, Inc., v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 152 (New York,\nOctober 21, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch.\nLEXIS 119 (Del. Ch., May 25, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-\n\n\n\n\n Page 35\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 39 of 62\n\n\nVCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 139, (Del. Ch. July 5, 2010), appeal refused, 2010 Del. LEXIS\n324, 2010 WL 2690402 (Del. 2010).\n\nMr. Krasner has lectured at the Practicing Law Institute; Rutgers Graduate School of\nBusiness; Federal Bar Council; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Rockland\nCounty, New York State, and American Bar Associations; Federal Bar Council, and\nbefore numerous other bar, industry, and investor groups.\n\nPETER C. HARRAR: admitted; New York; United States Court of Appeals for the\nFourth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York. Education: Columbia Law School (J.D. 1984); Princeton\nUniversity, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude. Mr. Harrar is of counsel at the firm and\nhas extensive experience in complex securities and commercial litigation on behalf of\nindividual and institutional clients.\n\nHe has represented investment funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and other\ninstitutional investors in a variety of individual actions, class actions and disputes\ninvolving mortgage-backed securities and derivative instruments. Examples include In\nre EMAC Securities Litigation, a fraud case concerning private placements of securitized\nloan pools, and Steed Finance LDC v. LASER Advisors, Inc., a hybrid individual and class\naction concerning the mispricing of swaptions.\n\nOver the years, Mr. Harrar has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous\nsecurities class and derivative actions throughout the country, recovering hundreds of\nmillions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors and corporations. Recent examples\nare some of the largest recoveries achieved in resolution of derivative actions, including\nAmerican International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation) ($90 million), and Bank of\nAmerica/Merrill Derivative Litigation ($62.5 million).\n\nJEFFREY G. SMITH: admitted: New York; California; Supreme Court of the United\nStates; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,\nEighth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York, Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California\nand the Districts of Colorado and Nebraska. Education: Woodrow Wilson School of\nPublic and International Affairs, Princeton University (M.P.A., 1977); Yale Law School\n(J.D., 1978); Vassar College (A.B., cum laude generali, 1974). At Yale Law School, Mr.\nSmith was a teaching assistant for the Trial Practice course and a student supervisor in\nthe Legal Services Organization, a clinical program. Member: The Association of the\nBar of the City of New York; New York State and American (Section on Litigation) Bar\n\n\n\n\n Page 36\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 40 of 62\n\n\nAssociations; State Bar of California (Member: Litigation Section); American Association\nfor Justice. Mr. Smith has frequently lectured on corporate governance issues to\nprofessional groups of Fund trustees and investment advisors as well as to graduate\nand undergraduate business student groups, and has regularly served as a moot court\njudge for the A.B.A. and at New York University Law School. Mr. Smith has substantial\nexperience in complex civil litigation, including class and derivative actions, tender\noffer, merger, and takeover litigation. Mr. Smith is rated \u201cAV\u201d by Martindale Hubble\nand, since its inception in 2006, has been selected as among the top 5% of attorneys in\nthe New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in the Super Lawyers\nMagazine.\n\nJENNY YOUNG DU PONT: admitted: New York; Massachusetts; District of Columbia; U.S.\nSupreme Court. Education: Princeton University (A.B. cum laude); Georgetown\nUniversity Law Center/School of Foreign Service (J.D./M.S.F.S. magna cum laude); Order\nof the Coif; Georgetown Law Journal, Notes and Comments Editor.\n\nMs. du Pont has extensive experience representing domestic and international\ncompanies ranging in size from small privately-held firms to large public companies in\na variety of corporate, investment, banking, insurance, finance, and employment\nmatters. Ms. du Pont began her legal career at two AmLaw 100 firms in Washington,\nD.C. and London, U.K. and a decade later moved into in-house counsel roles, first with\nPlymouth Rock Assurance Corporation in Boston, MA, and later with Millennium\nManagement, LLC in New York. Ms. du Pont also advises and presents on issues\nrelated to family businesses, family offices, and managing wealth transfer across\ngenerations.\n\nIn addition to her legal experience, Ms. du Pont has significant experience in the non-\nprofit sector. Ms. du Pont was President and CEO of The Garden Conservancy in Cold\nSpring, New York and Executive Director of Miracle House of New York, Inc., and has\nacted a legal and strategic advisor to a variety of for profit and non-profit entities in\nNew York. For more than 20 years, Ms. du Pont also has been a director, trustee, and\nofficer for a broad range of educational, cultural, scientific, and service non-profit\nentities. Ms. du Pont served for a number of years as a Trustee of Phillips Exeter\nAcademy, in Exeter, NH, and as a member and Vice Chair of the Warrant Committee\nfor the Town of Dover in Massachusetts. She is currently a Director of the American\nFriends of the British Museum and of the American Patrons of the National Galleries\nand Library of Scotland, serves as an Advisory Council member for the Untermyer\nGardens Conservancy in Yonkers, NY and the Sing Sing Prison Museum Master\n\n\n\n\n Page 37\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 41 of 62\n\n\nNarrative Project, in Ossining, NY, and is chair of the Advisory Council for the\nConservation Law Foundation in Boston, MA.\n\nKATE MCGUIRE: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York. Education: University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A.\n1995), Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1998); Member: Georgetown Immigration\nLaw Journal.\n\nMs. McGuire has extensive experience prosecuting complex litigation. Her work\nencompasses consumer and data protection class actions, securities class and derivative\nshareholder cases and nationwide antitrust suits.\n\nShe is a member of the Firm\u2019s Consumer Protection practice group and, in that context,\nhas worked intensively to protect classes of consumers under a range of state and\nfederal laws. Recently, she served as a member of the co-lead counsel team in Simerlein\net al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., 3:17-CV-01021-VAB (D. Conn.), representing more\nthan a million owners of Sienna minivans in litigation that settled for class-wide\nbenefits valued at between $30 and $40 million. Presently, she serves on a team\nrepresenting plaintiffs in multi-district litigation against Fisher-Price and Mattel,\nrelating to Rock \u2018n Play infant sleepers which are alleged to be dangerous and\nmisleadingly marketed. She has also served as a member of the firm\u2019s lead or co-\ncounsel teams in other consumer protection cases, including litigation based upon\nallegations of misrepresentations and omissions concerning the purported safety of\nelectronic cigarettes.\n\nMs. McGuire has also represented plaintiffs with respect to the protection of their civil\nrights. For example, she represented a blind plaintiff in a suit under the Americans\nwith Disability Act against a major trading online trading company, and represented a\ngroup of minority business owners in federal civil rights litigation concerning disparate\ntreatment which settled for significant governance therapeutics.\n\nCARL MALMSTROM: admitted: Illinois; Minnesota; United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Seventh Circuit; Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern District of\nIndiana; District of Minnesota; Eastern District of Missouri; Western District of New\nYork. Education: University of Chicago (A.B., Biological Sciences, 1999; A.M., Social\nSciences, 2001); The University of Hawai\u2019i at Manoa (M.A., Anthropology, 2004); Loyola\nUniversity Chicago School of Law (J.D., 2007). Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Malmstrom\nworked for the City of Chicago Department of Law in the Municipal Prosecutions\n\n\n\n\n Page 38\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 42 of 62\n\n\nDivision; he is a member of the Chicago Bar Association. Mr. Malmstrom has\nsubstantial experience litigating complex class actions in several practice areas,\nincluding antitrust, consumer fraud, and data security. Representative cases in which\nhe has represented plaintiffs include Bokelman et al. v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., Case No.\n1:18-cv-209 (D. Haw.), involving customers of Zippy\u2019s Restaurants in Hawaii whose\npersonal data was stolen by hackers, In re: Experian Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:15-\ncv-1592 (C.D. Cal.); Freeman-Hargis v. Taxi Affiliation Services, LLC, Case No. 2016-CH-\n02519 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.), involving customers of several taxi services in Chicago who\nwere unlawfully charged fees for using credit cards in taxis.\n\n Associates\n\nBRITTANY N. DEJONG: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,\nNorthern, Central and Eastern Districts of California. Education: University of Phoenix\n(B.S. 2005); Golden Gate University, School of Law (J.D. 2008), Graduated with Highest\nHonors, Editor \u2013 Law Review, Merit Scholarship Recipient, Member: State Bar of\nCalifornia. Prior to joining Wolf Haldenstein, Ms. DeJong was an associate at a boutique\ntrial firm in San Francisco where her practice focused on multiparty litigation involving\ncatastrophic property damage. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. DeJong worked as\na Research Attorney for the Honorable Peter Busch in the Law & Motion Department at\nthe San Francisco Superior Court. Additionally, while in law school, Ms. DeJong\nexterned for the Honorable Susan Illston of the Northern District of California and the\nU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.\n\nPATRICK DONOVAN: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; United States Court of Appeals for the Second and\nFourth Circuits. Education: Iona College (B.A., Business Management, 2007); St. John's\nUniversity School of Law (J.D. 2011). Mr. Donovan\u2019s primary areas of focus are\nsecurities, derivative and M&A litigation.\n\nMARISA LIVESAY: admitted: California; United States District Courts for the Southern,\nCentral and Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit. Education: University of\nArizona (B.A., History & Spanish, 1999); University California Los Angeles Law School\n(J.D. 2002).\n\n PARAPROFESSIONALS\n\nGREGORY STONE: Education: University of Pennsylvania (B.S., Economics, 1979);\nUniversity of California, Los Angeles (MBA, 1983). Mr. Stone is the Firm\u2019s Director of\n\n\n\n\n Page 39\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 43 of 62\n\n\nCase and Financial Analysis. He assists partners and associates in identifying and\nresearching potential federal class action securities, derivative litigation and merger &\nacquisition (M&A) litigation. Mr. Stone has worked with leading securities class action\nfirms in an analytical and investigative role for over 18 year throughout the United\nStates, and has an extensive professional background in the accounting and investment\nprofessions. He plays a key role in new case development, including performing\ninvestigations into potential securities fraud class actions, derivative and other\ncorporate governance related actions. By using a broad spectrum of financial news and\nlegal industry research tools, Mr. Stone analyzes information that helps identify and\nsupport the theories behind the firm\u2019s litigation efforts.\n\n\n\n\n Page 40\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 44 of 62\n\n\n Non-Discrimination Policies\n\nWolf Haldenstein does not discriminate or tolerate harassment against any employee or\napplicant because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital\nstatus, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status and designs its hiring\npractices to ensure that minority group members and women are afforded equal\nemployment opportunities without discrimination. The Firm is in compliance with all\napplicable Federal, State, County, and City equal employment opportunity laws.\n\nWolf Haldenstein is proud of its long history of support for the rights of, and\nemployment opportunities for, women, the disadvantaged, and minority group\npersons, including the participation in civil rights and voter registration activities in the\nSouth in the early 1960s by partners of the Firm; the part-time employment of\ndisadvantaged youth through various public school programs; the varied pro bono\nactivities performed by many of the Firm\u2019s lawyers; the employment of many women\nand minority group persons in various capacities at the Firm, including at the partner\nlevel; the hiring of ex-offenders in supported job training programs; and the use of\nminority and women-owned businesses to provide services and supplies to the Firm.\n\n\n\n\n 270 MADISON AVENUE\n NEW YORK, NY 10016\n Telephone: 212-545-4600\n Telecopier: 212-545-4653\n www.whafh.com\n\n\n\n SYMPHONY TOWERS 111 West Jackson\n 750 B STREET, SUITE 1820 SUITE 1700\n SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CHICAGO, IL 60604\n Telephone: 619-239-4599 Telephone: 312-984-0000\n Telecopier: 619-234-4599 Telecopier: 312-214-3110\n\n\n\n\n Page 41\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 45 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 46 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston\n Attorneys at Law\n www.gme-law.com\n\n 501 FIFTH AVENUE 375 ABBOT ROAD\n 19TH FLOOR PARAMUS, NJ 07652\n NEW YORK, NY 10017 TEL: (201) 225-2001\n TEL: (212) 983-1300 FAX: (201) 225-9002\n FAX: (212) 983-0383\n\n\n\n\n FIRM R\u00c9SUM\u00c9\n\nI. Introduction\n\n Gainey McKenna & Egleston (the \u201cFirm\u201d) is based in New York and New Jersey and\nlitigates throughout the country in both state and federal court. Members of the Firm have been\nengaged in the practice of law for over thirty years. The Firm concentrates its practice on civil\nlitigation of all types and especially in class action litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and\nsmall businesses.\n\n The Firm has broad experience in the following areas: breach of fiduciary duty claims\nunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\u201cERISA\u201d), securities, shareholder\nderivative, consumer fraud and other types of complex commercial and tort litigation. The Firm\nalso has experience in federal and state minimum wage laws, overtime laws or other employment\nlaws regulating the payment of wages and benefits to employees.\n\n Many of the Firm\u2019s cases involve multi-district litigation. The Firm is experienced in, and\nthoroughly familiar with, all aspects of complex litigation, including the underlying substantive\nlaw, the procedures recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation and the substance and\nprocedure of class certification.\n\n The Firm\u2019s approach to each case is the same. It presents an aggressive position for its\nclients and uses all available resources necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for its\nclients. In short, the Firm works hard to produce victories for its clients and takes pride in providing\na high level of legal service. It also develops a strong working relationship with its clients and\nwill do whatever it takes within the bounds of the law to get results.\n\n The Firm was formed with the goal of combining the experience gained through practicing\nlaw at large firms with the closeness, flexibility and attention to detail that characterize many\nsmaller firms. In essence, the Firm has designed itself to be able to handle both large and small\nmatters, offering what we believe our clients want most: quality legal work with an emphasis on\ncommunication.\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 47 of 62\n\n\n\n\n We also represent plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of complex civil and commercial\nlitigations, including real estate and business disputes, breach of contract and commercial disputes,\nemployment cases (discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination), insurance coverage\ndisputes, professional malpractice (accounting, legal and medical), products liability, and personal\ninjury lawsuits.\n\n The Firm recently made law in the field of ERISA with its successful prosecution of an\nappeal to the United States Supreme Court wherein the Court struck down a \u201cpresumption of\nprudence\u201d that lower courts had been using to the protect the actions of fiduciaries of employer\nretirement plans who imprudently invested in company stock for the retirement plan. In the case,\nFifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the Firm argued with co-counsel\nthat the presumption was illegitimate and had no place in the ERISA statutory framework. The\nSupreme Court agreed.\n\n We have also been retained strictly as trial counsel in many matters. Members of the Firm\nare admitted to practice in all the courts of the State of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and\nConnecticut as well as in the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New\nYork, the United States District Court of New Jersey, United States District Court for the Eastern\nDistrict of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court of Connecticut, the United States Court\nof Appeals for the Second Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit and\nEleventh Circuit. Members of the firm have also been admitted pro hac vice in a number of other\nstate and federal jurisdictions.\n\nII. Notable Achievements\n\n Below are just some of the cases the attorneys at the Firm have successfully prosecuted by\nproducing a recovery for their clients:\n\n \u2022 Dudenhoeffer, et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-538\n (S.D. Ohio) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $6,000,000\n in cash and structural relief to the 401(k) Plan);\n\n \u2022 Borboa, et al. v. Thoedore L. Chandler, et al., Case No.: 3:13-cv-844-JAG (E.D.\n Va.) (counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Gordon et al., Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-00123-AB (C.D. Cal.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Opus Bank consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re CytRx Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation II, Civil Action No.:\n C.A. No. 11800-VCMR (Chancery Delaware) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in\n 2\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 48 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of CytRx Corp. consisting of\n corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $2.1 million for benefit of\n class);\n\n \u2022 In re Wilmington Trust Corp. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-001114-SLR\n (D. Del.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (Recovery of $3 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432\n (D.N.J.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $12.25 million for\n the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $8.2 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Salvato v. Zale Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1124 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k)\n plan);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680\n (N.D. Ill.) (Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in ERISA class action)\n (recovery of $5.75 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.)\n (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Taylor v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-8322 (AKH)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.25 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Boyd, et al. v. Coventry Health, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2661 (D. Md.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery $3.6 million for the employees\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $975,000 for benefit of class);\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.35 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n 3\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 49 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-01001 (M.D. Tenn.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Bagley, et al., v. KB Home, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1754 (C.D. Cal.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery $3 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Maxwell v. Radioshack Corp., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-499 (N.D. Tex.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $2.4 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litig., Master Docket No.: 05-cv-429 (D. Del.) (Class\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $4.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Guidant Corp. ERIS Litig., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1009 (S.D. Ind.) (recovery\n of $7 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re ING Groep, N.V. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-00400 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $3.5 million for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action) (settled for $850,000 for benefit of class).\n\nIII. The Firm Serving As \u201cLead,\u201d \u201cCo-Lead\u201d or \u201cCounsel\u201d\n\n The Firm has significant experience in prosecuting complex cases, including class actions\nunder ERISA involving breach of fiduciary duty, consumer class actions, securities fraud class\nactions, derivative cases and transactional matters. By way of example, the following are some of\nthe other cases the Firm has been involved in serving as \u201cLead or \u201cCo-Lead\u201d Counsel:\n\nDerivative Actions\n\n \u2022 Recupero v. Friedli, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00381-JKB (D. Md.) (Court\n Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. consisting of corporate governance reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Fifth Street Finance Corp., Stockholder Litig., C.A. No.: 12157-VCG (Del.\n Chancery) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n monetary and non-monetary corporate benefits conferred on corporation);\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 50 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Hamdan v. Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-03706-PGS (D. N.J.) (Lead\n Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Intercloud\n Systems, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n CV16-01569-DMG (C.D. Cal) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative\n Action);\n\n \u2022 Nahar, et al., v. Bianco, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-00756-RSL (W.D. Wash.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on\n behalf of CTI Biopharma Corp. in cooperation with other derivative actions venued\n elsewhere consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Derivative Litig., Civil Action No.: 3:14-\n cv-00372-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.) (Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of\n Company);\n\n \u2022 Loyd v. Giles, et al., Case No.: 2015CV33429 (Colo., Denver County) (settlement\n consisting of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Ampio\n Pharmaceuticals, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Vacek v. Awad, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-02820 (E.D. Pa.) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Walter Investment Management Corp. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Giesbrecht v. Lee, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-0697 (D. Nev.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative actions venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on L&L Energy, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Hapka v. Dennis Crowley, et al., 50-2005 CA (15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm\n Beach County, Florida) (de facto Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement\n achieved on behalf of Spear & Jackson, Inc. for monetary benefits conferred on\n corporation);\n\n \u2022 Nieman v. Ira B. Lampert, et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-60574 (S.D. Fl.) (de facto\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting of corporate\n governance reforms achieved on behalf of Concord Camera Corp.);\n\n \u2022 Riley v. Jorge Mas, et al., Case No.: 04-cv-27000 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for\n Dade County, Florida) (Lead Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement consisting\n of corporate governance reforms achieved on behalf of Mastec, Inc.);\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 51 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Ramseur v. Callidus Software, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-4419 (N.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of Callidus\n Software, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Emond v. Murphy, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:18-cv-09040 (C.D. Cal.) (settlement\n achieved in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere for\n corporate benefits conferred on Izea Worldwide, Inc. consisting of corporate\n reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re India Globalization Capital, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 1:18-cv-3698 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action);\n\n \u2022 In re Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. Derivative Action, Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-cv-03913 (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel) (settlement in\n principle reached in cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Kelly Nicole Desmond-Newman v. Saagar Govil, et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-\n 03992 (E.D. NY) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Cemtrex, Inc. consisting of corporate reforms in\n cooperation with other derivative action venued elsewhere);\n\n \u2022 Savage, Spencer, et al., v. Kay, Robert B., et al., Index No.: 162407/2015 (de facto\n lead counsel in Derivative Action) (settlement achieved on behalf of iBIO, Inc.\n consisting of corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 Labare v. Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980 (D. N.J.) (co-counsel)\n (settlement achieved on behalf of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. consisting of\n corporate reforms);\n\n \u2022 In re Marriott International Customer Security Data Breach Litigation \u2013 Derivative\n Track, Civil Action No.: 8:19-md-02879 (D. Md.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead\n Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re iRobot Corporation Derivative Litigation; Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-10034\n (D. Mass.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation;\n Consolidated Case No.: 2020-0011-JTL (Chancery Delaware) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Ormat Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:18-cv-\n 00439 (D. Nev.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 52 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 00479 (W.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Thiese v. Giles. et al., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-02558-RBJ (D. Co.) (Court\n Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Rev Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-0009 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re LendingClub Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 3:18-cv-04391(N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Zillow Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-\n cv-1568 (W.D. Wash) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel; motion to dismiss\n denied);\n\n \u2022 Bonessi v. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 4:19-\n cv-00567-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to\n dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Kates v. Metlife, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-01266-LPS-\n JLH (D. Del.) (co-counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Behrman, et al. v. Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.:\n 1:19-CV-00772-RGA (D. Del.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion\n to dismiss fully briefed);\n\n \u2022 Wajda v. Lipocine, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), C.A. No.: 2019-0122-JTL (Del.\n Chancery) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action; motion to dismiss fully\n briefed);\n\n \u2022 In Re stamps.com Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 2:19-cv-04272 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Taronis technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 2:19-cv-04547 (D. Ariz.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Cloudera, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-\n 01422 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re CVS Health Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 17-378 (D.\n RI) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 53 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Colony Capital Stockholder-Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-\n 03176 (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Klein v. Arora, et al., Civil Action No.: 19-cv-01348 (N.D. Il.) (Court Appointed\n Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 Mina Pastagia, et al., v. Charles J. Philippin, et al., Case No.: 2018-CH-07432\n (Chancery Illinois, Cook County) (Interim Lead Counsel in Derivative Action\n involving Ulta Beauty, Inc.);\n\n \u2022 Ruth v. CanaVest Corp. (Nominal Defendant), Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-00481 (D.\n Nev.) (de facto lead counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.:\n 3:19-cv-18874-FLW-LHG (Court Appointed Executive Committee in the\n Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Beyond Meat, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-2524 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Lee v. TrueCar, Inc. (Nominal Defendant), Case No 2019-0988 (Chancery\n Delaware) (Court Appointed Interim Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Crown Castle International Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-\n cv-00606 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Acer Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 19-cv-01505\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Curo Group Holdings, Corp., Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-\n 00851 (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Zoom Video Communications Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action\n No.: 1:20-cv-00797-LPS (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In Re Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:20-\n cv-01962 (E.D. Pa.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Exela Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.:\n 3:20-CV-1800 (N.D. Tex) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 54 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.\n 2020-019815-CA-01 (11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in Derivative Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Tyson Foods Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-00730\n (E.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Quantumscape Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No: 21- 00989\n (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel;\n\n \u2022 In re Velodyne Lidar, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 21-cv-00369 (D.\n Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Peabody Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01747\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Plug Power Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-02753\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Co-Diagnostics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-00654 (D.\n UT) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Stryde Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01731 (D. Del.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Tricida Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-00205\n (D. Del.) (Court Appointed Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Cytodyn Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-cv-05422\n MLP (W.D. Wash.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel); and\n\n \u2022 In Re AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 3:21-\n cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel).\n\nSecurities Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re VimpelCom Ltd. Securities Litig., Civil Action: No.: 1:15-cv-08672 (ALC)\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Fogel v. Vega, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-02282-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action against Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB de\n CV, Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.);\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 55 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Floridia et al v. Dolan, et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03011 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Netsol Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Singh v. Tri-Tech Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-09031 (Co-Lead Counsel\n in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Jason v. Junfeng Chen, et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-1041 (S.D.N.Y) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class action);\n\n \u2022 Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01647\n PSG (FMOx) (C.D. Cal.) (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Araj v. JML Portfolio Mgmt. Ltd., et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00903 (M.D. Fla.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Hanson et al, v. Frazer, LLP., et al., Civil Action No.: 12-cv-3166 (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Labit v. Glenn Zagoren, et al., Civil Action No.: 03-cv-2298; (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel in securities fraud Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Karp v. SI Financial Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No: 19-cv-199 (D. Conn.)\n (Lead Counsel in securities fraud Class Action).\n\nERISA Class Actions\n\n \u2022 In re Comcast Corp. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-00773-HB (E.D. Pa.)\n (recovery of $5 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Simeon v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1592\n (N.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.5 million\n for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Herrera v. Wyeth, et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-04688 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.) (recovery\n of $2 million for the employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Douglas J. Coppess v. Healthways, Inc., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-00109 (M.D.\n Tenn.) (Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $1.25 million for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 56 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re Int\u2019l Game Tech. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-00584 (D. Nev.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA class action) (recovery of $500,000 for the employees\u2019\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Jennifer Jones v. NovaStar Fin., Inc., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-490 (NKL) (W.D.\n Mo.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $925,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1447 (C.D.\n Cal.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action) (recovery of $300,000 for the\n employees\u2019 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Fulmer v. Scott Klein, et al., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-2354-N (N.D. Tex.) (Lead\n Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pilgrims Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-\n 000472-TJW-CE (E.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re UBS ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-6696 (S.D.N.Y) (Co-Lead Counsel\n in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Rinehart v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-5598\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Usenko v. Sunedison Semiconductor, LLC., et al., Civil Action No.: 17-cv-2227\n (E.D. Mo.) (de facto Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Harris and Ramos v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-5442 (C.D. Cal.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Russell v. Harman Int\u2019l Industries Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-02212 (D.\n of Columbia) (de facto Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 Mellot v. Choicepoint, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 05-cv-1340 (N.D. Ga.) (Co-\n Lead Counsel in ERISA Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litig., MASTER FILE NO. 6:12-CV-06051-DGL\n (W.D.N.Y.) (Co-Counsel in ERISA Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 Sheedy v. Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation., et al., Civil\n Action No.: 6:16-cv-01893-GAP (M.D. Fl.) (Interim Lead Counsel in ERISA\n Action).\n\nAnti-Trust Class Actions\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 57 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In re: Package Seafood Products Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n (JLS) (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action);\n\n \u2022 In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328\n (Member of the committee in anti-trust action) (settlement obtained from several\n defendants); and\n\n \u2022 In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.\n 2542 (co-counsel in on-going anti-trust action).\n\nFLSA Actions\n\n \u2022 Affen v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03820-CCC-JBC\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Roberts v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Civil Action No.: 14-cv-00746-BJD-MCR\n (M.D. Fla.);\n\n \u2022 Sifferman v. Sterling Financial Corp., Civil Action No.: 13-cv-00183 (W.D.\n Wash.); and\n\n \u2022 Winfield, et al., v. Citibank, N.A., Case No.: 10-cv-7304 (S.D.N.Y).\n\nConsumer Actions\n\n \u2022 In re USAA Data Security Litigation, Civil Action No.: 7:21-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y.)\n (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03208\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Placko v. Michigan State University, Court of Claims No. 20-000120-MK (Mi.\n State Court of Claims) (Court Appointed Co- Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Kincheloe v. University of Chicago et al, Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03015 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel);\n\n \u2022 Jairo Jara, et al., v. DeVry Education Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:16-\n cv-10168 (N.D. Ill.);\n\n \u2022 Dumont v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-2677-ER-LMS\n (S.D.N.Y.) (Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd\n LLP were plaintiffs\u2019 co-lead counsel in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the\n United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 58 of 62\n\n\n\n\n thousands of homeowners in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The\n lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Litton Loan Servicing (\u201cLitton\u201d) and\n Ocwen Loan Servicing (\u201cOcwen\u201d) engaged in a deceptive scheme to delay or deny\n permanent mortgage loan modifications through the federal Home Affordable\n Modification Program (\u201cHAMP\u201d) to desperate homeowners, systematically\n breaching their contractual obligations to homeowners, committing deceptive trade\n practices, and causing significant financial harm);\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Bank of America, et al., Civil\n Action No.: 07-cv-1363 (PGS) (D.N.J.) (Class Counsel in nationwide class action\n on behalf of United States Military Service members overcharged on their\n mortgages in violation of the Service members\u2019 Civil Relief Act; recovery of\n $5.962 million for more than 17,000 service members); and\n\n \u2022 Stamm v. My Pillow, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation, a/k/a My Pillow Direct, LLC,\n Index No.: 651472/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).\n\nIV. Attorneys\n\nBarry J. Gainey received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston University and received his\nJ.D. in 1984 from Washington and Lee University School of Law where he was a Law Review\nNotes and Comments Editor and authored two published articles. Mr. Gainey was a partner at\nWilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker in New York City, and the founding partner of\nRenzulli, Gainey & Rutherford (which later became Gainey & McKenna and now Gainey\nMcKenna & Egleston), with offices in New York City and New Jersey. Mr. Gainey has worked\non many high profile actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Schroeder, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, et al., Civil Action\n No.: 07-cv-1363 (D.N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in nationwide class action on behalf\n of United States Military Service members with Countrywide mortgages);\n\n \u2022 Klyachman v. Vitamin Shoppe, et al., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-1528 (D.N.J.) (Appointed\n Class Counsel in nationwide consumer fraud case);\n\n \u2022 Kleck v. Bluegreen Corp., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-81047 (S.D. Fl.) (Appointed Class\n Counsel with Florida firm in nationwide class action);\n\n \u2022 Resnik v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No.: L-1230-06 (N.J.) (Appointed Co-Class\n Counsel in class action);\n\n \u2022 Alamo v. Bluegreen Corp. et al., Case No.: L-6716-05 (N.J.) (Appointed Class Counsel in\n consumer fraud case); and\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 59 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Blumer, et al. v. Acu-Gen Biolabs, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-10359 (D. Mass)\n (Appointed Class Counsel in consumer fraud case).\n\nMr. Gainey is admitted to practice in the Federal and State Courts of New York and New Jersey.\nHe is also a past or current member of the American Association for Justice, New Jersey\nAssociation for Justice, New York State Bar Association, American Bar Association, New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, New Jersey State Bar Association, and Bergen County Bar\nAssociation.\n\nThomas J. McKenna received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1981 from Boston College (magna cum\nlaude) and received his J.D. in 1984 from Syracuse University College of Law (cum laude) where\nhe was a Law Review Editor and a Member of the Justinian Honorary Law Society. Following\nlaw school, Mr. McKenna clerked in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\nLouisiana for the Honorable Veronica D. Wicker from 1984 through 1986.\n\nBefore starting his own law practice, Mr. McKenna was associated with Cahill, Gordon & Reindel\n(\u201cCahill\u201d) in New York City, practicing class actions and securities law, insurance coverage\nlitigation and general commercial litigation. After his association with Cahill, he was an attorney\nat Grutman Greene & Humphrey in New York City where he concentrated on class actions and\ntrial practice in complex commercial and tort litigation. In 1996, Mr. McKenna started his own\nlaw firm and then formed Gainey & McKenna in 1998 where he focused his practice on trials,\nclass actions and commercial disputes. Mr. McKenna has worked on many important actions such\nas:\n\n \u2022 Allapattah Services, Inc., et al., v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No.: 91-cv-0983 (S.D. Fla.)\n (Nationwide class action for class of Exxon service station operators against Exxon for\n allegedly overcharging them for gasoline, eventually settled for over $1 billion);\n\n \u2022 In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 09-cv-01552-ADC (D. P.R.) (Co-Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case under ERISA);\n\n \u2022 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1432 (D.N.J.)\n (Co-Lead Counsel) (claim on behalf of employees and ex-employees against 401(k)\n fiduciaries for breaches of duty in connection with Vytorin);\n\n \u2022 In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Master File No.: 08-cv-6680 (N.D.\n Ill.) (Class Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty case involving harm to retirement plan in\n connection with alleged risky real estate investments); and\n\n \u2022 Morrison v. MoneyGram Int\u2019l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 08-cv-1121 (D. Minn.) (Lead\n Counsel) (breach of fiduciary duty claims involving alleged improper investment\n practices).\n\nMr. McKenna is a member of the Bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice before\nthe United States Supreme Court and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n 14\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 60 of 62\n\n\n\n\nDistricts of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth\nand Eleventh Circuits. He has also been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other courts. Mr.\nMcKenna is also a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York\nState Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Association for Justice (formerly the American\nTrial Lawyers Association) and past member of the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\nGregory M. Egleston received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1992 from Fordham University (magna\ncum laude), his master\u2019s degree in 1994 from Columbia University, and received his J.D. in 1997\nfrom New York Law School. Before joining the Firm, Mr. Egleston had his own law firm and\nprior to that, Mr. Egleston was an attorney specializing in securities class action litigation,\nshareholder derivative actions, and consumer fraud litigation at a prominent Manhattan plaintiffs\u2019\nclass action firm. Mr. Egleston has worked on many high-profile class actions such as:\n\n \u2022 Shane v. Kenneth E. Edge, et al., Civil Action No.: 10-cv-50089 (N.D. Il.) (recovery of\n $3.35 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 Mayer v. Administrative Committee of Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. Retirement Plans,\n Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02984 (N.D. Ill.) (recovery of $7.75 million for the company\u2019s\n 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re YRC Worldwide Inc. ERISA Litig., Civil Action No.: 09-cv-02593 JWL/JPO (D. Kan.)\n (recovery of $6.5 million for the company\u2019s 401(k) plan);\n\n \u2022 In re Beazer Homes U.S.A., Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 07-cv-725-CC (N.D. Ga.)\n ($30.5 million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Willbros Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1778 (S.D. Tex.) ($10.5\n million settlement in a Securities Class Action);\n\n \u2022 In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-374 (JAP) (D.N.J.)\n (U.S. settlement with a minimum cash value of $138.3 million with a potential value of\n more than $180 million, in addition to a related European settlement of $350 million);\n\n \u2022 In re Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 04-cv-8144 (CM)\n (S.D.N.Y.) ($400 Million settlement in a Securities Class Action); and\n\n \u2022 In re Lumenis Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 02-cv-1989 (S.D.N.Y.) ($20.1 million\n settlement in a Securities Class Action).\n\nMr. Egleston was also involved in a high-profile landlord/tenant action entitled Roberts v. Tishman\nSpeyer, L.P., et al., N.Y. Sup. Ct., Index No. 07600475. The core legal issue was whether\nlandlords could permissibly deregulate and charge market rents for certain so-called \u201cluxury\u201d\napartment units in these complexes in years in which the landlords were simultaneously receiving\ntax abatements from New York City known as \u201cJ-51\u201d benefits. The Court of Appeals ruled that\nthe New York statutory scheme prevents landlords of rent stabilized buildings from charging\n 15\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 61 of 62\n\n\n\n\nmarket rents while receiving J-51 benefits for as long as they continue to receive those tax benefits.\nThe action recently settled for $68.8 million.\n\nMr. Egleston is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and Connecticut. He is also\nadmitted to practice before the Bars of the federal district courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Connecticut.\n\nRobert J. Schupler received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1979 from Drexel University (Philadelphia,\nPA), and received his J.D. in 1982 from Southwestern University School of Law (Los Angeles,\nCA).\n\nMr. Schupler began his legal career at a boutique law firm in Los Angeles where he focused on\ncivil litigation and transactional matters. He returned \u201chome\u201d to the Philadelphia area in the 90\u2019s\nand shortly thereafter began focusing on class action litigation and complex tort and commercial\ndisputes, assisting in litigation matters which included Sunbeam and WorldCom.\n\nMr. Schupler has the unique experience of working for both plaintiff and defense litigation firms.\nWhile working at an internationally recognized defense law firm, Mr. Schupler concentrated on\nhealthcare related products liability litigation matters. In one of these matters, Mr. Schupler was\nresponsible for the administration of a multi-billion dollar settlement involving tens of thousands\nof plaintiff claimants.\n\nIn 2015, Mr. Schupler began working with Gainey McKenna & Egleston. He has assisted GME\nin prosecuting numerous class action and shareholder derivative actions, including:\n\n \u2022 In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.: 15-MD-2670\n JLS (MDD) (S. D. Cal.);\n\n \u2022 George Dumont, et al. vs. Litton Loan Servicing LP, et al., Civil Action No.: 7:12-cv-\n 02677-ER-LMS (S.D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 Gordon Niedermayer, et al. v. Steven A. Kriegsman, et al., Civil Action No.: 11800-VCMR\n (Chancery Delaware);\n\n \u2022 Arthur P. Cardi, et al. v. FXCM Inc., et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-4699-PAC-HBP (S.\n D.N.Y.);\n\n \u2022 In Re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04625-PJH (N.D.\n Cal.);\n\n \u2022 Douglas Labare v. Charles Dunleavy, et al., Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-01980-FLW-LHG\n (D. N.J.);\n\n \u2022 Waseem Hamdan vs. Mark Munro, et al., Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-03706 (D. N.J);\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 34-1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 62 of 62\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 In Re VimpelCom, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-08672-ALC\n (S.D.N.Y); and\n\n \u2022 Shuli Chiu, et al., v. Michelle Dipp, et al., Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-11382 (D. Mass.).\n\nMr. Schupler is a member of the Bar of the State of Pennsylvania and is also admitted to practice\nbefore the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nDavid A. Silva received his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1982 from New York University and received his\nJ.D. in 1985 from Brooklyn Law School where he was a member of the Moot Court National\nTeam. Between the years of 1985 and 1988, Mr. Silva worked as an Assistant Corporation Counsel\nin the Law Department of the City of New York. While at the Law Department, Mr. Silva\nrepresented various city agencies in Article 78 proceedings as well as defended the\nconstitutionality of various aspects of the New York City Public Health Law, as well as the\nBuilding Code and Zoning Resolution. In addition, he was lead counsel on Federal civil rights\nactions defending the City and its employees.\n\nIn 1988, Mr. Silva left the City and joined Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass as an associate\nand worked there for 25 years becoming a partner in 1995 and a senior partner in 2002.\n\nMr. Silva has served as counsel to both insurers and reinsurers in dozens of reinsurance arbitrations\nand court proceedings across the United States. He has also acted as lead counsel in arbitrations in\nboth Bermuda and England, involving some of the highest profile issues in the industry. Mr. Silva\nregularly advises clients on a wide range of issues including workers\u2019 compensation carve out and\nspiral business; life, personal accident and medical reinsurance issues; long term care reinsurance;\nactuarial disputes; coverage of declaratory judgment expenses; rescission claims; claims for pre-\nanswer security; letter of credit disputes; commutation valuations; allocation of losses; contract\ndrafting; records inspection rights, and audits. He also has substantial experience in other\nreinsurance-related matters, including issues involving domestic and off-shore captive reinsurers,\nsurplus relief treaties, and many matters relating to life, accident, health, and long-term care\ninsurance. He also has substantial involvement in all aspects of property and casualty insurance\nlitigation including first- and third-party coverage and claims defense, business interruption,\nproducts liability defense, and disputes between primary and excess carriers.\n\nMr. Silva has been recognized in the Chambers USA Directory, Best Lawyers in America, and\nSuper Lawyers as a leading individual in the field of insurance and reinsurance. Mr. Silva has also\nserved as a lecturer and panelist for various reinsurance programs, including the Reinsurance\nAssociation of America, ARIAS U.S., as well as Harris Martin and HB Litigation Conferences.\n\nMr. Silva is admitted to practice in the federal and state courts of New York and is a past member\nof the New York State Bar Association as well as the New York County Lawyers Association.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:53:31.107459-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462236","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.393060-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.472398-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-23.002","pacer_sequence_number":161,"description":"MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. Responses due by 6/6/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563193/","id":199563193,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292039/","id":205292039,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/33/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.385787-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.459075-07:00","sha1":"b69ba263b6b009a024e8289fdfa883757f0e8202","page_count":3,"file_size":100946,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.\n Nevada Bar No. 4746\n 2 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n 432 Ridge Street\n 3 Reno, NV 89501\n (775) 324-1500\n 4 matt@mattsharplaw.com\n 5 [Additional Co-counsel on signature page]\n 6\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n 7\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 8\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n 9\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-VCF\n10 Of MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GORUP, INC.),\n11\n Plaintiff, NOTICE OF RELATED CASES\n12 PURSUANT TO LR 42-1(a)\n v.\n13\n14 FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n15 SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO,\n and SIMEON SLAZMAN,\n16\n Defendants,\n17\n -and-\n18\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n20 Nominal Defendant.\n21\n22 Pursuant to Local rule 42-1(a), Plaintiff hereby provides notice of the following related case:\n\n23 Roy Strassman, Derivatively On Behalf Of Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a/ Marathon Patent\n\n24 Group, Inc. vs. Fred Theil, Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Said\n\n25 Ouissal, Merrick D. Okamoto, And Simeon Salzman, Case No. 2:21-cv-00724-ART-EJY.\n\n26 Both actions concern the same alleged general conduct and misconduct of the Board of the\n\n27 Company in permitting the officers of Marathon to allegedly breach their fiduciary duties. The\n\n28 instant Derivative Action concerns allegations against, or derivatively on behalf of, Defendant/\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (\u201cMarathon\u201d) and directors and/or officers of\n 2 Marathon. The complaints in both actions contain allegations stemming from the same events:\n 3 Marathon\u2019s announcement in October 2020 that it had entered into a venture with Beowulf Energy\n 4 LLC to operate a Bitcoin mining data center in Hardin, Montana. On November 15, 2021, Marathon\n 5 disclosed its receipt of a subpoena from the SEC related to its venture with Beowulf. Plaintiff in the\n 6 instant action filed her complaint on February 18, 2022, and the complaint in the Strassman\n 7 Derivative Action, both of which are based on allegations in a related Securities Class Action (Tad\n 8 Schlatre v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc., Merrick D.\n 9 Okamoto, Frederick G. Thiel, and Simeon Salzman, Case No. 2:21-cv-2209-RFB-NJK), followed on\n10 May 15, 2022. As a result, both actions involve similar questions of fact and law, and assignment to\n11 the same judgment would be desirable.\n12 DATED this 23rd day of May 2022.\n13 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.\n14\n /s/ Matthew L. Sharp\n15 Matthew L. Sharp\n Nevada Bar No. 4746\n16 432 Ridge Street\n Reno, NV 89501\n17 Phone: (775) 324-1500\n18 Email: matt@mattsharplaw.com\n\n19 Gregory M. Egleston\n PHV Application to be filed\n20 GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON\n 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor\n21 New York, New York 10017\n Phone: (212) 983-1300\n22 Fax: (212) 983-0383\n Email: gegleston@gme-aw.com\n23\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of MATTHEW L. SHARP,\n 3 LTD., and that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using\n 4 the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:\n 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq.: JJP@pisanellibice.com\n 6 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.: DLS@pisanelliice.com\n 7 DATED this 23rd day of May 2022.\n 8\n 9 /s/ Cristin B. Sharp\n An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:53:03.087488-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509462229","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Related Cases","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.378861-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.393928-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":159,"description":"NOTICE OF RELATED CASES 2:22-cv-724 by Plaintiff Kimberly Bernard. (Sharp, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563192/","id":199563192,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292038/","id":205292038,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/29/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.335722-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.236668-07:00","sha1":"221112b6af5eb0cb01d0fd76188eba36a0e3e104","page_count":27,"file_size":8288926,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.29.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891/gov.uscourts.nvd.154891.29.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 27\n\n\n\n\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n2\n 3 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00305\n Behalf of MARATHON DIGITAL\n4 HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a MARATHON\n PATENT GROUP, INC.), VERIFIED PETITION FOR\n 5 PERMISSION TO PRACTICE IN\n Plaintiff, THIS CASE ONLY BY\n6 ATTORNEY NOT ADMITTED TO\n v. THE BAR OF THIS COURT AND\n7 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL\n FRED THEIL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN COUNSEL\n8 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, FILING FEE IS $250.00\n9 and SIMEON SALZMAN,\n10 Defendants,\n11 and\n12 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.\n13 (f/k/a MARATHON P\ufffdTENT GROUP, INC.),\n\n14 Nominal Defendant.\n\n15\n16 ep_h_e\ufffdn A\n ___S_t-' _ n_ ___, Petitioner, respectfully represents to the Court:\n _ _adi\n _ _. R\n (name of petitioner)\n17\n 1. That Petitioner is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of\n18\n Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP\n19 (firm name)\n20 with offices at --------------,------,,...,.-\n 767 Fifth Avenue\n (street address)\n ----,------------\n21 10153\n New York New York\n22 (city) (state) (zip code)\n\n23 212-310-8770 stephen.radin@weil.com\n (area code+ telephone number) (Email address)\n24\n 2. That Petitioner has been retained personally or as a member of the law firm by\n25\n all Defendants and Nominal Defendant to provide legal representation in connection with\n26 [client(s)]\n\n27 the above-entitled case now pending before this Court.\n\n28 Rev. 5/16\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 27\n\n\n\n\n jjp@pisanellibice.com\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 27\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 27\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 27\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 27\n\n\n\n\n 1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\n Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\n 2 PISANELLI BICE PLLC\n 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\n 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n Telephone: 702.214.2100\n 4 Facsimile: 702.214.2101\n Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com\n 5 Email: dls@pisanellibice.com\n\n 6 Jonathan D. Polkes (pro hac vice pending)\n Stephen A. Radin (pro hac vice pending)\n 7 Caroline Hickey Zalka (pro hac vice pending)\n WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n 8 767 Fifth Avenue\n New York, New York 10153\n 9 Telephone: 212.310.8000\n Facsimile: 212.310.8007\n10 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n Email: stephen.radin@weil.com\n11 Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n\n12 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\n Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\n13 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\n Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\n14 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\n15\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n17\n KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf\n18 of MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n (f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n19\n Plaintiff, CERTIFICATION OF STEPHEN A.\n20 RADIN\n v.\n21\n FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\n22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\n SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and\n23 SIMEON SALZMAN,\n\n24 Defendants,\n\n25 -and-\n\n26 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\n MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n27\n Nominal Defendant.\n28\n 1\n\f Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 29 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 27\n\n\n\n\n 1 I. I am an attorney with the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767\n\n 2 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10153.\n\n 3 2. I make this certification pursuant to LR IA 1 l-2(b )(3).\n\n 4 3. I am a member in good standing of the bars set forth on Exhibit A attached\n\n 5 hereto.\n\n 6 4. Attached as Exhibit B is my current Certificate of Good Standing to the\n\n 7 Supreme Court for the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department. This is the only\n\n 8 state court where I am admitted. All of my other admissions are to federal courts.\n\n 9 5. I am in good standing in every court where I have been admitted to practice.\n\n 10 Current Certificates of Good Standing are attached to Exhibit B.\n\n 11 6. There are no disciplinary proceedings pending against me as a member of\n 0\n ,,,_\n 0 12 the bar in any jurisdiction where I am admitted to practice.\n Ul 0\n f--\nu.l 50,\nuenoo 13\n- f-\u00b7<\nco 0\n_t;j ~\n....l 0:: Ul\n....l~;z\n 14\nu.l :c \u2022\n;z f- \n 15 ~l!R~\n en<\n o....l\n \n\noC Oo NN DNDN AH\n\nCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 28\n\nThat Petitioner respectfully prays that Petitioner be admitted to practice before this Court\n\nFOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE ONLY. AO\n\netitioner\u2019s signature \u2014\nSTATE OF New York )\n)\nCOUNTY OF New York )\n\nJonathan D. Polkes __, Petitioner, being frst duly sworn, deposes and says:\nThat the foregoing statements are true. 6 \\\n\n7 ' * Petitioner\u2019s signattre\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this\nLL day of Mh NAHOAA _.\n\nMARY PAUL\nNotary Public, State of New York\nNo. XX-XXXXXXX\nQualified in Kings County\nCommission Expires June 22, o2 Ol\n\nNotary Public or Clerk of Court\n\nDESIGNATION OF RESIDENT ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO\nTHE BAR OF THIS COURT AND CONSENT THERETO.\n\nPursuant to the requirements of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, the Petitioner\nbelieves it to be in the best interests of the client(s) to designate James Pisanelli\n\n(name of local counsel)\nAttorney at Law, member of the State of Nevada and previously admitted to practice before the\n\nabove-entitled Court as associate resident counsel in this action. The address and email address of\n\nsaid designated Nevada counsel is:\n\nPisanelli Bice, PLLC 400 South 7th St., Suite 300\n(street address)\n\nLas Vegas ; Nevada ; 89101\n(city) (state) (zip code)\n702-214-2100 ; jip@pisanellibice.com\n(area code + telephone number) (Email address)\n\n4 Rev. 5/16\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 28\n\n1 By this designation the petitioner and undersigned party(ies) agree that this designation constitutes\n2 || agreement and authorization for the designated resident admitted counsel to sign stipulations\n3] binding on all of us.\n4\n5 APPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL\n6\n7 The undersigned party(ies) appoint(s) James Pisanelli as\n(name of local counsel)\n8 || his/her/their Designated Resident Nevada Counsel in this case.\n9 a eer ae\n10 Gl gat gut\n(party's signature) 2\n11 =\nJim Crawford, COO, Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n12 (type or print party name, title)\n13\n(party's signature)\n14\n15\n(type or print party name, title)\n16\n17 CONSENT OF DESIGNEE\nThe undersigned hereby consents to serve as associate resident Nevada counsel in this case.\n18\n\u2019 i]\n20 le Counsel\u2019 signature\n21 4027 jjp@pisanellibice.com\nBar number Email address\n22\n23\nAPPROVED:\n24\nDated: this day of 20.\n25\n26\nITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\noe\n28 5 Rev. 5/16\n\n\foOo ON BD oO FSF WH NY Ff\n\nNN NY NY NY NY NN NY BB BB ee eB Se eo\nOo NU A GT Bk ON FF OG Oo wN au Bk DY +S OC\n\npase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 28\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\nCounsel in this case.\n\ni \u201c/ (signature)\nFred Thiel, CKO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSaid Quissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, titic)\n\n(signature)\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 28\n\n\u2014\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\nCounsel in this case,\n\n(signature)\n\nATANOT\n\n\\OmOO a IE ONO). we ON\n\nSF Fe Se Se\neB ODO NH KK OC\n\n\u2014\noO\n\nee if \"4 J a2 : i ry eo\nrrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chi\nFe peor Beary Bae ley aa\n\n,\n\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n27 (type or print party name, title)\n\n\fCage 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 28\n\noC ON DD Oo F&F WO YY\n\nNY NY NM NH DP NY NY NY YN RB Re RP Re Be ee Re el Lh\nCoN DBD oO FPF WO NYO FP ODO OO ON A Oo f&\u00ae W NPN KF CO\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\n\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\nCounsel in this case.\n\n(signature)\n\nFred Thiel, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSaid Quissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, Title)\n\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n\n(signature)\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\fj\nCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 28\n1 APPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COLINSEL, {Comtinued)\nae The undersigned parties apponil: Lames: Pisanelli-as their Designated Resident Nevada\n3.|| Counsel in this case\n(sajracire\n5 Ered Thict, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(yp opm party name, tithe)\nby:\n(signature }\nB Georges Antoun, Di Marat\n(type of print pany name, title)\nq.\nne (agate)\nHW Kevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n43 (type ot print party mame, tte)\n\n\fCas\u00a2\n\nco CoO NN ODO OF WY NY eR\n\nN N PO NY Be Be Be Be Be Be ee\n\nb 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 28\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\nCounsel in this case.\n\n(signature)\nFred Thiel, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\u201c, ~~ #4 (signature)\n\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSaid Ouissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\fGe ee. Can. ee ae gee\n\nNN NY NY N NY N NN BP HB KR BB BR BR RB eR eB\nOO NP ON Oo Ee 6G US OU (NO. UCONN CS OF Ee) 6 6GUwN Oe eS\n\nCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 28\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\nCounsel in this case.\n\n(signature)\nFred Thiel, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nSaid Ouissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\foo Oa NN AD OFF FF WHO YP\n\nNY NO NY NY NY NY NY YN YN RR RB RP RP Re RP Se Re\nCoN DBD OF F W NY FP OD ODO WN DB UH FP WO NY KF CO\n\nGase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 28\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\nCounsel in this case.\n\n(signature)\nFred Thiel, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSaid Quissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\nPilenuk OLn+t\u2014\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n\fo ON HD OFF FF WO NY\n\nNO NO NO NY NY NY NY NY YN FF FR KF FR KF FB SF RS\nCoN DBD UO FP WD NY FP ODO BO WON BD UU F&\u00ae WD NY KF CO\n\nCounsel in this case.\n\nfrase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 28\n\nAPPOINTMENT OF DESIGNATED RESIDENT NEVADA COUNSEL (Continued)\n\nThe undersigned parties appoint James Pisanelli as their Designated Resident Nevada\n\n(signature)\nFred Thiel, CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nGeorges Antoun, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nKevin DeNuccio, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSarita James, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nJay Leupp, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\nSaid Ouissal, Director, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\nMerrick D. Okamoto, former CEO & Chairman, Marathon\n\n(type or print party name, title)\n\nSimeon Salzman, CAO, Marathon\n(type or print party name, title)\n\n(signature)\n\n\fPISANELLI BICE\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\nLas VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\no ON BD OF fF WO NY\n\nN NO NO NO NO NM NY NN NO KH KH KF RP FR FR FF FF KF\nON BO oO FP BD PhP lLlUODUlUCUCCOUlUCUMDOUCUNCLCUCUCONN UOLULCUCUMWLDRCOCU CLG GUL CUO\n\nase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22\n\nJames J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027\nDebra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695\nPISANELLI BICE PLLC\n\n400 South 7th Street, Suite 300\nLas Vegas, Nevada 89101\nTelephone: 702.214.2100\nFacsimile: 702.214.2101\n\nEmail: jjp@pisanellibice.com\nEmail: dls@pisanellibice.com\n\nJonathan D. Polkes (pro hac vice pending)\nStephen A. Radin (pro hac vice pending)\nCaroline Hickey Zalka (pro hac vice pending)\nWEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP\n\n767 Fifth Avenue\n\nNew York, New York 10153\n\nTelephone: 212.310.8000\n\nFacsimile: 212.310.8007\n\nEmail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com\n\nEmail: stephen.radin@weil.com\n\nEmail: caroline.zalka@weil.com\n\nAttorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,\nKevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,\nMerrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon\nSalzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant\nMarathon Digital Holdings, Inc.\n\nPage 14 of 28\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nDISTRICT OF NEVADA\nKIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf\nof MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK\n(f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\nPlaintiff, CERTIFICATION OF JONATHAN\nD. POLKES\n\nVv.\n\nFRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN\nDENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP,\nSAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and\nSIMEON SALZMAN,\n\nDefendants,\n-and-\n\nMARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a\nMARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),\n\nNominal! Defendant.\n\n\fPISANELLI BICE\n400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300\n\nLAs VEGAS, NEVADA 89101\n\no ON DBD Oo FF WO NY\n\nN NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NO KF KS KF KF FF FSF FR SF |\nCON GTO Oo PF DO NY KF CO OHO WON A Oo FSF WO NN KF OC\n\nfase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 28\n\nL, I am an attorney with the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767\nFifth Avenue, New York, New York 10153.\n\nDs I make this certification pursuant to LR IA 11-2(b)(3).\n\n3. I am a member in good standing of the bars set forth on Exhibit A attached\nhereto.\n\n4. Attached as Exhibit B is my current Certificate of Good Standing to the\nSupreme Court for the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department. This is the only\nstate court where I am admitted. All of my other admissions are to federal courts.\n\n5. I am in good standing in every court where I have been admitted to practice.\nCurrent Certificates of Good Standing are attached to Exhibit B.\n\n6. There are no disciplinary proceedings pending against me as a member of\n\nthe bar in any jurisdiction where I am admitted to practice.\n\nan D. Polkes\n\nfA \u2018\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this Qo 7 day of Ape {2,20 o _\u2014\n\nice.\nNotary Public or Clerk of Court\n\nEthna Clarke Serkanic\n\nCommission Expires March 22,\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 28\n\nExhibit A\n\nBar Admissions\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 28\n\nExhibit A\n\nCourt Date Admitted Bar Number\nNew York State Supreme 09/30/1985 2015527\nCourt, Appellate Division,\nFirst Department\nU.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. | 04/11/1989 JP4265\nU.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. | 08/28/1990 JP4265\nU.S. District Court, D. Col. 01/09/2008 No such number assigned\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the | 03/17/2010 (renewed on No such number assigned\nSecond Circuit 03/10/2022)\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the | 03/25/2010 No such number assigned\nFourth Circuit\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the | 09/29/2010 No such number assigned\nTenth Circuit\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the | 11/29/2011 No such number assigned\nFifth Circuit\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the | 04/10/2019 No such number assigned\n\nNinth Circuit\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 18 of 28\n\nExhibit B\n\nCertificates of\nGood Standing\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 19 of 28\n\nof the State of New York\nFirst Judicial Department\n\nJ, Susanna M. Rojas, Clerk of the Appellate Division of the\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial\nDepartment, do hereby certify that\n\nJonathan D. Polkes\n\nwas duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and\nCounselor at Law in all the courts of this State on September 30,\n1985, has duly taken and subscribed the oath of office prescribed\nby law, has been enrolled in the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors\nat Law on file in this office, is duly registered with the\nAdministration Office of the Courts, and according to the records\nof this Court is currently in good standing as an Attorney and\nCounselor-at-Law.\n\nIn Witness Whereof, JI have hereunto set\nmy hand in the City of New York on\nApril 19, 2022.\n\nClerk of the Court\n\nCertID-00062703\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 20 of 28\n\nThai Supreme Court of the State of s2ew Dork\n(| Appellate Division, First Bepartment\n\nROLANDO T. ACOSTA\nPRESIDING JUSTICE\nSUSANNA MOLINA ROJAS MARGARET SOWAH\n\nCLERK OF THE COURT DEPUTY CLERK OF THE COURT\n\nTo Whom It May Concern\n\nAn attorney admitted to practice by this Court may request a certificate of good\nstanding, which is the only official document this Court issues certifying to an\nattorney's admission and good standing.\n\nAn attorney's registration status, date of admission and disciplinary history may\nbe viewed through the attorney search feature on the website of the Unified Court\n\nSystem.\n\nNew York State does not register attorneys as active or inactive.\n\nAn attorney may request a disciplinary history letter from the Attorney\nGrievance Committee of the First Judicial Department.\n\nBar examination history is available from the New York State Board of Law\nExaminers.\n\nInstructions, forms and links are available on this Court's website.\n\nSusanna Rojas\nClerk of the Court\n\nRevised October 2020\n\n27 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10010-2201\nTEL.: (212) 340 0400 INTERNET: WWW.NYCOURTS.GOV/COURTS/AD1/\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 21 of 28\n\nGnited States District Court\n\nSouthern District of New Pork\n\nCertificate of Good Standing\n\nI, Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, Certify that\n\nJONATHAN D. POLKES Bar # JP4265\n\n7\n\nwas duly admitted to practice in the Court on\n\nAPRIL 11, 1989\n\nand is in good standing as a member of the Bar of this Court\n\nDated at\n500 Pearl St. on\n\nNew York, New York April 19, 2022\n\nRuby J. Krajick By s/ A. Eames\n\nClerk of Court Deputy Clerk\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 22 of 28\n\nAO 136 (Rev. 10/13) Certificate of Good Standing\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nfor the\nEastern District of New York\n\nCERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING\n\nL Brenna B. Mahoney . Clerk of this Court,\ncertify that Jonathan D. Polkes Bar # JP4265\nwas duly admitted to practice in this Court on 08/28/1990 , and is in good standing as a member\nof the Bar of this Court.\nDated at Brooklyn on 04/19/2022\n(Location) (Date)\nBrenna B. Mahoney David Afrani\n\nCLERK OF COURT Deputy Clerk\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 23 of 28\n\nCertificate of Good Standing\n\nand\nLetter of No Disciplinary History\n\nUnited States District Court\nDistrict of Colorado\n\nI, Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk of the United States District Court\nDO HEREBY CERTIFY\n\nJONATHAN D. POLKES\n\nwas admitted to practice in this court on\nJANUARY 9, 2008\nand is in good standing with no disciplinary history in this court.\n\nDated: April 19, 2022 Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk\n\nBy:\ntaal Clerk\n\n(a\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 24 of 28\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\nCERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING\n\nI, CATHERINE O\u2019HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of the United States Court\nof Appeals for the Second Circuit,\n\nCERTIFY that Jonathan D. Polkes, as duly admitted to practice in said\nCourt on March 17, 2010 and is in good standing.\n\nCATHERINE O\u2019HAGAN WOLFE\nClerk of Court\n\nDated: April 19, 2022 f - Py or\nNew York, New York By: ) poh U Caden .\n/ Yoseph M. Rodriguez\n\nDeputy Clerk\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 25 of 28\n\nCERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING\n\nI, Patricia S. Connor, Clerk of this Court, certify that Jonathan D. Polkes was duly admitted\nto practice in this Court on March 25, 2010 , and is in good standing in this Court.\nDated at Richmond, Virginia, on April 19, 2022\n\nPatricia S. Connor\nCLERK\n\n\ffor the Tenth Circuit\n\nI, Christopher M. Wolpert, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,\nDO HEREBY CERTIFY that Jonathan Polkes was\nduly admitted to practice before this Court on September 29, 2010,\nand is in good standing. There have been no disciplinary actions instituted in this court.\n\nDated at Denver, Colorado, on April 19, 2022.\n\nCHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT\nClerk of Court\n\nDeputy Clerk\n\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 27 of 28\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\nCERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING\n\nI, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk of this Court, certify that Jonathan D.\nPolkes was duly admitted to practice in this Court on November 29, 2011,\n\nand is in good standing in this Court.\n\nDated at NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA on April 20, 2022\n\nLYLE W. CAYCE Sabrina B. Short\nClerk Deputy Clerk\n\nA True Copy\nCertified Apr 20, 2022\n\nClerk, Sle Court . teh Fifth Circuit\n\fCase 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 27 Filed 04/29/22 Page 28 of 28\n\nOffice of the Clerk\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\nPost Office Box 193939\nSan Francisco, California 94119-3939\n415-355-8000\n\nMolly C. Dwyer\nClerk of Court\n\nCertificate of Good Standing\n\nI, Molly Dwyer, Clerk of this Court, certify that Jonathan D. Polkes was\nduly admitted to practice in this Court on April 10, 2019 and is in good standing in\n\nthis Court.\n\nDated at San Francisco, California on April 20, 2022.\n\nClerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2023-09-17T20:52:22.241994-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"11509428691","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Corrected Image/Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.299970-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.175543-07:00","date_filed":"2022-04-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-04-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":117,"description":"NOTICE of Corrected Image/Document re 21 Notice of Corrected Image/Document, for attorney Jonathan D. Polkes, by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. (Service of corrected image is attached.) (Pisanelli, James) (Entered: 04/29/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/199563189/","id":199563189,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/63219959/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/205292035/","id":205292035,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/63219959/25/bernard-v-theil/","date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.274511-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.130643-07:00","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":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Minute Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-07-03T20:16:23.266766-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-23T03:49:04.116847-07:00","date_filed":"2022-04-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-04-15.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 4/15/2022. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a ruling on Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice and Designation of Local Counsel 22 is DEFERRED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Stephen A. Radin shall provide a current Certificate of Good Standing from EACH state/court in which Petitioner has been admitted to practice law, in accordance with the instructions set forth on Page 2, Nos. 3&4, of the Verified Petition. Petitioner shall have 14 days from the entry of this order to file the corrected Verified Petition using the \"Notice of Corrected Image/Document\" event. Failure to timely remedy this deficiency will result in the denial of the Verified Petition, and Petitioner will be required to refile and to repay the filing fee. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLM) (Entered: 04/15/2022)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=63219959&page_size=40"}