{"cached_at":"2026-10-07T10:41:05.422879+00:00","cl_docket_id":"73548007","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","id":73548007,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/flsd/","court_id":"flsd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8660/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T12:36:43.340027-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T18:32:25.876601-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Roy K. Altman","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-06-29","date_terminated":"2026-08-04","date_last_filing":"2026-09-22","case_name_short":"Reynolds","case_name":"Reynolds v. Citadel Securities LLC","case_name_full":"","slug":"reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc","docket_number":"1:26-cv-24485","docket_number_core":"2624485","docket_number_raw":"1:26-cv-24485","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"RKA","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"717696","cause":"15:0078 Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","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":"2026-06-29T12:36:43.328189-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20109688/","id":20109688,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852559/","attorney_id":13852559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852559/","attorney_id":13852559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911469/","attorney_id":13911469,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911469/","attorney_id":13911469,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911470/","attorney_id":13911470,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911470/","attorney_id":13911470,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911471/","attorney_id":13911471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911471/","attorney_id":13911471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911472/","attorney_id":13911472,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911472/","attorney_id":13911472,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911473/","attorney_id":13911473,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911473/","attorney_id":13911473,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.532910-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.532921-07:00","name":"Virtu Americas LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20109687/","id":20109687,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852559/","attorney_id":13852559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852559/","attorney_id":13852559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911466/","attorney_id":13911466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911466/","attorney_id":13911466,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911467/","attorney_id":13911467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911467/","attorney_id":13911467,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911468/","attorney_id":13911468,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13911468/","attorney_id":13911468,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.509879-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.509890-07:00","name":"Citadel Securities LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20109686/","id":20109686,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16002214/","attorney_id":16002214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16002214/","attorney_id":16002214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852557/","attorney_id":13852557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852557/","attorney_id":13852557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852558/","attorney_id":13852558,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13852558/","attorney_id":13852558,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13783591/","attorney_id":13783591,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","docket_id":73548007,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.380194-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T17:35:57.380208-07:00","name":"Aron Reynolds","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478943753/","id":478943753,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494580809/","id":494580809,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/46/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-22T10:08:06.955213-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-30T22:58:28.171040-07:00","sha1":"d15f7ada745e6d709e7d6f8f53975c6585b94496","page_count":3,"file_size":179220,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.46.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2026 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of\n all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n vs. Case No. 1:26-CV-24485-RKA\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Supplemental Information (\u201cNotice\u201d) does not concern this case or\n\n have any relevance to the pending Motion to Transfer. There is nothing inconsistent in the decision\n\n of Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel Securities\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) to seek to\n\n transfer this case to the first-filed forum and simultaneously seek to withdraw the reference in a\n\n separate case that does not belong in bankruptcy court. Both positions reflect a single, consistent\n\n objective: to have these federal securities claims adjudicated by the appropriate Article III district\n\n court.\n\n The Notice refers to an adversary proceeding improperly filed in the Bankruptcy Court for\n\n the District of Nevada on August 7, 2026 by the Trustee of a Nevada company in Chapter 7\n\n bankruptcy and a non-debtor individual\u2014both represented by the same counsel as Plaintiff\n\n Reynolds. That complaint asserts non-bankruptcy securities claims on behalf of a putative class\n\n that traded the Nevada debtor\u2019s shares. Defendants are Citadel Securities, Virtu, and two other\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2026 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n defendants. On September 15, 2026, the defendants moved to withdraw the reference pursuant to\n\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d), seeking to remove the adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court and\n\n adjudicate it in the district court, because a putative securities class action plainly does not belong\n\n in the bankruptcy court. See Rannd Res. v. Von Harten (In re Rannd Res.), 175 B.R. 393, 396 (D.\n\n Nev. 1994) (granting motion to withdraw because \u201cthe Court finds that consideration of these\n\n issues will likely require substantial and material consideration of the federal securities laws\u201d\n\n including \u201c\u00a7 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, \u00a7 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\n\n and Rule 10b-5\u201d); Meghji v. Compound Labs, Inc. (In re Celsius Network LLC), 670 B.R. 379,\n\n 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (\u201c[T]he Court finds that the bankruptcy reference for Plaintiff\u2019s federal\n\n securities claim [under Rule 10b-5] should be withdrawn under Section 157(d).\u201d). Unlike here,\n\n where the transfer motion is premised on the first-to-file rule (as well as forum non conveniens)\n\n given the previously filed case in the Southern District of New York, there was no first-filed action\n\n in the Nevada proceedings. Nor is there any basis for Plaintiff\u2019s assertion that the bankruptcy court\n\n is \u201cfar more familiar with the underlying dispute.\u201d Notice at 1.1 Defendants\u2019 motion to withdraw\n\n the reference was the first substantive motion filed in the adversary proceeding (at the same time\n\n defendants appeared) and there have been no substantive rulings. The Nevada withdrawal motion\n\n therefore has no bearing on whether this action should be transferred to the Southern District of\n\n New York.\n\n\n\n Dated: September 22, 2026\n\n\n 1\n The Notice is also based on the faulty premise that \u201cDefendants rest their motion largely on Judge\n Caproni\u2019s supposed familiarity with the Genius litigation.\u201d Notice at 1. In fact, Defendants\u2019\n transfer motion is based on a straight-forward application of the first-to-file rule based on \u201c(1) the\n chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues,\u201d\n as well as Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s blatant forum shopping. See Transfer Mot., Dkt. 9.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2026 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n MARCUS RASHBAUM PINIERO & MEYERS LLP\n\n /s/ Daniel Rashbaum\n Daniel Rashbaum\n One Biscayne Tower\n 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2530\n Miami, FL 33131\n Tel: (305) 400-4260\n drashbaum@mrpfirm.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC and\n Virtu Americas LLC\n\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n\n Jonathan K. Youngwood*\n Meredith Karp*\n Jacob Lundqvist*\n 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Tel: (212) 455-2000\n jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n meredith.karp@stblaw.com\n jacob.lundqvist@stblaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n GARRISON LLP\n\n Audra J. Soloway*\n Alison R. Benedon*\n Daniel S. Sinnreich*\n Daniel Negless*\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: (212) 373-3000\n asoloway@paulweiss.com\n abenedon@paulweiss.com\n dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n dnegless@paulweiss.com\n\n Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n * Appearing Pro Hac Vice\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-22T18:32:25.625913-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030379673","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response/Reply (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-22T10:08:06.909478-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T10:08:06.919305-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-22","time_filed":"12:45:00","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":159,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478117111/","id":478117111,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493734790/","id":493734790,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/45/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-15T15:10:09.483164-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T23:33:56.074749-07:00","sha1":"833ba1e209d89a1e929d9b9dd97cec1e90f2332a","page_count":3,"file_size":145527,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.45.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.45.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2026 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on Case No. 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION\n\n Plaintiff Aron Reynolds submits this notice concerning the Motion to Transfer (ECF No.\n\n 9) filed by Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cDefendants\u201d). Defendants rest their\n\n motion largely on Judge Caproni\u2019s supposed familiarity with the Genius litigation. A single,\n\n procedural, non-merits decision, on a lead-plaintiff application brought by a different movant, not\n\n Reynolds.\n\n Defendants have since taken the opposite position in Lovato v. Citadel Securities LLC (In\n\n re Meta Materials Inc.), Adv. Proc. No. 26-05036-gs (Bankr. D. Nev.). There, represented by the\n\n same counsel as here, Citadel and Virtu have moved to withdraw an adversary proceeding from a\n\n bankruptcy court far more familiar with the underlying dispute. Since March 2025, the Meta\n\n Materials Trustee has pursued Rule 2004 subpoenas against Citadel and Virtu over alleged\n\n manipulation of Meta Materials securities. Defendants fought that discovery through several\n\n rounds of briefing and two hearings. On February 20, 2026, the bankruptcy court ordered them to\n\n produce the materials; it found the Trustee was entitled to investigate potentially viable claims\n\n against Defendants. Defs.\u2019 Mot. to Withdraw Reference at 5\u20136, 17, Lovato, ECF No. 23 (Ex. A).\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2026 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Yet Defendants just asked the Nevada district court to take that action away from the\n\n bankruptcy court. In their briefing, their motion gives no weight to the bankruptcy court\u2019s year of\n\n supervising the investigation\u2014the discovery disputes, the hearings, and the substantive Rule 2004\n\n ruling\u2014as a reason to keep the resulting litigation there. Instead, they dismiss forum-shopping\n\n concerns on the ground that they moved to withdraw before the substantive ruling against them.\n\n Id. at 17.\n\n Defendants\u2019 double standard demonstrates the only forum shopping here is being done by\n\n Defendants, not Plaintiff. Where a court has ruled in their favor, minimal judicial engagement\n\n becomes a reason to keep all litigation there. But where a court has ruled against them, the court\u2019s\n\n year-plus familiarity matters not.\n\n While Defendants claim this action should be transferred to New York to prevent forum\n\n shopping \u2013 it\u2019s apparent that denial of the motion is what\u2019s necessary to prevent forum shopping.\n\n\n\n DATED: September 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n Devin Velvel Freedman\n FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP\n Devin (Velvel) Freedman\n 1815 Purdy Avenue\n Miami, FL 33139\n Telephone: (786) 924-2900\n vel@fnf.law\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n Abe Alexander (pro hac vice)\n Vincent J. Pontrello (pro hac vice)\n 485 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Telephone: (646) 722-8500\n Facsimile: (610) 722-8501\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n vpontrello@gelaw.com\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2026 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Aron Reynolds and\n Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T19:21:15.373370-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030351766","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493755472/","id":493755472,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/45/1/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-15T19:21:02.410716-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T23:50:53.058039-07:00","sha1":"c69524cb1bbc6e38a3b18366fd85d2b912825d80","page_count":26,"file_size":853961,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.45.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.45.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 45-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2026 Page 1 of 26\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 1 of 25Page 2 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 Ryan J. Works (NSBN 9224)\n Jimmy F. Dahu (NSBN 17061)\n 2 MCDONALD CARANO LLP\n 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200\n 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102\n Tel: (702) 873-4100\n rworks@mcdonaldcarano.com\n 4 jdahu@mcdonaldcarano.com\n 5 Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n 6 Michael R. Hogue (NSBN 12400)\n GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP\n 7 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89135\n 8 Tel: (702) 938-6909\n hoguem@gtlaw.com\n 9 Attorneys for Anson Funds Management LP and Anson Advisors, Inc.\n 10 Jarrod L. Rickard (NSBN 10203)\n SEMENZA RICKARD LAW\n 11 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89145\n 12 Tel: (702) 835-6803\n jlr@semenzarickard.com\n 13\n Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n 14\n UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 16 In re Case No.: 24-50792-gs\n 17\n META MATERIALS INC., Chapter 7\n 18\n Debtor.\n 19\n CHRISTINA W. LOVATO, in her capacity as Adv. Case No.: 26-05036-gs\n 20 Chapter 7 Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of\n 21 Meta Materials Inc., META MATERIALS DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO WITHDRAW\n INC.; AND DOUG COLLINS, individually REFERENCE OF ADVERSARY\n 22 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n 157(d) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 5011\n 23 Plaintiff,\n vs.\n 24 RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM A UNITED\n 25 CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, VIRTU STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n AMERICAS LLC, ANSON FUNDS\n 26 MANAGEMENT LP, and ANSON\n ADVISORS, INC.,\n 27\n Defendants.\n 28\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 2 of 25Page 3 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Citadel Securities LLC, Virtu Americas LLC,\n 2 Anson Funds Management LP, and Anson Advisors, Inc. (\u201cDefendants\u201d), by and through their\n 3\n counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5011(a), and Local Rule 5011 hereby\n 4\n move to withdraw the district court\u2019s reference of the above captioned Adversary Proceeding. This\n 5\n motion is based on the following memorandum of points and authorities, all court records in this\n 6\n\n 7 matter for which judicial notice is respectfully requested under Fed. R. Evid. 201, and any argument\n\n 8 and evidence that may be presented at the hearing for this motion.\n\n 9\n\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 3 of 25Page 4 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2 Page\n 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...................................................................................................... 1\n 4\n BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 3\n 5\n A. Meta Materials Dilutes Its Own Shares and Defrauds Its Own\n 6 Investors .................................................................................................................. 3\n\n 7 B. Trustee and Non-Debtor Plaintiff ........................................................................... 4\n 8 C. Rule 2004 Discovery ............................................................................................... 5\n 9 D. The Complaint......................................................................................................... 6\n 10 1. Putative Federal Securities Class Action .................................................... 6\n 11 2. Causes of Action Under Federal Securities Law ........................................ 7\n 3. Demand of Jury Trial .................................................................................. 8\n 12\n ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 8\n 13\n I. MANDATORY WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE IS\n 14 WARRANTED .................................................................................................................... 8\n 15 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Market Manipulation Allegations Require Consideration\n 16 of Complex and Significant Federal Securities Law Issues .................................... 9\n\n 17 B. This Putative Class Action Requires the Court to Analyze Complex\n PSLRA Lead-Plaintiff Issues from the Outset ...................................................... 12\n 18\n II. PERMISSIVE WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE IS ALSO\n 19 APPROPRIATE ................................................................................................................. 13\n 20 A. The Efficient Use of Judicial Resources Strongly Favors\n Withdrawal ............................................................................................................ 14\n 21\n 1. The Complaint\u2019s Exchange Act Claims Are Non-Core ............................ 14\n 22\n 2. The Bankruptcy Court Likely Lacks Jurisdiction Over Class Claims ...... 15\n 23\n B. Putative Class Action Status and Demand of Jury Trial Favor\n 24 Withdrawal ............................................................................................................ 16\n\n 25 C. No Factor Weighs Against Withdrawal ................................................................ 17\n\n 26 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 18\n 27\n\n 28\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 4 of 25Page 5 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2 Page(s)\n Cases\n 3\n ATSI Commc\u2019ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.,\n 4\n 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................... 11\n 5\n Dunmore v. United States,\n 6 358 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004).................................................................................................... 14\n\n 7 Genius Grp. Ltd. v. Citadel Sec. LLC,\n 2026 WL 1760342 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2026).................................................................. 2, 12, 13\n 8\n Gens v. Colonial Sav., F.A.,\n 9 2012 WL 993713 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012) ............................................................................. 16\n 10\n Haigler v. Dozier (In re Dozier Fin., Inc.),\n 11 2018 WL 4599860 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2018) ................................................................................. 14\n\n 12 In re PG&E Corp.,\n 2024 WL 4230403 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024)............................................................... 13\n 13\n Lara v. Casimiro (In re Casimiro),\n 14 2006 WL 1581897 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2006)........................................................................ 16, 17\n 15\n Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills),\n 16 44 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................... 14\n\n 17 Malone v. Norwest Fin. Cal., Inc.,\n 245 B.R. 389 (E.D. Cal. 2000) ................................................................................................... 17\n 18\n Meghji v. Compound Labs, Inc. (In re Celsius Network LLC),\n 19 670 B.R. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ............................................................................................ passim\n 20 Mishkin v. Ageloff,\n 21 220 B.R. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ................................................................................................... 11\n\n 22 Morschauser v. Cont\u2019l Cap. LLC (In re Devore Stop)\n 2024 WL 654914 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024)................................................................................ 15\n 23\n Ohio Sec. Ins. v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc. (In re Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc.),\n 24 2023 WL 4761634 (D. Nev. July 25, 2023)............................................................................... 15\n 25 Orion Pictures Corp. v. Showtime Networks, Inc. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.),\n 4 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................... 14\n 26\n\n 27 Porter v. NationsCredit Consumer Disc. Co. (In re Porter),\n 295 B.R. 529 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003)................................................................................... 15, 16\n 28\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 5 of 25Page 6 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 Quantum BioPharma Ltd. v. CIBC World Mkts, Inc.,\n 2026 WL 861678 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026) ............................................................................. 10\n 2\n Rannd Res., Inc. v. Von Harten (In re Rannd Res., Inc.),\n 3\n 175 B.R. 393 (D. Nev. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 9\n 4\n SEC v. ARVCO Cap. Rsch., LLC,\n 5 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167899 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2012) ........................................................... 9\n\n 6 Sec. Farms v. Int\u2019l Bhd. of Teamsters,\n 124 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997)............................................................................................ 9, 13, 14\n 7\n Shurkin v. Golden State Vintners Inc.,\n 8 |471 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...................................................................................... 10\n 9\n Taxel v. Elec. Sports Rsch. (In re Cinematronics, Inc.),\n 10 916 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir. 1990).................................................................................................... 17\n\n 11 Vestavia Hills, Ltd. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (In re Vestavia Hills, Ltd.),\n 630 B.R. 816 (S.D. Cal. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 9\n 12\n Walleye Opp. Master Fund Ltd. v. Silver Lake Grp., LLC (In re Silver Lake Grp.,\n 13 LLC Sec. Litig.),\n 14 108 F.4th 1178 (9th Cir. 2024) .................................................................................................. 10\n\n 15 Statutes\n\n 16 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4............................................................................................................... 1, 2, 7, 12\n\n 17 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(b)(2)(A) ............................................................................................................... 14\n\n 18 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(b)(2)(O) ............................................................................................................... 14\n 19 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d) .................................................................................................................. passim\n 20 Other Authorities\n 21\n Bankr. D. Nev. L.R. 7012 ................................................................................................................ 8\n 22\n Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b) ................................................................................................................ 8\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 6 of 25Page 7 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n 2 This Adversary Proceeding does not belong in the Bankruptcy Court. It is a putative federal\n 3\n securities class action brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d)\n 4\n alleging market manipulation by Defendants in violation of Sections 9(a)(2), 9(e), 10(b), and 20A\n 5\n of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d). The Complaint asserts no\n 6\n\n 7 Bankruptcy Code claims. Nor are the allegations related to any conduct in bankruptcy. Resolving\n\n 8 this non-core proceeding will require consideration of complex federal securities law issues, which\n\n 9 Congress intended for Article III courts, not bankruptcy courts, to decide. Because the Trustee (on\n 10\n behalf of the Debtor\u2019s estate) and the non-debtor Plaintiff Doug Collins inappropriately filed this\n 11\n putative securities class action in the Bankruptcy Court, Defendants now move to withdraw the\n 12\n reference.\n 13\n Mandatory withdrawal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d) for several reasons. The\n 14\n\n 15 Complaint\u2019s core allegations are that two Defendants engaged in \u201cspoofing\u201d\u2014placing and rapidly\n\n 16 cancelling orders\u2014that artificially depressed the stock price of Debtor Meta Materials, Inc. (\u201cMeta\n 17 Materials\u201d or the \u201cDebtor\u201d) while its stock was listed and that two Defendants purportedly engaged\n 18\n in allegedly improper short-selling around Meta Materials\u2019 securities offering. Applying federal\n 19\n securities law to such allegations presents significant securities law issues, including the heightened\n 20\n pleading standard, the purported manipulative acts, alleged scienter, loss causation, reliance, and\n 21\n\n 22 inquiry notice relating to the statute of limitations. Only a limited number of courts have ever dealt\n\n 23 head-on with private securities litigation predicated on similar allegations, and all such cases have\n\n 24 been litigated in Article III district courts, not bankruptcy courts.\n 25 The PSLRA\u2019s lead-plaintiff process, which raises significant legal issues better addressed\n 26\n in Article III district courts, further underscores why this action should not proceed in the\n 27\n Bankruptcy Court. The Court must determine whether the proposed lead plaintiff\u2019s claims are\n 28\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 7 of 25Page 8 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 typical of the class, whether the lead plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the\n 2 class, and whether its selection of class counsel should be approved. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4. That\n 3\n process will also involve significant federal procedural questions, including whether the Trustee\n 4\n (acting for the Debtor) and non-debtor Plaintiff Collins may serve as lead plaintiffs and whether\n 5\n their shared special counsel may serve as lead counsel. It is highly unusual for an issuer like the\n 6\n\n 7 Debtor here to seek appointment as lead plaintiff for its own shareholders\u2014all the more so where\n\n 8 the Debtor and its insiders have themselves been charged with market manipulation surrounding\n\n 9 the Debtor\u2019s stock. Indeed, one federal district court recently recognized the unique posture of a\n 10\n similar request and denied the issuer\u2019s motion as well as appointment of its proposed lead counsel\u2014\n 11\n the same three firms representing the Trustee and Collins here. See Genius Grp. Ltd. v. Citadel\n 12\n Sec. LLC, 2026 WL 1760342, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2026).\n 13\n The firms\u2019 dual representation of the Trustee and Collins, a non-debtor plaintiff, raises\n 14\n\n 15 additional concerns: the firms and Trustee obtained confidential trading data from Defendants\n\n 16 through Rule 2004 discovery\u2014data that is \u201cpreclud[ed] [from] dissemination . . . beyond the trustee\n 17 and her professionals for use in this bankruptcy,\u201d ECF No. 2821 at 5\u2014and each represented that it\n 18\n had \u201cno connections with [Meta Materials\u2019] shareholders or other parties-in-interest.\u201d See ECF\n 19\n Nos. 98-100, 2933-35. Nevertheless, the firms now represent Collins, who is not entitled to the\n 20\n Rule 2004 discovery. Material consideration of the PSLRA and these threshold appointment issues\n 21\n\n 22 will drive this litigation from its outset. Mandatory withdrawal is warranted.\n\n 23 Permissive withdrawal is independently warranted. A district court may withdraw the\n\n 24 reference \u201cfor cause shown.\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d). First, withdrawal promotes judicial efficiency\n 25 because the Complaint asserts only federal securities law claims, which are plainly non-core issues\n 26\n that do not depend on the Bankruptcy Code and could have been brought in district court. Any\n 27\n determination by the Bankruptcy Court in this case would thus be subject to unnecessarily\n 28\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 8 of 25Page 9 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 duplicative de novo review by this Court. Second, the Bankruptcy Court likely lacks subject-matter\n 2 jurisdiction over the claims of Collins and absent class members. Leaving this Adversary\n 3\n Proceeding in bankruptcy court would thus risk parallel proceedings, with the Trustee\u2019s individual\n 4\n action continuing in the Bankruptcy Court (and any ruling subject to de novo review by the Court)\n 5\n and a separate class action filed elsewhere. Third, both the class nature of the proceeding and the\n 6\n\n 7 Complaint\u2019s demand for a jury trial further support permissive withdrawal. No factor weighs\n\n 8 against permissive withdrawal.\n\n 9 The Court should withdraw the reference.\n 10\n BACKGROUND1\n 11\n A. Meta Materials Dilutes Its Own Shares and Defrauds Its Own Investors\n 12\n Meta Materials was a Canada-headquartered corporation that went public through a reverse\n 13\n merger and was listed on NASDAQ on June 28, 2021. During the Class Period, the Debtor\n 14\n\n 15 conducted a series of transactions that progressively diluted the value of existing shares. Those\n\n 16 transactions included registered direct offerings paired with an equal number of warrants, Compl.\n 17 \u00b6\u00b6 32, 36; ongoing sales of newly issued shares through an at-the-market program, id. \u00b6 33; and a\n 18\n \u201cconfidentially marketed public offering\u201d of stock and warrants containing an anti-dilution\n 19\n provision that automatically reduced the warrants\u2019 exercise price to match any subsequent lower-\n 20\n priced issuance of the same class of securities, id. \u00b6 34.\n 21\n\n 22 The Debtor publicly attributed the decline in its stock price to manipulation by third parties.\n\n 23 In June 2023, the Debtor announced it had retained Christian Attar (formerly known as Christian\n\n 24 Smith & Jewell LLP), one of the firms now representing the Trustee and Non-Debtor Plaintiff in\n 25 this action, to investigate \u201cinstances of illegal trading, particularly by naked short sellers.\u201d Ex. 1\n 26\n\n 27 1\n All references to ECF Nos. in this Memorandum refer to the Meta Materials\u2019 bankruptcy\n 28 proceeding, Case No. 24-50792-gs, and all references to \u201cCompl.\u201d below refer to ECF No. 1.\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1 Entered\n Entered09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 9 of 25\n Page 10 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 (June 27, 2023 Press Release) at 2. In May 2024, the Debtor announced that its legal team had\n 2 \u201cconcluded that [Meta Materials] has meritorious claims for market manipulation against several\n 3\n parties.\u201d Ex. 2 (May 20, 2024 Press Release) at 1.\n 4\n In June 2024, however, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) charged the\n 5\n Debtor and two of its former CEOs with conducting a \u201csophisticated, yet brazen\u201d manipulative\n 6\n\n 7 scheme of Debtor\u2019s stock in June 2021. Ex. 3 (June 25, 2024 SEC Press Release) at 2. According\n\n 8 to the SEC, the Debtor engaged \u201cin a scheme to inflate the price of its stock and defraud investors\n\n 9 through numerous material misstatements and omissions about the potential value of a stock\n 10\n dividend to be issued as part of the [reverse] merger,\u201d cashing in $137.5 million. Ex. 4 (SEC Cease-\n 11\n and-Desist Order) at 2. In early 2024, Meta Materials also settled a federal securities class action\n 12\n brought by its own investors alleging the Company made material misrepresentations in connection\n 13\n with the same reverse merger. See In re Meta Materials Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-cv-07203\n 14\n\n 15 (E.D.N.Y. final judgment and order of dismissal entered, and case terminated, on May 22, 2024).\n\n 16 Later that year, on August 9, 2024, Meta Materials filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the\n 17 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada and ceased operations. ECF No. 1. On\n 18\n August 21, 2024, Meta Materials was delisted from NASDAQ. Ex. 5 (August 14, 2024 Form 8-K)\n 19\n at 2.\n 20\n B. Trustee and Non-Debtor Plaintiff\n 21\n\n 22 Christina Lovato was appointed Trustee on August 15, 2024 following Meta Materials\u2019\n\n 23 bankruptcy filing. ECF No. 14. In October 2024, the Trustee retained Christian Attar and Kasowitz\n\n 24 Benson Torres LLP as \u201cspecial counsel\u201d specifically to pursue litigation for alleged stock\n 25 manipulation through practices such as \u201cnaked short selling\u201d and \u201cspoofing.\u201d ECF No. 98-1 at 2.\n 26\n The Trustee included Grant & Eisenhofer as additional \u201cspecial counsel\u201d (and sought the court\u2019s\n 27\n approval for the same) for the first time on the same day the instant action was filed. ECF No.\n 28\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 10 of 25\n Page 11 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 2933. In their declarations in support of the Trustee\u2019s ex parte application to employ the law firms\n 2 on a contingency basis, all three firms represented that they had \u201cno connections with\u201d the Trustee,\n 3\n \u201cthe Estate\u2019s creditors, shareholders or other parties-in-interest.\u201d ECF Nos. 98-100, 2933-35.\n 4\n Plaintiff Doug Collins (\u201cNon-Debtor Plaintiff,\u201d together with the Trustee, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) in\n 5\n this Adversary Action is an individual residing in Tennessee. Compl. \u00b6 15. Collins was allegedly\n 6\n\n 7 a shareholder of Meta Materials during the Alleged Class Period. 2 Id. Collins filed three proofs of\n\n 8 interest on December 13, 2024 and January 6, 2026 in the bankruptcy case, referring to himself as\n\n 9 having an \u201cinvestor\u201d-based equity interest in the Debtor. See ECF Nos. 724, 2511, 2512. Collins\n 10\n is represented by the same three firms\u2014Christian Attar, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, and Grant\n 11\n & Eisenhofer\u2014who are also representing the Trustee in this case. See Compl. at 1.\n 12\n C. Rule 2004 Discovery\n 13\n In March 2025, the Trustee served Rule 2004 examination subpoenas to seek discovery in\n 14\n\n 15 the bankruptcy proceeding of voluminous trading data from Defendants. ECF Nos. 1614-17, 1630-\n\n 16 33. Defendants objected and raised concerns that the subpoenas were being employed to\n 17 improperly pursue discovery in support of claims not on behalf of the Debtor or for the benefit of\n 18\n the Debtor\u2019s estate. See ECF No. 2425 at 6-8. Defendants also pointed to several ongoing similar\n 19\n federal manipulation claims against Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel Securities\u201d) and Virtu\n 20\n Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) filed by the same special counsel to the Trustee, noting the risk that any\n 21\n\n 22 evidence obtained from the Rule 2004 examinations would be used to circumvent the procedural\n\n 23 safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the PSLRA and confer an unfair advantage\n\n 24 to non-debtor litigants against the same Defendants. See ECF No. 2632 at 13-14.\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27 2\n The Alleged Class Period, as set forth in the Complaint, is June 28, 2021 to August 20, 2024.\n 28 Compl. at 1.\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 11 of 25\n Page 12 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 On February 20, 2026, after multiple rounds of briefing and two hearings, the Bankruptcy\n 2 Court issued an order requiring Defendants to produce certain material and data because the Trustee\n 3\n \u201cis entitled under Rule 2004 \u2018to determine the scope of viable claims that may exist . . . against\n 4\n potential third parties that may be culpable for causing such harm to the\u2019 debtor.\u201d ECF No. 2821\n 5\n at 4. But because of the \u201cconcerns regarding special counsel\u2019s disinterestedness [] suggest[ing] that\n 6\n\n 7 these Rule 2004 examinations may not be sought solely for the benefit of the debtor\u2019s estate,\u201d the\n\n 8 court found it appropriate to enter a protective order \u201cprecluding the dissemination of the produced\n\n 9 information beyond the trustee and her professionals for use in this bankruptcy.\u201d Id. at 5. That\n 10\n protective order was subsequently entered, requiring that any production made thereunder be solely\n 11\n for the Trustee and her court-appointed counsel. See ECF No. 2887 at 4, \u00b6 5.\n 12\n D. The Complaint\n 13\n 1. Putative Federal Securities Class Action\n 14\n\n 15 On August 7, 2026, the Trustee and the Non-Debtor Plaintiff Doug Collins filed this\n\n 16 Adversary Proceeding. Plaintiffs purport to \u201cbring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal\n 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) individually and on behalf of a Class consisting of all\n 18\n persons and entities that transacted in the publicly traded securities of Meta Materials\u201d during the\n 19\n Alleged Class Period. Compl. \u00b6 166.\n 20\n The Complaint asserts claims against Defendants Citadel Securities and Virtu (together, the\n 21\n\n 22 \u201cBroker-Dealer Defendants\u201d), which are broker-dealers registered with the SEC. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 16-17, 40.\n\n 23 As market makers, Citadel Securities and Virtu help keep financial markets operating by being\n\n 24 ready to buy and sell securities at any time, helping to ensure quick execution and price stability.\n 25 The Complaint also asserts claims against Anson Funds Management LP, a Texas-based registered\n 26\n investment advisor with the SEC, and Anson Advisors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws\n 27\n of Ontario and with a principal place of business in Ontario, registered with the Ontario Securities\n 28\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 12 of 25\n Page 13 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 Commission, and registered as an exempt reporting advisor with the SEC (together, the \u201cAnson\n 2 Funds Defendants\u201d). Id. \u00b6\u00b6 18-19.\n 3\n Although Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in the Bankruptcy Court, they proceeded to issue a\n 4\n lead plaintiff notice pursuant to the requirement under the PSLRA. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(1). In its\n 5\n public notice, Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel informed investors that they may be able to seek appointment as\n 6\n\n 7 lead plaintiff by \u201ccomplying with the relevant provisions of the [PSLRA]\u201d and move the court by\n\n 8 October 12, 2026. Ex. 6 (August 12, 2026 Business Wire Notice) at 3.\n\n 9 2. Causes of Action Under Federal Securities Law\n 10\n The Complaint alleges four causes of action, all of which arise exclusively under the federal\n 11\n securities laws. Compl. \u00b6 24. No claims under the Bankruptcy Code are asserted.\n 12\n Counts I and II, brought against all Defendants, allege violations of Section 10(b), Sections\n 13\n 9(a)(2) and 9(e) of the Exchange Act on the grounds that Defendants allegedly engaged in\n 14\n\n 15 manipulative trading schemes during the Alleged Class Period. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 173-189. The\n\n 16 Complaint alleges that the Broker-Dealer Defendants engaged in pervasive \u201cspoofing\u201d\u2014whereby\n 17 they allegedly placed massive volumes of buy-side or sell-side Baiting Orders with no intention to\n 18\n execute and then rapidly cancelled the orders within seconds. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 62-66. Such \u201cBaiting Orders\u201d\n 19\n allegedly misled other market participants into believing there was excess supply, in the case of\n 20\n sell-side orders, or excess demand, in the case of buy-side orders. Id. Spoofers could allegedly\n 21\n\n 22 flash sell-side \u201cBaiting Orders\u201d to drive the price down and benefit from the downward price\n\n 23 movement through pre-existing short positions or by placing buy orders to acquire the stock at the\n\n 24 lower \u201cspoofed\u201d price. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 3-4. According to the Complaint, the continuous placement and\n 25 cancellation of thousands of Baiting Orders artificially depressed the price of Meta Materials stock\n 26\n over time. Id. \u00b6 64.\n 27\n\n 28\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 13 of 25\n Page 14 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 In addition to alleging a spoofing scheme, the Complaint alleges that Virtu engaged in\n 2 \u201cnaked short selling,\u201d which refers to selling short without having borrowed or arranged to borrow\n 3\n securities to deliver to the buyer within the standard settlement period. Id. \u00b6 5. It also alleges that\n 4\n the Anson Funds Defendants purportedly engaged in manipulative conduct known as \u201cshorting and\n 5\n distorting\u201d and that the Anson Funds Defendants also purportedly sold short on material nonpublic\n 6\n\n 7 information. Id. \u00b6 111-13.\n\n 8 Count III asserts a separate Section 10(b) claim under the Exchange Act against the Anson\n\n 9 Funds Defendants under the misappropriation theory of insider trading, alleging that they\n 10\n purportedly traded on material nonpublic information. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 190-192.\n 11\n Count IV asserts a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against the Anson Funds\n 12\n Defendants, alleging that other investors transacted in Meta Materials securities at the same time\n 13\n the Anson Funds Defendants were allegedly trading on nonpublic information. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 190-192,\n 14\n\n 15 200.\n\n 16 3. Demand of Jury Trial\n 17 The Complaint demands a jury trial on all counts. See id. at 1. Defendants have not\n 18\n consented to a jury trial in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b) and Local\n 19\n Rule 7012, Defendants also have not consented to the entry of final orders or judgments by the\n 20\n bankruptcy judge if it is determined that the bankruptcy judge, absent consent of the parties, cannot\n 21\n\n 22 enter final orders or judgments consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution.\n\n 23 ARGUMENT\n\n 24 I. MANDATORY WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE IS WARRANTED\n 25 A district court must withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding \u201cif the court\n 26\n determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and other laws\n 27\n of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.\u201d 28\n 28\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 14 of 25\n Page 15 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d). The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 157 \u201cmandates withdrawal in cases\n 2 requiring material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.\u201d Sec. Farms v. Int\u2019l Bhd. of\n 3\n Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997). Mandatory withdrawal turns on \u201cwhether the issue\n 4\n to be decided involve[s] significant and material questions of non-bankruptcy federal law.\u201d\n 5\n Vestavia Hills, Ltd. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (In re Vestavia Hills, Ltd.), 630 B.R. 816, 852-53\n 6\n\n 7 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (quotation and citation omitted). Withdrawal is warranted if the case requires\n\n 8 \u201csignificant interpretation of federal laws that Congress would have intended to have decided by a\n\n 9 district judge rather than a bankruptcy judge.\u201d Id. at 850 (quotation and citation omitted).\n 10\n Resolving the Complaint\u2019s market-manipulation claims will require substantial and material\n 11\n consideration of complex federal securities law\u2014the hallmark of mandatory withdrawal under 28\n 12\n U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d). This Court has previously viewed such consideration of federal securities law to\n 13\n warrant mandatory withdrawal. See, e.g., Rannd Res., Inc. v. Von Harten (In re Rannd Res., Inc.),\n 14\n\n 15 175 B.R. 393, 396 (D. Nev. 1994) (mandatory withdrawal of adversary proceeding where the\n\n 16 claims involved \u201c\u00a7 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, \u00a7 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of\n 17 1934, and Rule 10b\u20135\u201d); see also SEC v. ARVCO Cap. Rsch., LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167899,\n 18\n at *4-5 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2012) (applying \u00a7 157(d) to deny motion to refer to bankruptcy court\n 19\n where \u201cthe complaint allege[d] violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section\n 20\n 10(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act\u201d). There is no reason to depart from\n 21\n\n 22 that precedent here.\n\n 23 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Market Manipulation Allegations Require Consideration of\n Complex and Significant Federal Securities Law Issues\n 24\n Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in \u201cspoofing\u201d and other manipulative\n 25\n conduct that gives rise to claims arising exclusively under the federal securities fraud statutes, i.e.,\n 26\n\n 27 Sections 9(a)(2), 9(e), 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. On the face of the\n\n 28 Complaint, the only material issues the Court must consider to resolve this case arise under the\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 15 of 25\n Page 16 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 substantive federal securities laws. And these are not run-of-the-mill securities fraud allegations:\n 2 from the Broker-Dealer Defendants\u2019 review, approximately ten district courts have ever addressed\n 3\n the application of federal securities law to \u201cspoofing\u201d allegations in a private lawsuit head on.\n 4\n The Complaint alleges that the two Broker-Dealer Defendants engaged in market\n 5\n manipulation through \u201cspoofing\u201d that artificially depressed Meta Materials\u2019 stock price, which in\n 6\n\n 7 turn caused losses to the Debtor and investors that transacted in Meta Materials\u2019 shares. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6\n\n 8 62-66. To assess such a manipulation claim based on spoofing, the Court must apply not only Rule\n\n 9 9(b)\u2019s heightened pleading standard but also the exacting pleading requirements of the PSLRA to\n 10\n determine significant federal securities law issues, including: (1) whether spoofing as a\n 11\n \u201cmanipulative act\u201d is sufficiently pleaded; (2) which \u201cindicia differentiat[e] market manipulation\n 12\n from legitimate trading for purposes of scienter\u201d; (3) how spoofing, which by definition lasts only\n 13\n seconds, may support loss causation under either \u201cthe theory of temporal proximity\u201d or \u201ca theory\n 14\n\n 15 of long-term impact\u201d; (4) whether there was \u201creliance on an assumption of an efficient market free\n\n 16 of manipulation\u201d; and (5) \u201cwhether and when\u201d an issuer or an investor \u201cshould have been aware\n 17 of, or was on inquiry notice of Defendants\u2019 alleged spoofing schemes.\u201d See Quantum BioPharma\n 18\n Ltd. v. CIBC World Mkts., Inc., 2026 WL 861678, at *15, 18-21 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026).\n 19\n The same is true to resolve the purported \u201cshort selling\u201d allegations, including those asserted\n 20\n against the Anson Defendants. Alleged \u201c[i]nsider trading actions must [also] meet the higher,\n 21\n\n 22 exacting pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the . . . PSLRA.\u201d Walleye\n\n 23 Opp. Master Fund Ltd. v. Silver Lake Grp., LLC (In re Silver Lake Grp., LLC Sec. Litig.), 108 F.4th\n\n 24 1178, 1191 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation and quotation omitted). And similar key elements, including\n 25 scienter, will apply in the alleged insider trading and purported misappropriation context, and courts\n 26\n must assess whether a plaintiff has made the mandatory \u201cshow[ing] that a defendant purchased or\n 27\n sold securities while [actually] possessing material, non-public information.\u201d Id.; see also Shurkin\n 28\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 16 of 25\n Page 17 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 v. Golden State Vintners Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1025-26 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff\u2019d, 303 F. App\u2019x\n 2 431 (9th Cir. 2008) (\u201cblanket assertions\u201d were not sufficient); ATSI Commc\u2019ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund,\n 3\n Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2007) (because \u201cshort selling . . . is not, by itself, manipulative,\u201d\n 4\n the PSLRA\u2019s heightened \u201cpleading requirement is particularly important in manipulation claims\n 5\n because in some cases scienter is the only factor that distinguishes legitimate trading from improper\n 6\n\n 7 manipulation\u201d).\n\n 8 Article III courts should be\u2014and have been\u2014the fora to decide these federal securities law\n\n 9 issues. By way of example, private Exchange Act claims predicated on allegations of spoofing are\n 10\n a recent phenomenon, and none have been brought in bankruptcy court. Indeed, the vast majority\n 11\n were filed in the Southern District of New York. 3 The most relevant case authority will come from\n 12\n decisions by the district courts that have considered the application of federal securities law to\n 13\n spoofing. Mishkin v. Ageloff, 220 B.R. 784, 799 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (mandatory withdrawal where\n 14\n\n 15 the court was \u201cstruck by the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases cited [] were decided by\n\n 16 Article III courts\u201d).\n 17 Withdrawal of the reference is particularly appropriate because cases involving claims that\n 18\n third parties \u201cspoofed\u201d a company\u2019s stock price are relatively new. Celsius Network is directly on\n 19\n point. Meghji v. Compound Labs, Inc. (In re Celsius Network LLC), 670 B.R. 379, 389 (S.D.N.Y.\n 20\n 2025). There, as here, a representative of a bankruptcy estate commenced an adversary proceeding\n 21\n\n 22\n 3\n 23 See, e.g., CP Stone Fort Holdings, LLC v. Does, No. 1:16-cv-4991 (N.D. Ill.); Chopper Trading\n LLC v. Allston Trading LLC, No. 1:19-cv-1674 (N.D. Ill.); Kessev Tov, LLC v. Doe(s), No. 1:20-\n 24 cv-4947 (N.D. Ill.); Harrington Glob. Opp. Fund, Ltd. v. CIBC World Mkts. Inc., No. 1:21-cv-761\n (S.D.N.Y.); Nw. Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10185 (S.D.N.Y.);\n 25 Phunware, Inc. v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 1:23-cv-6426 (S.D.N.Y.); Mullen Auto., Inc. v. IMC\n Fin. Mkts., No. 1:23-cv-10637 (S.D.N.Y.); Quantum Biopharma Ltd. v. CIBC World Mkts., Inc.,\n 26 No. 1:24-cv-7972 (S.D.N.Y.); Durkacz v. CIBC World Mkts, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-10565 (S.D.N.Y.);\n 27 Xdood LLC v. Interactive Brokers Grp., No. 1:25-cv-8536 (S.D.N.Y.); Genius Grp. Ltd., No. 1:25-\n cv-9546 (S.D.N.Y.); Asia Broadband, Inc. v. Virtu Fin. Inc., No. 2:26-cv-175 (C.D. Cal.); Reynolds\n 28 v. Citadel Sec. LLC, No. 1:26-cv-24485 (S.D. Fla.).\n 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 17 of 25\n Page 18 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 asserting a federal securities-fraud claim arising from trading losses unrelated to any substantive\n 2 right under the Bankruptcy Code. The district court held that withdrawal of the reference of federal\n 3\n securities claims involving cryptocurrencies was mandatory because adjudication was \u201cnot simply\n 4\n a matter of applying well-established federal law to the specific facts of a case,\u201d but rather of\n 5\n \u201capplying [precedent] to a novel set of circumstances.\u201d Id. at 389. So too here. There is no direct\n 6\n\n 7 guidance from the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit, and while a number of district courts have\n\n 8 rendered decisions on spoofing, they are \u201cof recent vintage and were issued without the benefit of\n\n 9 any guidance from [higher courts].\u201d Id. at 388. \u201cBecause this case necessitates significant\n 10\n interpretation of [federal securities law] and involves more than the routine application of federal\n 11\n laws outside the Bankruptcy Code,\u201d the Court must withdraw the reference of this Adversary\n 12\n Proceeding. Id. at 390 (quotation and citation omitted).\n 13\n B. This Putative Class Action Requires the Court to Analyze Complex PSLRA\n 14\n Lead-Plaintiff Issues from the Outset\n 15\n Before assessing the Complaint\u2019s allegations on a motion to dismiss, the Court will also be\n 16\n required to address several significant legal issues that arise under the PSLRA. Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\n 17\n issued a lead plaintiff notice as required by the PSLRA. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). According\n 18\n\n 19 to the public notice, the deadline for Meta Materials investors to move for lead plaintiff is October\n\n 20 12, 2026. Ex. 6. Following that deadline, the Court will be required to apply the PSLRA and\n\n 21 assess, among other things, the highly unusual question of whether the Trustee, acting on behalf of\n 22\n the Debtor\u2019s estate, could serve as lead plaintiff in this putative class action. To Defendants\u2019\n 23\n knowledge, only one court has decided whether an issuer can serve as lead plaintiff in a securities\n 24\n class action and held that it cannot. See Genius Grp. Ltd., 2026 WL 1760342, at *3-5 (recognizing\n 25\n the unique posture of the case and holding that the issuer failed the typicality and adequacy\n 26\n\n 27 requirements of Rule 23). That Court also held that the same three law firms that are special counsel\n\n 28\n 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 18 of 25\n Page 19 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 to the Trustee and represent the Non-Debtor Plaintiff here could not serve as lead counsel for the\n 2 proposed class. Id. at *5.\n 3\n The PSLRA\u2019s lead plaintiff process may raise other complex issues as well, including\n 4\n whether Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel can serve as lead counsel while representing both the Trustee and the\n 5\n Non-Debtor Plaintiff, the latter of whom is precluded from reviewing or utilizing the confidential\n 6\n\n 7 trading data obtained from Defendants through Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n 8 The PSLRA imposes on district courts an independent obligation to approve lead counsel\n\n 9 to prevent potential abuses in federal securities class actions. Id. at *7 (denying lead plaintiff and\n 10\n lead counsel application where it \u201csmack[ed] of the sort of lawyer-driven litigation that the PSLRA\n 11\n aims to avoid\u201d). This case, like other similar actions Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel already filed against the\n 12\n Broker-Dealer Defendants, requires careful consideration of the PSLRA in the lead counsel\n 13\n approval process.\n 14\n\n 15 Ultimately, as another bankruptcy court in this circuit recently explained, \u201cthe PSLRA is\n\n 16 unfamiliar territory for bankruptcy courts to navigate\u201d and bankruptcy courts typically \u201cwill not\n 17 venture there.\u201d In re PG&E Corp., 2024 WL 4230403, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024)\n 18\n (noting \u201cvery few reported cases of bankruptcy courts dealing head-on with the PSLRA\u201d).\n 19\n This Adversary Proceeding does not belong in the Bankruptcy Court. Mandatory\n 20\n withdrawal of the reference is proper.\n 21\n\n 22 II. PERMISSIVE WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE IS ALSO APPROPRIATE\n\n 23 In addition to mandatory withdrawal, a district court may withdraw the reference \u201cfor cause\n\n 24 shown.\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(d). \u201cIn determining whether cause exists, a district court should consider\n 25 the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy\n 26\n administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.\u201d Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d\n 27\n at 1008. Here, every relevant factor overwhelmingly favors withdrawal, and no countervailing\n 28\n 13\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 19 of 25\n Page 20 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 consideration weighs against it. Permissive withdrawal is appropriate.\n 2 A. The Efficient Use of Judicial Resources Strongly Favors Withdrawal\n 3\n 1. The Complaint\u2019s Exchange Act Claims Are Non-Core\n 4\n The first factor of judicial efficiency favors withdrawal where \u201cnon-core issues\n 5\n predominate.\u201d Id. at 1008-09 (\u201cInasmuch as a bankruptcy court\u2019s determinations on non-core\n 6\n\n 7 matters are subject to de novo review by the district court, unnecessary costs could be avoided by\n\n 8 a single proceeding in the district court.\u201d); see also Celsius Network, 670 B.R. at 389 (\u201c[T]he\n\n 9 \u2018threshold\u2019 inquiry in evaluating a request for permissive withdrawal was whether the claim was\n 10\n core or non-core.\u201d) (quoting Orion Pictures Corp. v. Showtime Networks, Inc. (In re Orion Pictures\n 11\n Corp.), 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993)).\n 12\n The Complaint\u2019s claims, all arising under the Exchange Act, are non-core. Federal\n 13\n securities law claims are quintessentially non-core issues because they \u201cdo not depend on Title 11\n 14\n\n 15 for their existence\u201d and \u201cthe trustee could have brought them in the district court.\u201d Dunmore v.\n\n 16 United States, 358 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Haigler v. Dozier (In re Dozier Fin.,\n 17 Inc.), 2018 WL 4599860, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2019\n 18\n WL 1075072 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2019) (holding \u201cthe Complaint\u2019s causes of action [including\n 19\n violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act] . . . have been routinely determined as non-\n 20\n core proceedings by courts\u201d) (collecting cases). Plaintiffs essentially concede as much by asserting\n 21\n\n 22 only \u201crelated to\u201d jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Compl. \u00b6 21. As the Ninth Circuit has\n\n 23 explained, \u201cclaims that are related to Title 11 are \u2018noncore\u2019 proceedings\u201d whereas claims that \u201carise\n\n 24 under or in Title 11 are deemed to be \u2018core\u2019 proceedings.\u201d Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine\n 25 Mills), 44 F.3d 1431, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995).\n 26\n The Complaint\u2019s passing reference to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) does not transform\n 27\n this proceeding into a core matter. See Compl. \u00b6 23. This Court has held that these two are \u201ccatch-\n 28\n 14\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 20 of 25\n Page 21 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 all\u201d provisions that must be \u201cconstrued narrowly.\u201d Ohio Sec. Ins. v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc. (In\n 2 re Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc.), 2023 WL 4761634, at *2 (D. Nev. July 25, 2023) (\u201c[A]s courts\n 3\n recognize a broad definition of what is core may pose constitutional problems, the catch-all\n 4\n provisions in \u00a7 157 are construed narrowly.\u201d); see also Celsius Network, 670 B.R. at 392-93 (\u201cThat\n 5\n [debtor\u2019s] claims might have a conceivable effect on the estate . . . does not transform the Adversary\n 6\n\n 7 Proceeding\u2014which otherwise involves [] federal securities claims arising from pre-petition\n\n 8 conduct and unrelated to the Bankruptcy Code\u2014into a core proceeding.\u201d).\n\n 9 2. The Bankruptcy Court Likely Lacks Jurisdiction Over Class Claims\n 10\n The efficiency factor also favors withdrawal because the Bankruptcy Court likely lacks\n 11\n jurisdiction over a substantial portion of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims. This Complaint is styled as a putative\n 12\n class action in which Plaintiffs seek to recover from Defendants on behalf of all putative class\n 13\n members, i.e., \u201call persons and entities that transacted in the publicly traded securities of Meta\n 14\n\n 15 Materials\u201d during the Alleged Class Period. Compl. \u00b6 166. But the Bankruptcy Court likely lacks\n\n 16 subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of these absent class members and those of the Non-\n 17 Debtor Plaintiff Collins because \u201c[t]he disposition of such claims, regardless of their result, could\n 18\n have no conceivable effect upon [the debtor\u2019s] bankruptcy case.\u201d Porter v. NationsCredit\n 19\n Consumer Disc. Co. (In re Porter), 295 B.R. 529, 540-41 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003) (concluding no\n 20\n jurisdiction over class claims where the debtor \u201cproposes to prosecute claims held by non-debtor\n 21\n\n 22 third parties against non-debtor defendants\u201d and the putative class \u201c[w]as not limited to debtors\n\n 23 (either past or present)\u201d); cf. Morschauser v. Cont\u2019l Cap. LLC (In re Devore Stop), 2024 WL\n\n 24 654914, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024) (adversary proceeding not \u201crelated to the underlying\n 25 bankruptcy case because . . . whether or not [plaintiff] succeeds in his state-law claims, the estate\n 26\n will receive no assets\u201d).\n 27\n\n 28\n 15\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 21 of 25\n Page 22 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 Just as in Porter, the putative class members in the Complaint and the Non-Debtor Plaintiff\n 2 are non-debtor investors of Meta Materials and any recovery achieved for the absent class members\n 3\n and the Non-Debtor Plaintiff \u201cbelong[s] to those class members,\u201d not the Debtor\u2019s estate. 295 B.R.\n 4\n at 540-41. Their alleged class claims therefore cannot be \u201cclassified as \u2018related to\u2019 a bankruptcy\n 5\n case simply because the [Debtor] filed [its] own bankruptcy case and purports to hold similar\n 6\n\n 7 claims.\u201d Id.\n\n 8 Because the Bankruptcy Court likely has no jurisdiction over the absent class members\u2019 and\n\n 9 the Non-Debtor Plaintiff\u2019s claims, leaving this Adversary Proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court\n 10\n would potentially result in parallel litigations, with the Trustee\u2019s individual action proceeding in\n 11\n the Bankruptcy Court and a separate class action filed elsewhere with identical allegations.\n 12\n Defending both actions would impose significant, unnecessary costs on Defendants to say nothing\n 13\n of the unnecessary consumption of judicial resources in resolving the threshold jurisdictional issue.\n 14\n\n 15 Withdrawing the reference of this Adversary Proceeding now will avoid both the subject matter\n\n 16 jurisdiction complication and the potential \u201cduplicative proceedings in both courts concerning the\n 17 same underlying allegations\u201d since the District Court\u2019s jurisdiction extends beyond what is\n 18\n provided in the Bankruptcy Code and the District Court can undoubtedly hear this putative class\n 19\n action. Gens v. Colonial Sav., F.A., 2012 WL 993713, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012).\n 20\n B. Putative Class Action Status and Demand of Jury Trial Favor Withdrawal\n 21\n\n 22 Two additional factors\u2014that this Adversary Proceeding is a putative class action and that\n\n 23 the Complaint demands a jury trial\u2014also favor withdrawal.\n\n 24 First, to the extent that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the class claims, \u201cthe fact\n 25 that this case is a class action suit counsels against leaving it with the bankruptcy court.\u201d Lara v.\n 26\n Casimiro (In re Casimiro), 2006 WL 1581897, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2006). Courts have\n 27\n recognized that a case\u2019s status as a class action is another factor supporting withdrawal. See, e.g.,\n 28\n 16\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 22 of 25\n Page 23 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 Malone v. Norwest Fin. Cal., Inc., 245 B.R. 389, 400 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (\u201cAlthough bankruptcy\n 2 courts are empowered to oversee class actions, there is little reason to assume that they regularly\n 3\n do so. On the other hand, the district court has long experience in the management of this complex\n 4\n class of litigation.\u201d); In re Casimiro, 2006 WL 1581897, at *6 (\u201cHaving the bankruptcy court\n 5\n handle a class action suit would indeed impose a burden on that court and would not be an efficient\n 6\n\n 7 use of judicial resources.\u201d) (quotation and citation omitted).\n\n 8 Second, the Complaint demands a jury trial on all counts. While not dispositive at this stage,\n\n 9 this is another factor in favor of withdrawal because \u201ca bankruptcy court is empowered to conduct\n 10\n jury trials only with the express consent of the parties.\u201d Malone, 245 B.R. at 400-01 (finding jury\n 11\n demand supported permissive withdrawal). Defendants do not consent to the bankruptcy court\n 12\n presiding over a jury trial. See Taxel v. Elec. Sports Rsch. (In re Cinematronics, Inc.), 916 F.2d\n 13\n 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990) (\u201c[W]here a jury trial is required and the parties refuse to consent to\n 14\n\n 15 bankruptcy jurisdiction, withdrawal of the case to district court is appropriate.\u201d).\n\n 16 C. No Factor Weighs Against Withdrawal\n 17 The other factors\u2014including \u201cuniformity of bankruptcy administration, [and] the\n 18\n prevention of forum shopping\u201d\u2014are not at issue here. There is no forum shopping concern as\n 19\n Defendants filed this motion to withdraw the reference before any substantive motion or pleading\n 20\n has been filed with the Bankruptcy Court, let alone any ruling from the court on the Adversary\n 21\n\n 22 Proceeding. See In re Casimiro, 2006 WL 1581897, at *5 (no forum shopping concerns where\n\n 23 \u201cPlaintiffs made a motion to withdraw before any motion for remand was made by Defendants\n\n 24 [before the bankruptcy court]\u201d and \u201cthere has been no substantive ruling from the bankruptcy\n 25 court\u201d). Withdrawal also has no effect on the uniformity of the bankruptcy administration since\n 26\n the Complaint involves only non-core issues unrelated to the Bankruptcy Code. Celsius Network,\n 27\n\n 28\n 17\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 23 of 25\n Page 24 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 670 B.R. at 394 (finding \u201cthis factor is neutral because the claims at issue are non-core claims that\n 2 do not arise under bankruptcy law\u201d) (quotation and citation omitted).\n 3\n Given that the factors overwhelmingly favor withdrawal, permissive withdrawal is also\n 4\n warranted.\n 5\n CONCLUSION\n 6\n\n 7 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court withdraw the\n\n 8 reference of the above captioned Adversary Proceeding so that all matters are heard before the\n 9 District Court and grant such other relief to which Defendants may be entitled.\n 10\n DATED: September 5, 2026\n 11\n MCDONALD CARANO LLP\n 12\n /s/ Ryan J. Works\n 13 Ryan J. Works (NSBN 9224)\n Jimmy F. Dahu (NSBN 17061)\n 14 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200\n Las Vegas, NV 89102\n 15 Tel: (702) 873-4100\n rworks@mcdonaldcarano.com\n 16 jdahu@mcdonaldcarano.com\n\n 17 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n 18 Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 19 Meredith Karp (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Shuhao Fan (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 20 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n 21 Tel: (212) 455-2000\n jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n 22 meredith.karp@stblaw.com\n 23 shuhao.fan@stblaw.com\n\n 24 Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 18\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 24 of 25\n Page 25 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 SEMENZA RICKARD LAW\n\n 2 /s/ Jarrod L. Rickard\n Jarrod L. Rickard (NSBN 10203)\n 3 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150\n Las Vegas, NV 89145\n 4 Tel: (702) 835-6803\n jlr@semenzarickard.com\n 5\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n 6 GARRISON LLP\n 7\n Andrew G. Gordon (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 8 Audra J. Soloway (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Alison R. Benedon (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 9 Daniel S. Sinnreich (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n 10 New York, NY 10019\n 11 Tel: (212) 373-3000\n agordon@paulweiss.com\n 12 asoloway@paulweiss.com\n abenedon@paulweiss.com\n 13 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n 14\n DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP\n 15\n Michael V. Rella (pro hac vice)\n 16 James K. Goldfarb (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Shanaye Carvajal (pro hac vice)\n 17 1251 Avenue of the Americas\n 42nd Floor\n 18\n New York, NY 10020\n 19 Tel: (212) 489-8230\n michaelrella@dwt.com\n 20 jamesgoldfarb@dwt.com\n shanayecarvajal@dwt.com\n 21\n\n 22 Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 19\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Case 26-05036-gs\n Document\n Doc 23\n 45-1Entered\n Entered\n 09/05/26\n on FLSD14:21:01\n Docket 09/15/2026\n Page 25 of 25\n Page 26 of 26\n\n\n\n 1 GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP\n 2 /s/ Michael R. Hogue\n Michael R. Hogue (NSBN 12400)\n 3 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89135\n 4 Tel: (702) 938-6909\n 5 hoguem@gtlaw.com\n\n 6 Sylvia E. Simson (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Alan J. Brody (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 7 One Vanderbilt Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n 8 Tel: (212) 801-9200\n sylvia.simson@gtlaw.com\n 9 brodya@gtlaw.com\n 10 Attorneys for Anson Funds Management LP and\n Anson Advisors, Inc.\n 11\n\n 12\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 20\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T19:23:29.752126-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"051030351767","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Lovato, ECF No. 23","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-15T15:10:09.452017-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T19:20:55.654323-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":"17:33:49","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":156,"description":"NOTICE of Supplemental Information by Aron Reynolds re 9 Defendant's MOTION to Remand /Transfer to the Southern District of New York (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Lovato, ECF No. 23) (Freedman, Devin) (Entered: 09/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477463358/","id":477463358,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493058340/","id":493058340,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/44/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-09T19:32:13.930179-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T19:32:13.930192-07:00","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":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T19:32:13.898740-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T19:32:13.907970-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"PAPERLESS ORDER granting 43 Motion for Clarification. Our September 4, 2026 Order [ECF No. 42] continues the September 11, 2026 deadline for all parties, including the movants, to respond to the Lead Plaintiff Motions [ECF Nos. 38-40]. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 9/9/2026. (pbe) (Entered: 09/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477409080/","id":477409080,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493002932/","id":493002932,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-09T12:37:16.752528-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T12:37:16.752540-07:00","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":"Order on Motion for Clarification","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T12:37:16.737420-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T12:37:16.737432-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"14:51:25","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477250076/","id":477250076,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492839519/","id":492839519,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/43/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-08T13:22:49.036684-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T13:22:49.050119-07:00","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":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030317659","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clarification","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T13:22:49.002064-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T19:32:13.859094-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-08","time_filed":"15:41:10","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":147,"description":"Joint MOTION for clarification 42 Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,,,,,,, by Aron Reynolds. Responses due by 9/22/2026. (Freedman, Devin) (Entered: 09/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476992379/","id":476992379,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492571005/","id":492571005,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/42/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T10:26:36.926377-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T10:26:36.926389-07:00","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":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T10:26:36.901578-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T10:26:36.910772-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"PAPERLESS ORDER granting 41 the Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay September 11 Deadline and Hold Lead-Plaintiff Motions in Abeyance (the \u201cMotion\u201d). On July 28, 2026, we said \u201cit makes sense to resolve threshold inquiries\u2014such as whether our Court is the proper venue for this case\u2014before exercising our discretion to appoint a lead plaintiff.\u201d Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time [ECF No. 33] at 2. We subsequently closed and stayed this case pending our adjudication of the Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 9]. See Paperless Order Closing Case [ECF No. 36]. Nevertheless, on August 28, 2026, three individuals filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. See Lead-Plaintiff Motions [ECF Nos. 38-40].Because we\u2019ve already determined that we should resolve the pending Motion to Transfer before appointing a lead plaintiff, we\u2019ll grant the Defendants\u2019 request that we defer our ruling on the Lead-Plaintiff Motions and continue their deadline to respond until we\u2019ve resolved the Motion to Transfer. See Kadel v. Flood, 2008 WL 11333160, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2008) (Dimitrouleas, J.) (\u201cIn the instant Motions, the parties each also move for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel The Court DEFERS ruling on these issues until the Motion to Transfer has been fully briefed and ruled upon.\u201d (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we DEFER ruling on the Lead-Plaintiff Motions [ECF Nos. 38\u00ad-40] and CONTINUE the Defendants\u2019 deadline to respond to the Lead-Plaintiff Motions until after we resolve the Motion to Transfer. The Case shall remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 9/4/2026. (pbe) (Entered: 09/04/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476963378/","id":476963378,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492541402/","id":492541402,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-04T07:57:15.003330-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T07:57:15.003357-07:00","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":"Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel AND Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff AND Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff AND Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff AND Order on Motion to Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T07:57:14.988889-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T07:57:14.988918-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"10:50:07","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476821258/","id":476821258,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492395046/","id":492395046,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/41/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-03T09:33:08.360197-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T09:33:08.369970-07:00","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":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030302602","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T09:33:08.319243-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T10:26:36.870783-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-03","time_filed":"11:52:40","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":139,"description":"Defendant's MOTION to Stay September 11 Deadline and Hold Lead-Plaintiff Motions in Abeyance Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Transfer by Citadel Securities LLC, Virtu Americas LLC. Responses due by 9/17/2026. (Rashbaum, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476253959/","id":476253959,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491811723/","id":491811723,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-28T19:07:07.897055-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:52:59.927732-07:00","sha1":"5a6c4e018aad726fb89070e174318df519a0aecb","page_count":18,"file_size":303625,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 18\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n Case No. 1:26-24485-Civ-ALTMAN\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on CLASS ACTION\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n MOTION OF MOVANT JORDAN DARIO PRIMO FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF\n LAW IN SUPPORT\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 18\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1\n\n MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 2\n\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 2\n\n II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 3\n\n III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5\n\n A. PRIMO SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF ..................................... 5\n\n 1. Primo Is Willing to Serve as Class Representative and Has Timely Filed\n This Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff .............................................. 7\n\n 2. Primo Has the \u201cLargest Financial Interest\u201d ................................................ 7\n\n 3. Primo Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Requirements ................................... 8\n\n 4. Primo Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class\n and Is Not Subject to Unique Defenses .................................................... 10\n\n B. LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE\n APPROVED ......................................................................................................... 11\n\n IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 12\n\n CERTIFICATE REGARDING GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE ................................................ 12\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 14\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 18\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\n Cases\n\n Bishop v. N.Y. City Dep\u2019t of Hous. Pres. & Dev.,\n 141 F.R.D. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ...............................................................................................9\n\n Brustein v. Lampert,\n No. 04-61159-CIV, 2005 WL 8154797 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005) ............................................8\n\n Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc.,\n 272 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...............................................................................................9\n\n Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P.,\n 311 F.R.D. 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................11\n\n Miller v. Dyadic Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n No. 07-80948-CIV, 2008 WL 2465286 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008) ............................................9\n\n Mulvaney v. Geo Grp., Inc.,\n No. 16-CV-81494, 2016 WL 10519276 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2016) ........................................11\n\n Piven v. Sykes Enters.,\n 137 F.Supp.2d 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2000) .......................................................................................8\n\n Prado-Steinman ex rel. Prado v. Bush,\n 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................8\n\n Tran v. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc.,\n No. 15-CV-24440, 2016 WL 7438833 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2016) ...............................................8\n\n Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharm. Holdings, Inc.,\n 589 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................11\n\n Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.,\n 216 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...............................................................................................9\n\n Statutes\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4 .................................................................................................................. passim\n\n Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ................................................................. passim\n\n Securities Exchange Act of 1934 .......................................................................................1, 2, 9, 13\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 18\n\n\n\n\n Rules\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .................................................................................................................2, 6, 8, 9\n\n Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3) ..............................................................................................................12\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 18\n\n\n\n\n MOTION\n\n Movant, Jordan Dario Primo (\u201cPrimo\u201d), by and through his counsel, hereby moves this\n\n Court pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange\n\n Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of\n\n 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d), for an Order: (1) appointing Primo as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of a class\n\n (the \u201cClass\u201d) consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired, or sold or otherwise\n\n disposed of, securities of Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) between April 12,\n\n 2022 and May 30, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d); and (2) approving proposed Lead\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s selection of Pomerantz LLP (\u201cPomerantz\u201d) as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah LLP\n\n (\u201cMiller Shah\u201d) as Liaison Counsel for the Class.1\n\n This Motion is supported by the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith, the\n\n Declaration of Nathan C. Zipperian in Support of Motion (\u201cZipperian Decl.\u201d), and all exhibits\n\n thereto.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Primo is aware that on August 4, 2026, the Court entered an Order, inter alia, administratively\n closing and staying the above-captioned action (the \u201cAction\u201d) pending resolution of a motion to\n transfer the Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n See Dkt. No. 36. Here, pursuant to the PSLRA, the statutory deadline to file a motion for\n appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this Action is August 28, 2026, on which date any member of\n the putative Class may so move. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). At the time of this\n filing\u2019s submission, the Court has yet to administratively open the Action. Thus, Primo, having\n no open docket in which to file the present motion, is at risk of forfeiting his right under the\n PSLRA to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff within the 60-day deadline set by the PSLRA.\n See id. For the foregoing reasons and because this is the only docket in which he can timely file\n his motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, although he is aware that the Court has\n administratively closed and stayed this Action, Primo respectfully submits the present motion to\n the Court to preserve his statutory right discussed above.\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 18\n\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM OF LAW\n\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n The complaint (\u201cComplaint\u201d) (Dkt. No. 1) in the Action alleges that Citadel Securities\n\n LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d and, together with Citadel, \u201cDefendants\u201d)\n\n defrauded investors, as well as engaged in a series of manipulative transactions in Genius\n\n securities, during the Class Period in violation of the Exchange Act. Genius investors, including\n\n Primo, incurred significant losses in connection with their transactions in Genius securities\n\n during the Class Period as a result of the Defendants\u2019 alleged wrongful conduct, damaging Primo\n\n and other Genius investors.\n\n Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court is to appoint as Lead Plaintiff the movant or group of\n\n movants that possesses the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and that\n\n satisfies the relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (\u201cRule 23\u201d). 15 U.S.C.\n\n \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Primo believes that he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption favoring\n\n his appointment because, to his knowledge, he has the largest financial interest in the relief\n\n sought by the Class in this Action among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff by virtue of,\n\n inter alia, his having cumulatively purchased and sold a total of 345,875.90955 shares of Genius\n\n stock during the Class Period. See Zipperian Decl., Exhibits (\u201cExs.\u201d) A-B. Accordingly, Primo\n\n believes that he has the largest financial interest in the relief sought in this litigation among those\n\n seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Beyond his considerable financial interest, Primo also meets\n\n the applicable requirements of Rule 23 because his claims are typical of those of absent Class\n\n members and he will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class.\n\n To fulfill his obligations as Lead Plaintiff and vigorously prosecute this Action on behalf\n\n of the Class, Primo has selected Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 18\n\n\n\n\n for the Class. These firms\u2019 attorneys are highly experienced in the areas of securities litigation\n\n and class actions, and have successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities\n\n fraud class actions on behalf of investors, as detailed in the firms\u2019 respective resumes.\n\n Accordingly, Primo respectfully requests that the Court enter an order appointing him as\n\n Lead Plaintiff for the Class and approving his selection of Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller\n\n Shah as Liaison Counsel for the Class.\n\n II. STATEMENT OF FACTS\n\n As alleged in the Complaint, this Action arises from the Defendant broker-dealers\u2019\n\n manipulative and illegal trading in the securities of Genius, an educational technology company\n\n that delivers AI-powered training and tools to six million students in more than 100 different\n\n countries. For years, Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale, placed and executed\n\n manipulative trades that were designed to, and did, artificially deflate the price of Genius stock\n\n and expand its bid-ask spread, thereby causing investors to sell their shares at artificially\n\n depressed prices while also inflating their transaction costs. This fraudulent scheme, known as\n\n \u201cspoofing,\u201d enriched Defendants while devastating Primo and other Genius investors.\n\n As the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) has explained,\n\n \u201cspoofing\u201d is a manipulative and illegal trading practice that involves submitting and then\n\n cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these\n\n \u201cbaiting orders\u201d is to mislead other market participants about the level of supply and/or demand\n\n for a security, or about the degree of its price volatility, thereby influencing market prices for that\n\n security. For instance, a large quantity of baiting orders on the \u201csell-side\u201d misleads investors\n\n into believing that there is excess supply for a security, thereby lowering market prices.\n\n Similarly, a manipulator may place and cancel orders on both sides of the order book to create\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 18\n\n\n\n\n the appearance of excessive volatility, and therefore excessive risk, driving prices downwards.\n\n As numerous financial economists have recognized, this latter form of spoofing in particular can\n\n have especially long-term and persistent effects on the prices of the manipulated security, while\n\n also increasing transaction costs for investors by inflating its bid-ask spread. With respect to the\n\n analyses of trading in Genius securities presented in the Complaint, \u201cBaiting Orders\u201d are defined\n\n as those orders canceled within 100 milliseconds of placement; this definition is conservative\n\n and is employed in the Complaint in an effort to identify Defendants\u2019 most egregious and\n\n obvious misconduct.\n\n By manipulating the market price in this manner, the spoofer seeks to benefit his own\n\n positions in the security. For instance, the spoofer may place a large quantity of sell-side Baiting\n\n Orders that move the market price down; that downward price movement may benefit the\n\n spoofer\u2019s pre-existing short positions, or the spoofer may place a number of new buy orders so\n\n that he can acquire the stock at the prices artificially depressed by his manipulative conduct.\n\n Additionally, if the spoofer is a large broker-dealer and market maker, like Defendants, it\n\n can also use spoofing to manufacture mini \u201carbitrage opportunities\u201d on incoming order flow in\n\n order to profit at its customers\u2019 expense. For example, suppose a customer seeks to sell shares of\n\n Genius stock. A broker-dealer/market-maker could flash sell-side Baiting Orders in a market\n\n with faster price feeds to drive the price down, while flashing buy-side orders in a market with a\n\n slower price feed to drive the price up. The broker-dealer/market-maker executes its customer\u2019s\n\n trades at an inferior price in the market with the faster feed, absorbing the trades as inventory; it\n\n then sells the inventory generated from the customer\u2019s trade at the higher \u201cspoofed\u201d price in the\n\n parallel market for its own account. Indeed, as discussed in the Complaint, the SEC fined\n\n Citadel $23 million for engaging in this type of misconduct. Moreover, the head of institutional\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 18\n\n\n\n\n equity sales at Virtu nicknamed this particular flavor of spoofing the \u201cThree Tick Boogie.\u201d As\n\n discussed further in the Complaint, market data indicates that Defendants engaged in this type of\n\n manipulation with respect to Genius stock; for example, within one minute of certain spoofing\n\n events discussed in the Complaint, an astonishing 35% of all off-exchange short trades in Genius\n\n were executed.\n\n In all cases, the spoofer\u2019s misconduct leaves innocent market participants, who must\n\n trade into a distorted market\u2014both in terms of depressed share prices and inflated transaction\n\n costs\u2014holding the bag.\n\n During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly entered thousands of Baiting Orders\n\n designed to create the false impression that there was both excess supply and excess volatility in\n\n Genius stock. These manipulative orders were calculated to (and successfully did) deceive or\n\n induce other investors to sell their holdings at artificially deflated prices.\n\n Significantly, prior to and during the Class Period, regulators had specifically warned\n\n Defendants that the trading platforms they had developed and operated could be\u2014and in fact had\n\n been\u2014used to facilitate unlawful trading activity such as spoofing. For instance, in 2023, the\n\n SEC fined Citadel $7 million for \u201cabusive short selling practices.\u201d And in 2017, even prior to\n\n the start of the Class Period, the SEC fined Citadel $22.6 million for \u201cmisleading [its retail\n\n customers] about the way it priced trades.\u201d Unsurprisingly, Citadel CEO Ken Griffin has\n\n repeatedly resisted efforts by the SEC to create greater transparency into trading activity,\n\n including into short-selling.\n\n III. ARGUMENT\n\n A. PRIMO SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF\n\n Primo should be appointed Lead Plaintiff because he has timely filed a motion for\n\n appointment as Lead Plaintiff, to the best of his knowledge has the largest financial interest in\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 18\n\n\n\n\n this litigation among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff, and otherwise strongly satisfies the\n\n requirements of Rule 23.\n\n The PSLRA requires a plaintiff who files an action governed by its provisions to publish\n\n a notice (the \u201cNotice\u201d) to the class within 20 days of filing the action, informing putative class\n\n members of: (1) the pendency of the action; and (2) their right to file a motion for appointment as\n\n lead plaintiff within 60 days after publication of the Notice. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I)-(II). Additionally, the PSLRA directs courts to consider any motion to serve as\n\n lead plaintiff filed by class members in response to the Notice, and to do so by the later of (1) 90\n\n days after the date of publication or (2) as soon as practicable after the Court decides any\n\n pending motion to consolidate. See id. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)-(ii).\n\n Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court \u201cshall appoint\u201d the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d to serve\n\n as lead plaintiff. Id. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA provides a \u201c[r]ebuttable presumption\u201d that\n\n \u201cthe most adequate plaintiff . . . is the person or group of persons that\u201d:\n\n (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . . ;\n\n (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief\n sought by the class; and\n\n (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n Procedure.\n\n Id. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).\n\n As set forth below, Primo satisfies all three of these criteria and thus is entitled to the\n\n presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff of the Class and, therefore, should be\n\n appointed Lead Plaintiff for the Class.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 18\n\n\n\n\n 1. Primo Is Willing to Serve as Class Representative and Has Timely Filed\n This Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff\n\n On June 29, 2026, counsel for the plaintiff in the Action caused the statutorily required\n\n Notice to be published via Business Wire pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the PSLRA,\n\n announcing that a securities class action had been filed on behalf of investors in Genius\n\n securities, and advising such investors that they had until August 28, 2026\u2014i.e., 60 days from\n\n the date of the Notice\u2019s publication\u2014to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. See\n\n Zipperian Decl., Ex. C.\n\n Primo has filed the instant motion pursuant to the Notice, and he has submitted a sworn\n\n Certification attesting that he is willing to serve as a representative for the Class, and to provide\n\n testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary. See id., Ex. B. Accordingly, Primo satisfies the\n\n first requirement to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Class.\n\n 2. Primo Has the \u201cLargest Financial Interest\u201d\n\n The PSLRA requires a court to adopt a rebuttable presumption that \u201cthe most adequate\n\n plaintiff . . . is the person or group of persons that . . . has the largest financial interest in the\n\n relief sought by the class[.]\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). To the best of his\n\n knowledge, Primo has the largest financial interest of any Genius investor or investor group\n\n seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff, having cumulatively purchased and sold a total of\n\n 345,875.90955 shares of Genius stock during the Class Period. See Zipperian Decl., Exs. A-B.\n\n As such, Primo believes that he possesses the largest financial interest in the outcome of this\n\n litigation within the meaning of the PSLRA among those seeking to serve as Lead Plaintiff. 15\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb).\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 18\n\n\n\n\n 3. Primo Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Requirements\n\n Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the PSLRA further provides that, in addition to\n\n possessing the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, a lead plaintiff must\n\n \u201cotherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d Rule\n\n 23(a) generally provides that a class action may proceed if the following four requirements are\n\n satisfied:\n\n (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;\n (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or\n defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the\n class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the\n interests of the class.\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).\n\n In determining whether a lead plaintiff movant satisfies Rule 23\u2019s requirements, the\n\n Court need not raise its inquiry to the level required in ruling on a motion for class certification.\n\n Instead, a prima facie showing that a movant satisfies Rule 23\u2019s requirements is sufficient. See\n\n Brustein v. Lampert, No. 04-61159-CIV, 2005 WL 8154797, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005);\n\n Tran v. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., No. 15-CV-24440, 2016 WL 7438833, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8,\n\n 2016). In addition, typicality and adequacy of representation are the only provisions of Rule 23\n\n relevant to a determination of lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. See Brustein, 2005 WL 8154797,\n\n at *7; Tran, 2016 WL 7438833, at *1. Further, the Complaint in the Action sufficiently pleads\n\n Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity and Rule 23(a)(2) common questions in a manner common to all Class\n\n members, including Primo.\n\n The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied where the named representative\u2019s\n\n claims have the \u201csame essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.\u201d Prado-\n\n Steinman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Piven v. Sykes\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 18\n\n\n\n\n Enters., 137 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1306 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (same). \u201c[T]he claims of the class\n\n representative need not be identical [to] those of all members of the class. \u2018[T]he typicality\n\n requirement may be satisfied even if there are factual dissimilarities or variations between the\n\n claims of the named plaintiffs and those of other class members, including distinctions in the\n\n qualifications of the class members.\u2019\u201d Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 113, 120\n\n (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Bishop v. N.Y. City Dep\u2019t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 141 F.R.D. 229, 238\n\n (S.D.N.Y. 1992)).\n\n Primo\u2019s claims are typical of those of the Class. Primo alleges, like other Class members,\n\n that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate\n\n the market for Genius securities. Primo, like other Class members, purchased and sold shares of\n\n Genius stock during the Class Period, and was damaged as a result of the Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\n wrongful conduct. These shared claims, which are based on the same legal theory and arise from\n\n the same events and course of conduct as the Class\u2019s claims, satisfy the typicality requirement of\n\n Rule 23(a)(3).\n\n The adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) \u201cis satisfied where . . .: \u2018(1)\n\n class counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; (2) the class\n\n members\u2019 interests are not antagonistic to one another; and (3) the class [representative] has\n\n sufficient interest in the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy.\u2019\u201d Miller v. Dyadic\n\n Int\u2019l, Inc., No. 07-80948-CIV, 2008 WL 2465286, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008) (quoting\n\n Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).\n\n Primo is an adequate representative for the Class. As set forth in greater detail below, in\n\n Pomerantz and Miller Shah, Primo has retained counsel highly experienced in vigorously and\n\n efficiently prosecuting securities class actions such as this Action, and submits his choice of\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 18\n\n\n\n\n Pomerantz and Miller Shah to the Court for approval as Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel,\n\n respectively, for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). There is no evidence of\n\n antagonism or conflict between Primo\u2019s interests and those of the Class. Moreover, Primo has\n\n submitted a sworn Certification declaring his commitment to protecting the interests of the Class\n\n (see Zipperian Decl., Ex. B), and his significant financial interest demonstrates that he has a\n\n sufficient interest in the outcome of this litigation to ensure vigorous advocacy on behalf of the\n\n Class.\n\n Further demonstrating his adequacy, Primo has submitted a Declaration attesting to, inter\n\n alia, his background, his investing experience, his understanding of the responsibilities of a Lead\n\n Plaintiff appointed pursuant to the PSLRA, his decision to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff,\n\n and the steps that he is prepared to take to prosecute this litigation on behalf of the Class. See\n\n id., Ex. D.\n\n 4. Primo Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class\n and Is Not Subject to Unique Defenses\n\n The presumption favoring Primo\u2019s appointment as Lead Plaintiff may be rebutted only\n\n upon proof \u201cby a member of the purported plaintiff class\u201d that the presumptively most adequate\n\n plaintiff:\n\n (aa) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or\n\n (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of\n adequately representing the class.\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n\n Primo\u2019s ability and desire to fairly and adequately represent the Class has been discussed\n\n above. Primo is not aware of any unique defenses the Defendants could raise that would render\n\n him inadequate to represent the Class. Accordingly, Primo should be appointed Lead Plaintiff\n\n for the Class.\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 18\n\n\n\n\n B. LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE\n APPROVED\n\n The PSLRA vests authority in the Lead Plaintiff to \u201cselect and retain counsel to represent\n\n the class[,]\u201d subject to the approval of the Court. Id. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). \u201cThe Court should\n\n interfere with lead plaintiff\u2019s selection only when necessary \u2018to protect the interests of the\n\n class.\u2019\u201d Mulvaney v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. 16-CV-81494, 2016 WL 10519276, at *3 (S.D. Fla.\n\n Nov. 21, 2016) (quoting 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)); see also Kaplan v. S.A.C.\n\n Capital Advisors, L.P., 311 F.R.D. 373, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (\u201cThe PSLRA \u2018evidences a strong\n\n presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff\u2019s decisions as to counsel\n\n selection and counsel retention.\u2019\u201d (quoting Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharm. Holdings, Inc.,\n\n 589 F. Supp. 2d 388, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2008))).\n\n Here, Primo has selected Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel\n\n for the Class. Pomerantz is highly experienced in the areas of securities litigation and class\n\n actions, and has successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities fraud class\n\n actions on behalf of investors, as detailed in its firm resume submitted herewith. See Zipperian\n\n Decl., Ex. E. In overview, Pomerantz is a premier firm in the area of securities litigation based\n\n in New York, with offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, France, London, the U.K., and Tel\n\n Aviv, Israel. See id. For more than 85 years, Pomerantz has represented defrauded investors.\n\n See id. As Lead Counsel in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-09662 (S.D.N.Y.),\n\n Pomerantz secured a recovery of $3 billion on behalf of investors in the securities of Petrobras,\n\n the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer and the fifth-largest class\n\n action settlement ever achieved in the United States. See id. Petrobras is part of a long line of\n\n record-setting recoveries led by Pomerantz, including the $225 million settlement in In re\n\n Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:06-cv-01825 (E.D.N.Y.), in June 2010.\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 18\n\n\n\n\n See id. More recently, as Lead Counsel on behalf of a class of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.\n\n investors, Pomerantz reached a $110 million settlement on behalf of the class. See id.\n\n Likewise, Miller Shah is well-qualified to serve as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Miller\n\n Shah maintains an office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which is located in this District, and, as its\n\n firm resume reflects, the firm specializes in securities class action matters, among other practice\n\n areas. See id., Ex. F. Miller Shah\u2019s attorneys have experience in achieving substantial\n\n recoveries in class actions, and they have extensive familiarity with the Local Civil Rules and\n\n practice norms of this District.\n\n As a result of their extensive experience in litigation involving issues similar to those\n\n raised in the instant Action, Primo\u2019s choice of counsel, with Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and\n\n Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel, have the skill, knowledge, expertise, and experience that will\n\n enable these firms to prosecute this Action effectively and expeditiously. Thus, the Court may\n\n be assured that by approving Primo\u2019s selection of Pomerantz as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as\n\n Liaison Counsel, the members of the Class will receive the best legal representation available.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Primo respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order: (1)\n\n appointing Primo as Lead Plaintiff for the Class; and (2) approving his selection of Pomerantz as\n\n Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel for the Class.\n\n CERTIFICATE REGARDING GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE\n\n Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3), counsel for Primo state that they could not confer\n\n with counsel for the opposing movants prior to filing the instant motion. The statutory\n\n framework of the PSLRA requires all motions seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff to be filed\n\n within 60 days of the publication of the notice of pendency of the action\u2014here, on or before\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 18\n\n\n\n\n August 28, 2026. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). No such motions were filed\n\n meaningfully in advance of Primo\u2019s motion, and it was not possible to confer with counsel for\n\n the other movants to determine whether the instant motion would be opposed or to attempt to\n\n resolve the issues raised by the motion.\n\n Dated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n MILLER SHAH LLP\n\n By: /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian\n Nathan C. Zipperian\n Jayne A. Goldstein\n 2103 N. Commerce Parkway\n Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326\n Telephone: (954) 515-0123\n Facsimile: (866) 300-7367\n nczipperian@millershah.com\n jagoldstein@millershah.com\n\n Counsel for Jordan Dario Primo and Proposed\n Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n J. Alexander Hood II\n (pro hac vice application forthcoming)\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n ahood@pomlaw.com\n\n Counsel for Jordan Dario Primo and Proposed\n Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 18\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 28, 2026, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of\n\n the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the\n\n foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record via CM/ECF.\n\n /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian\n Nathan C. Zipperian\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:30.801118-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281294","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appoint Lead Plaintiff","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830650/","id":491830650,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/1/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.470054-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:44:13.445781-07:00","sha1":"28ee9c23332d8f4071c2556f05ea0610a6d6046a","page_count":3,"file_size":158507,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n Case No. 1:26-24485-Civ-ALTMAN\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on CLASS ACTION\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF NATHAN C. ZIPPERIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF\n MOVANT JORDAN DARIO PRIMO FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF\n AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n I, Nathan C. Zipperian, hereby declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am a partner at Miller Shah LLP (\u201cMiller Shah\u201d), counsel on behalf of Jordan\n\n Dario Primo (\u201cPrimo\u201d), and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. I make this\n\n Declaration in support of Primo\u2019s motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff for the Class in the\n\n above-captioned action (the \u201cAction\u201d) and approval of his selection of Pomerantz LLP\n\n (\u201cPomerantz\u201d) as Lead Counsel and Miller Shah as Liaison Counsel for the Class.\n\n 2. Attached hereto as the exhibits indicated are true and correct copies of the\n\n following:\n\n Exhibit A: Chart setting forth Primo\u2019s financial interest in this litigation;\n\n Exhibit B: Shareholder Certification executed by Primo;\n\n Exhibit C: Press release published via Business Wire on June 29, 2026,\n announcing the pendency of the Action;\n\n Exhibit D: Declaration executed by Primo;\n\n Exhibit E: Firm resume of Pomerantz; and\n\n Exhibit F: Firm resume of Miller Shah.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n foregoing facts are true and correct.\n\n Executed on August 28, 2026.\n\n /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian\n Nathan C. Zipperian\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 28, 2026, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of\n\n the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the\n\n foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record via CM/ECF.\n\n /s/ Nathan C. Zipperian\n Nathan C. Zipperian\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:31.307778-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281295","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit Declaration of Nathan Zipperian in Support of Motion of Movant JORDAN","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830651/","id":491830651,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/2/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.532624-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:57.873697-07:00","sha1":"04b695ef770a2c863a2de736269a924c8d57e018","page_count":3,"file_size":165943,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:31.739086-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281296","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Damages Analysis","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830652/","id":491830652,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/3/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.562263-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:54:04.115696-07:00","sha1":"7fbab6e098f7a54cfb817f78174f0a7eb86c4f04","page_count":4,"file_size":302525,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f\u0016/$42*(.\u0001\u0017.5&,/0&\u0001\u0019\u0016\u0011\u0001 \u0018\n \u0010\u000f\u0004\u0010\u0018 \u000f\u0004\u000f \u0016\u0010\u0004\u000f\u0007\u000f \u0004 \u0007 \u0017\u0010\u0014\u0016\b \u0013\u000f\u0010\n Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATION PURSUANT\n TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS\n\n \u0001\u001a/1%\".\u0001\u0016\"1*/\u0001\u001e1*-/\n 1. I, __________________________________________, make this declaration pursuant\n\n to Section 27(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (\u201cSecurities Act\u201d) and/or Section 21D(a)(2) of the\n\n Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u201d) as amended by the Private Securities Litigation\n\n Reform Act of 1995.\n\n 2. I have reviewed a Complaint on behalf of investors in Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d)\n\n and authorize the filing of a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff on my behalf.\n\n 3. I did not purchase or otherwise acquire, or sell or otherwise dispose of, Genius securities\n\n at the direction of plaintiffs\u2019 counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under the\n\n Securities Act or Exchange Act.\n\n 4. I am willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a Class of investors who\n\n purchased or otherwise acquired, or sold or otherwise disposed of, Genius securities during the Class\n\n Period as specified in the Complaint, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary.\n\n I understand that the Court has the authority to select the most adequate lead plaintiff in this action.\n\n 5. The attached sheet lists all of my transactions in Genius securities during the Class\n\n Period as specified in the Complaint.\n\n 6. During the three-year period preceding the date on which this Certification is signed, I\n\n have not served or sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class under the federal\n\n securities laws.\n\n 7. I agree not to accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the\n\n Class as set forth in the Complaint, beyond my pro rata share of any recovery, except such reasonable\n\n costs and expenses directly relating to the representation of the class as ordered or approved by the\n\n Court.\n\f\u0016/$42*(.\u0001\u0017.5&,/0&\u0001\u0019\u0016\u0011\u0001 \u0018\n \u0010\u000f\u0004\u0010\u0018 \u000f\u0004\u000f \u0016\u0010\u0004\u000f\u0007\u000f \u0004 \u0007 \u0017\u0010\u0014\u0016\b \u0013\u000f\u0010\n Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that\n\n the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\n\n \u000f\u0006\u000e\u0006 \u0007\n Executed _____________________________\n (Date)\n\n\n\n _______________________________________\n (Signature)\n\n \u001a/1%\".\u0001\u0016\"1*/\u0001\u001e1*-/\u0001\n _______________________________________\n (Type or Print Name)\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n Genius Group Limited (GNS) Jordan Dario Primo\n\n List of Purchases/Acquisitions and Sales\n\n Transaction Number of Price Per\n Type Date Shares/Unit Share/Unit\n\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/9/2024 142,215.67100 $0.2102\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/12/2024 30,673.57520 $0.1692\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/13/2024 29,297.41570 $0.1365\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/14/2024 37,873.49480 $0.1346\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/15/2024 12,863.21090 $0.1422\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/16/2024 1,583.70114 $1.2359\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/20/2024 981.27917 $1.1979\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/23/2024 3,142.97757 $1.1391\n Purchase/Acquisition 8/27/2024 24.13793 $1.1600\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/4/2024 61.88949 $0.8887\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/9/2024 142.79594 $0.7003\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/10/2024 729.92700 $0.6850\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/11/2024 2,992.13379 $0.7779\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/12/2024 5,978.44680 $0.7527\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/24/2024 3,540.91093 $0.8472\n Purchase/Acquisition 9/30/2024 56.94112 $0.8781\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/4/2024 57.39869 $0.8711\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/7/2024 731.72582 $0.8200\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/8/2024 2,084.00000 $0.8387\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/9/2024 678.15000 $0.7373\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/16/2024 330.60037 $0.7562\n Purchase/Acquisition 10/23/2024 3,239.10482 $0.6792\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/1/2024 3,752.68948 $0.5942\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/5/2024 1,587.30158 $0.5670\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/12/2024 7,210.10077 $1.1231\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/13/2024 11,307.57272 $1.1015\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/14/2024 2,447.65586 $0.8171\n Purchase/Acquisition 11/15/2024 347.34698 $0.8349\n Purchase/Acquisition 12/9/2024 2,424.24242 $0.8250\n Purchase/Acquisition 12/16/2024 129.63443 $0.7714\n Purchase/Acquisition 12/20/2024 8,247.31604 $0.5565\n Purchase/Acquisition 1/3/2025 429.67658 $0.6982\n Purchase/Acquisition 1/13/2025 1,828.89154 $0.6025\n Purchase/Acquisition 1/14/2025 554.78512 $0.6309\n Purchase/Acquisition 1/28/2025 55.05092 $0.5450\n Purchase/Acquisition 2/21/2025 471.69811 $0.4240\n Purchase/Acquisition 3/19/2025 287.87333 $0.2780\n Purchase/Acquisition 3/24/2025 3,330.88326 $0.2998\n Purchase/Acquisition 3/25/2025 3,226.54521 $0.3100\n Purchase/Acquisition 3/28/2025 1,910.39973 $0.2496\n Purchase/Acquisition 4/2/2025 2,077.63311 $0.2504\n Purchase/Acquisition 4/14/2025 196.38648 $0.2547\n Purchase/Acquisition 4/24/2025 20.00000 $0.3200\n Purchase/Acquisition 5/19/2025 134.12017 $2.1839\n Purchase/Acquisition 5/27/2025 301.29557 $2.1327\n Purchase/Acquisition 5/30/2025 95.75486 $2.0517\n Sale 5/27/2025 (14,221.56710) $0.3593\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:32.178031-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281297","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B - Certification and Schedule A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830653/","id":491830653,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/4/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.582877-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:54:00.607649-07:00","sha1":"2bf587396a88f2c098f7c45abf9727de8a62cdb8","page_count":7,"file_size":340392,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n Jun 29, 2026 5:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit\n Against Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu\n Americas LLC\n Share\n\n\n\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On June 29, 2026, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a\n class action lawsuit on behalf of Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) against Citadel\n Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) (together, the\n \u201cDefendants\u201d). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by placing\n and executing manipulative trades designed to artificially deflate the price of\n Genius stock and also resulted in increased transaction costs for investors.\n\n\n The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants\n Citadel Securities and Virtu Americas engaged in a manipulative and\n illegal trading practice known as \u201cspoofing.\u201d\n Share\n\n The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired,\n or sold or otherwise disposed of, securities of Genius between April 12, 2022 and\n May 30, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). The action, brought in the United\n States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is captioned Aron Reynolds\n v. Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC, No. 1:26-cv-24485 (S.D. Fla.).\n\n Citadel and Virtu are broker-dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange\n Commission and operate as major market makers, routinely placing and executing\n securities trades for investors as well as for their own trading accounts.\n\n The complaint alleges violations of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities\n Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 7\n Period, Defendants engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known\n as \u201cspoofing,\u201d which involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders\n without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these \u201cbaiting orders\u201d\n was to mislead other market participants about the true level of supply and\n demand for Genius securities, or about the stock\u2019s price volatility, thereby\n influencing the market price of Genius to benefit Defendants\u2019 own trading\n positions. The alleged manipulation also increased investors\u2019 transaction costs by\n inflating the bid-ask spread for Genius stock. Defendants entered thousands of\n these baiting orders on U.S. stock exchanges to create the false impression that\n Genius\u2019 stock price reflected genuine supply-and-demand and volatility dynamics,\n while simultaneously profiting by absorbing and reselling their customers\u2019 order\n flow at prices favorable to Defendants.\n\n Throughout the Class Period, sharp declines in Genius\u2019 stock price consistently\n coincided with substantial spikes in Defendants\u2019 spoofing activity. For example,\n during the week of February 10, 2025, Defendants built significant short positions in\n Genius stock and reaped substantial trading profits: Citadel traded more than 23\n million shares of Genius off-exchange, accounting for nearly half of all off-exchange\n trading in the stock, while Virtu traded nearly 11 million shares, accounting for more\n than 20% of all off-exchange trading. Together, Defendants comprised nearly 70%\n of all off-exchange trading in Genius stock that week, as short volume surged from\n a low of 53% to more than 61%. As a result, Genius\u2019 stock price decline by 22%\n despite the absence of any new material, company-specific news.\n\n\n Investors who purchased or sold Genius securities during the Class Period are\n members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead\n plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with\n the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the\n \u201cPSLRA\u201d). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).\n\n If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than\n August 28, 2026. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to\n share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to\n represent you in this action.\n\n If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or\n your rights, please contact Abe Alexander at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. at 646-722-\n 8500, or via email at aalexander@gelaw.com.\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 7\n Contacts\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n Industry: Class Action Lawsuit Professional Services Legal\n\n\n\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n\n\n\n RELEASE VERSIONS\n\n\n English\n\n\n CONTACTS\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n\n\n More News From Grant &\n Eisenhofer P.A.\n Get RSS Feed\n\n\n Family of Disabled Quadriplegic Greek Woman Pleads with Government\n of Cyprus to Release ICSID Award Needed for Her Care\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 7\n WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The family of a severely disabled, quadriplegic Greek\n woman is pleading with the government of Cyprus to release nearly \u20ac5 million awarded to the\n family in March by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a\u2026\n\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Intuit Inc.,\n Extending Class Period of Previously Filed Action\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on\n behalf of Kenneth Bruce against Intuit Inc. (\u201cIntuit\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), Intuit\u2019s CEO Sasan K.\n Goodarzi, and Intuit\u2019s CFO Sandeep S. Aujla (collectively, the \u201cDefendants\u201d). The action alleges\u2026\n\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Citadel Securities\n LLC, Virtu Americas LLC, Anson Funds Management LP, and Anson\n Advisors, Inc.\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On August 7, 2026, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action\n lawsuit on behalf of Christina W. Lovato, Meta Materials, Inc. (\u201cMeta Materials\u201d or the\n \u201cCompany\u201d), and Doug Collins (together, the \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) against Citadel Securities LLC\u2026\n\n\n\n Back to Newsroom\n\n\n\n\n Wish your news had this kind of\n reach?\n Sign Up\n\n\n Learn About Business Wire\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\nCompany\n\nAbout Business Wire\nCareers\nMedia Center\nHelp Center\n\nServices\n\nPress Release Distribution\nVisibility & Engagement\nComplimentary Features\nInvestor Communications\nReporting & Analytics\n\nSolutions\n\nPR Professionals\nIR Professionals\nAgencies\nPublic Companies\nExplore by Industry\n\nNewsroom\n\nIndustries\nSubjects\nLanguages\n\nResources\n\nBlog\n\nFor Journalists\n\nSign Up\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\n\n\u00a9 2026 Business Wire, Inc.\n\nPrivacy Policy Cookie Policy Accessibility Statement Terms of Use Legal\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:32.603069-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281298","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C - June 29, 2026 Press Release","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830654/","id":491830654,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/5/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.603385-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:54:01.348670-07:00","sha1":"2e0be05f0cd0343ed30a1e1fae7c7f3ede1718e9","page_count":5,"file_size":280549,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:33.060243-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281299","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D - Movant Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830655/","id":491830655,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/6/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.626662-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:55:33.007657-07:00","sha1":"1a31b9d3c9bc381357f782728ed02080ebfbe8dc","page_count":62,"file_size":679985,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 62\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT E=\n EXHIBIT\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 62\n\n\n\n\n POMERANTZ\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 62\n\n\n\n\n History Pomerantz LLP is one of the most respected law firms in the United States dedicated\n to representing investors. The Firm was founded in 1936 by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,\n widely regarded as a legal pioneer and \u201cdean\u201d of the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, who helped secure\n the right of investors to bring class and derivative actions.\n\n Leadership Today, led by Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, the Firm maintains the\n commitments to excellence and integrity passed down by Abe Pomerantz.\n\n Results Pomerantz achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for defrauded investors in 2018\n as well as precedent-setting legal rulings, in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Pomerantz\n consistently shapes the law, winning landmark decisions that expand and protect investor rights\n and initiating historic corporate governance reforms.\n\n Global Expertise Beyond its three American offices, the Firm has offices in Paris,\n London, and Tel Aviv. Pomerantz also partners with an extensive network of prominent law firms\n across the globe to assist clients, wherever they are situated, in recovering monies lost due to\n corporate misconduct and securities fraud. Our team of attorneys is collectively fluent in English,\n Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish,\n and Ukrainian.\n\n Practice Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights through our\n securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring service. The Firm represents some of the\n largest and most influential pension funds, asset managers and institutional investors around the\n globe, monitoring assets of over $9.5 trillion and growing. Pomerantz\u2019s practice includes\n corporate governance, antitrust, and strategic consumer litigation.\n\n Recognition Pomerantz has been recognized as a top tier firm by The Legal 500, Benchmark\n Litigation, and Chambers USA, among others. In 2020, Pomerantz was named the Plaintiff Firm of\n the Year by Benchmark Litigation and honored with European Pensions\u2019 inaugural Thought\n Leadership Award. Courts across the country have noted the quality of our legal work, and\n Pomerantz attorneys regularly receive praise from their peers. The 2024 Benchmark Litigation\n guide describes Pomerantz\u2019s \u201cprodigious capacity for cases and its tenacity to keep pursuing\n them\u201d as well as the Firm\u2019s work on litigation \u201cwith more meaningful angles.\u201d The Firm\u2019s attorneys\n have been recognized by major industry publications, including The National Law Journal, The\n New York Law Journal, Law360, and Lawdragon. Among the prestigious honors received by\n Pomerantz attorneys are the Benchmark Litigation Plaintiff Litigator of the Year Award (Jeremy\n Lieberman, 2019; Emma Gilmore 2024), New York Law Journal Innovation Award (Jennifer Pafiti,\n 2023), and Law360 Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar (Murielle Steven Walsh, 2024).\n\n\n Pomerantz is headquartered in New York City, with offices in\n Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Securities Litigation\n Significant Landmarks\n\n In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\n On January 3, 2018, in a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz, as sole Lead Counsel for the class,\n along with Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (\u201cUSS\u201d), achieved a historic $2.95\n billion settlement with Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A. (\u201cPetrobras\u201d) and its related entity, Petrobras International\n Finance Company, as well as certain of Petrobras\u2019 former executives and directors. On February 2, 2018,\n Pomerantz and USS reached a $50 million settlement with Petrobras\u2019 auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers\n Auditores Independentes, bringing the total recovery for Petrobras investors to $3 billion.\n\n This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever\n in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever\n achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead\n Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of\n financial reports.\n\n The class action, brought on behalf of all purchasers of common and preferred American Depositary\n Shares (\u201cADSs\u201d) on the New York Stock Exchange, as well as purchasers of certain Petrobras debt,\n principally alleged that Petrobras and its senior executives engaged in a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar\n money-laundering and bribery scheme, which was concealed from investors.\n\n In addition to the multi-billion-dollar recovery for defrauded investors, Pomerantz secured precedent-\n setting decisions when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals squarely rejected defendants\u2019 invitation to\n adopt the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the Third Circuit, which would have\n required plaintiffs to demonstrate that determining membership in a class is \u201cadministratively feasible.\u201d\n The Second Circuit\u2019s rejection of this standard is not only a victory for bondholders in securities class\n actions, but also for plaintiffs in consumer fraud class actions and other class actions where\n documentation regarding Class membership is not readily attainable. The Second Circuit also refused to\n adopt a requirement, urged by defendants, that all securities class action plaintiffs seeking class\n certification prove through direct evidence (i.e., an event study) that the prices of the relevant securities\n moved in a particular direction in response to new information.\n\n Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\n In August 2019, Pomerantz, as Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $110 million settlement for the\n Class in this high-profile securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Fiat Chrysler concealed from\n investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software designed to cheat\n NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat Chrysler of\n violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors with as much\n as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics in class action\n settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 62\n\n\n\n In addition to creating precedent-setting case law in successfully defending the various motions to dismiss\n the Fiat Chrysler litigation, Pomerantz also significantly advanced investors\u2019 ability to obtain critically\n important discovery from regulators that are often at the center of securities actions. During the litigation,\n Pomerantz sought the deposition of a former employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety\n Administration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d). The United States Department of Transportation (\u201cUSDOT\u201d), like most federal\n agencies, has enacted a set of regulations\u2014known as \u201cTouhy regulations\u201d\u2014governing when its\n employees may be called by private parties to testify in court. On their face, USDOT\u2019s regulations apply to\n both \u201ccurrent\u201d and \u201cformer\u201d employees. In response to Pomerantz\u2019s request to depose a former\n employee of NHSTA that interacted with Fiat Chrysler, NHTSA denied the request, citing the Touhy\n regulation. Despite the widespread application, and assumed appropriateness, of applying these\n regulations to former employees throughout the case law, Pomerantz filed an action against USDOT and\n NHTSA, arguing that the statute pursuant to which the Touhy regulations were enacted speaks only of\n \u201cemployees,\u201d which should be interpreted to apply only to current employees. The court granted\n summary judgment in favor of Pomerantz\u2019s clients, holding that \u201cUSDOT\u2019s Touhy regulations are unlawful\n to the extent that they apply to former employees.\u201d This victory will greatly shift the discovery tools\n available, so that investor plaintiffs in securities class actions against highly regulated entities (for\n example, companies subject to FDA regulations) will now be able to depose former employees of the\n regulators that interacted with the defendants during the class period to get critical testimony concerning\n the company\u2019s violations and misdeeds.\n\n Karimi v. Deutsche Bank AG, 1:22-cv-02854 (S.D.N.Y.)\n\n On September 27, 2022, Pomerantz reached a $26.25 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors\n in a securities class action against Deutsche Bank AG. The settlement represents over 49% of estimated\n recoverable damages, far in excess of the 1.8% median recovery in similar cases.\n\n The complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank failed to properly adhere to its own Know Your Customer\n (\u201cKYC\u201d) policies when dealing with customers it considered high-risk, such as accused sex offender Jeffrey\n Epstein, Russian oligarchs and politically exposed persons (\u201cPEPs\u201d) reportedly engaged in criminal\n activities. The Bank repeatedly assured investors that it had \u201cdeveloped effective procedures for assessing\n clients and processes for accepting new clients in order to facilitate comprehensive compliance\u201d with\n these policies. In reality, however, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly exempted high net-\n worth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, further enabling their crimes through the\n use of the Bank\u2019s facilities.\n\n For example, in 2013, Deutsche Bank took on Jeffrey Epstein as a client, despite his previous convictions\n for and new allegations of child sex trafficking and abuse. Because Epstein was regarded as a \u201chigh-risk\u201d\n customer, he should have been subject to the strict due diligence required by the Bank\u2019s KYC program;\n however, he was instead classified as an \u201cHonorary PEP,\u201d and his activities within the Bank were allowed\n to continue, largely due to the business he could generate for the Bank. Prior to his onboarding as a client,\n \u201c40 underage girls had come forward with testimony of Epstein sexually assaulting them,\u201d and despite\n these allegations, Deutsche Bank remained \u201ccomfortable with things continuing.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Howard v. Arconic et al., No. 2:17-cv-01057 (W.D.Pa.)\n\n In August 2023, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $74 million settlement on\n behalf of defrauded investors in a securities class action against the American industrial company Arconic.\n\n On June 14, 2017, a devastating fire broke out in the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London, United\n Kingdom, resulting in the deaths of 72 people and injuries to more than 70 other tenants. In the wake of\n the tragedy, numerous investigations were conducted, ultimately revealing that, while an electrical fault\n within the building instigated the blaze, Arconic\u2019s Reynobond PE panels, which covered the outside of the\n building, likely acted as an accelerant, contributing to the rapid spread of the flames to the floors above.\n\n In August 2017, Pomerantz filed a securities class action against Arconic alleging that its stock price was\n artificially inflated during the Class Period by the company\u2019s misstatements about the safety of its\n Reynobond PE insulating panels. Following a partial dismissal, Pomerantz filed a second amended\n complaint, which cited numerous instances in which Arconic sold Reynobond PE panels for use in other\n high-rise towers in the UK and across the globe.\n\n Notably, despite the United States\u2019 near universal ban of combustible Reynobond for buildings taller than\n twelve meters (40 feet), plaintiffs found that Arconic had sold these panels for use in the construction of\n numerous structures measuring twelve meters or higher throughout the country, including a terminal at\n the Dallas/Fort Worth airport and Ohio\u2019s Cleveland Browns stadium. The complaint also pointed to at\n least eighteen other instances in which deadly fires had spread through exterior wall assemblies, most of\n which involved high-rise buildings. The new allegations included in the second amended complaint\n convinced Chief U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak to not only change his mind on many of the claims he\n had previously dismissed, but also to make new law in plaintiffs favor on several significant issues,\n including the element of scienter, i.e., intent to deceive investors.\n\n The $74 million settlement represents approximately 22% of recoverable damages for defrauded Arconic\n shareholders, an amount far exceeding the 1.8% median recovery for all securities class action settlements\n in 2022.\n\n Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P, No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y.)\n In May 2017, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $135 million recovery for the\n Class in this securities class action that stemmed from what has been called the most profitable insider\n trading scheme in U.S. history. After years of vigorous litigation, billionaire Steven A. Cohen's former\n hedge fund, S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, agreed to settle the lawsuit by investors in the drug maker Elan\n Corp, who said they lost money because of insider trading by one of his portfolio managers.\n\n In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2185 (S.D. Tex.)\n Beginning in 2012, Pomerantz pursued ground-breaking individual lawsuits for institutional investors to\n recover losses in BP p.l.c.\u2019s London-traded common stock and NYSE-traded American Depository Shares\n (ADSs) arising from its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Over nine years, Pomerantz briefed and argued every\n significant dispute on behalf of 125+ institutional plaintiffs, successfully opposed three motions to dismiss,\n won other contested motions, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million party and non-party documents, led\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 62\n\n\n\n the Individual Action Plaintiffs Steering Committee, served as sole Liaison with BP and the Court, and\n worked tirelessly with our clients\u2019 outside investment management firms to develop crucial case evidence.\n\n A threshold challenge was how to litigate in U.S. court given the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Morrison\n v. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), which barred recovery for losses in foreign-traded\n securities under the U.S. federal securities laws. In 2013 and 2014, Pomerantz won significant victories in\n defeating BP\u2019s forum non conveniens arguments, which sought to force dismissal of the English common\n law claims from U.S. courts for refiling in English courts, first as regards U.S. institutions and, later, foreign\n institutions. Pomerantz also defeated BP\u2019s attempt to extend the U.S. federal Securities Litigation Uniform\n Standards Act of 1998 to reach, and dismiss, these foreign law claims in deference to non-existent\n remedies under the U.S. federal securities laws. These rulings paved the way for 125+ global institutional\n investors to pursue their claims and marked the first time, post-Morrison, that U.S. and foreign investors,\n pursuing foreign claims seeking recovery for losses in a foreign company\u2019s foreign-traded securities, did\n so in a U.S. court. In 2017, Pomerantz earned an important victory that expanded investor rights under\n English law, permitting certain BP investors to pursue a \u201cholder claim\u201d theory seeking to recover losses in\n securities held, rather than purchased anew, in reliance on the alleged fraud\u2014a theory barred under the\n U.S. federal securities laws since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). This win\n was significant, given the dearth of precedent from anywhere recognizing the viability of a \u201cholder claim\u201d\n under any non-U.S. law and holding that a given plaintiff alleged facts sufficiently evidencing reliance and\n documenting the resulting retention of an identifiable amount of shares on a date certain.\n\n In Q1 2021, Pomerantz secured confidential, favorable monetary settlements from BP for our nearly three\n dozen clients, including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and\n investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia.\n\n In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.)\n In June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York\n granted final approval of a $225 million settlement proposed by Pomerantz and Lead Plaintiff the Menora\n Group, with Comverse Technology and certain of Comverse\u2019s former officers and directors, after four\n years of highly contested litigation. The Comverse settlement is one of the largest securities class action\n settlements reached since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).1 It is the\n second-largest recovery in a securities litigation involving the backdating of options, as well as one of the\n largest recoveries\u2014$60 million\u2014from an individual officer-defendant, Comverse\u2019s founder and former\n CEO, Kobi Alexander.\n\n Other Significant Settlements\n\n Even before the enactment of the PSLRA, Pomerantz represented state agencies in securities class\n actions, including the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (recovered $100 million) against\n a major investment bank. In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litig., No. 91-cv-5471 (S.D.N.Y.).\n\n Pomerantz recovered $50 million for the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey and several New Jersey\n pension funds in an individual action. This was a substantially higher recovery than what our clients\n\n 1 Institutional Shareholder Services, SCAS Top 100 Settlements Quarterly Report (Sept. 30, 2010).\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 62\n\n\n\n would have obtained had they remained in a related federal class action. Treasurer of State of New\n Jersey v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., Mercer Cty.).\n\n Pomerantz has litigated numerous cases for the Louisiana School Employees\u2019 Retirement System. For\n example, as Lead Counsel, Pomerantz recovered $74.75 million in a securities fraud class action against\n Citigroup, its CEO Sanford Weill, and its now infamous telecommunications analyst Jack Grubman. In re\n Salomon Analyst AT&T Litig., No. 02-cv-6801 (S.D.N.Y.) Also, the Firm played a major role in a complex\n antitrust and securities class action which settled for over $1 billion. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers\n Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.). Pomerantz was a member of the Executive Committee in In re\n Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165 (D. Mass.), helping to win a $50\n million settlement for the class.\n\n In 2008, together with Co-Counsel, Pomerantz identified a substantial opportunity for recovery of losses\n in Countrywide mortgage-backed securities (\"MBS\") for three large New Mexico funds (New Mexico\n State Investment Council, New Mexico Public Employees' Retirement Association, and New Mexico\n Educational Retirement Board), which had been overlooked by all of the firms then in their securities\n litigation pool. We then filed the first non-class lawsuit by a public institution with respect to\n Countrywide MBS. See N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289\n (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct.). In Fall 2010, we negotiated for our clients an extremely favorable but confidential\n settlement.\n\n Over its long history, Pomerantz has achieved significant settlements in numerous cases, a sampling of\n which appears below:\n\n \u2022 In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\n $3 billion settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\n \u2022 Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\n $110 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel\n \u2022 In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-00373 (N.D. Cal. 2018)\n $80 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel\n \u2022 In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262\n $31 million partial settlement with three defendants in this multi-district litigation in which\n Pomerantz represents the Berkshire Bank and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico\n \u2022 Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)\n $135 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel.\n \u2022 In re Groupon, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 12-cv-02450 (N.D. Ill. 2015)\n $45 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel.\n \u2022 In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)\n $75 million settlement in class action arising out of alleged accounting manipulations.\n \u2022 In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litig., No. 00-cv-736-17 (D.S.C. 2004)\n $54.5 million in total settlements in class action alleging accounting manipulations by corporate\n officials and auditors; last settlement reached on eve of trial.\n \u2022 Duckworth v. Country Life Ins. Co., No. 1998-CH-01046 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. 2000)\n $45 million recovery.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 62\n\n\n\n \u2022 Snyder v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 97/0633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cty. 1998)\n Settlement valued at $100 million in derivative case arising from injuries to consumers purchasing\n life insurance policies.\n \u2022 In re National Health Lab., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 92-1949 (S.D. Cal. 1995)\n $64 million recovery.\n \u2022 In re First Executive Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 89-cv-07135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n $102 million recovery for the class, exposing a massive securities fraud arising out of the Michael\n Milken debacle.\n \u2022 In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., MDL No. 712 (D. Conn. 1994)\n Over $66 million benefit in securities fraud action.\n \u2022 In re Telerate, Inc. S\u2019holders Litig., C.A. No. 1115 (Del. Ch. 1989)\n $95 million benefit in case alleging violation of fiduciary duty under state law.\n\n Pomerantz has also obtained stellar results for private institutions and Taft-Hartley funds. Below are a\n few examples:\n\n \u2022 In re Charter Commc\u2019ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1186 (E.D. Mo. 2005) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead\n Plaintiff StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC); $146.25 million class settlement, where Charter also\n agreed to enact substantive improvements in corporate governance.\n \u2022 In re Am. Italian Pasta Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-865 (W.D. Mo. 2008) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 and 417; $28.5 million aggregate settlements).\n \u2022 Richardson v. Gray, No. 116880/1995 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999); and In re Summit Metals, No. 98-\n 2870 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) (two derivative actions where the Firm represented C.C. Partners Ltd. and\n obtained judgment of contempt against controlling shareholder for having made \u201cextraordinary\u201d\n payments to himself in violation of a preliminary injunction; persuaded the court to jail him for two\n years upon his refusal to pay; and, in a related action, won a $43 million judgment after trial and\n obtained turnover of stock of two companies).\n\n Shaping the Law\n\n Not only has Pomerantz established a long track record of obtaining substantial monetary recoveries for\n our clients; whenever appropriate, we also pursue corporate governance reforms on their behalf. In In re\n Chesapeake Shareholders Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. 2011), for\n example, the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel, representing a public pension client in a derivative case\n arising from an excessive compensation package granted to Chesapeake\u2019s CEO and founder. This was a\n derivative action, not a class action. Yet it is illustrative of the results that can be obtained by an\n institutional investor in the corporate governance arena. There we obtained a settlement which called for\n the repayment of $12.1 million and other consideration by the CEO. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 3, 2011)\n characterized the settlement as \u201ca rare concession for the 52-year-old executive, who has run the\n company largely by his own rules since he co-founded it in 1989.\u201d The settlement also included\n comprehensive corporate governance reforms.\n\n The Firm has won many landmark decisions that have enhanced shareholders\u2019 rights and improved\n corporate governance. These include decisions that established that:\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 62\n\n\n\n \u2022 defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance on an efficient market must do so by a\n preponderance of the evidence. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v.\n Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n \u2022 plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage. Waggoner v. Barclays\n PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v. Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n \u2022 the ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish\n a membership with definite boundaries. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petr\u00f3leo\n Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017);\n \u2022 companies cannot adopt bylaws to regulate the rights of former stockholders. Strougo v. Hollander,\n C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015);\n \u2022 a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective disclosure\n does not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. Acticon AG v. China Ne. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.,\n 692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012);\n \u2022 an MBS holder may bring claims if the MBS price declines even if all payments of principal and interest\n have been made. Transcript of Proceedings, N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-\n 0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 25, 2009);\n \u2022 when a court selects a Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), the\n standard for calculating the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d must take into account sales as well as\n purchases. In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-cv-1825, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 (E.D.N.Y.\n Mar. 2, 2007);\n \u2022 a managing underwriter can owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to an issuer in connection with a\n public offering of the issuer stock, even in the absence of any contractual agreement. Professor John\n C. Coffee, a renowned Columbia University securities law professor, commenting on the ruling, stated:\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to change the practice of all underwriting.\u201d EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11\n (2005);\n \u2022 purchasers of options have standing to sue under federal securities laws. In re Green Tree Fin. Corp.\n Options Litig., No. 97-2679, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D. Minn. July 29, 2002);\n \u2022 shareholders have a right to a jury trial in derivative actions. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970);\n \u2022 a company may have the obligation to disclose to shareholders its Board\u2019s consideration of important\n corporate transactions, such as the possibility of a spin-off, even before any final decision has been\n made. Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1987);\n \u2022 specific standards for assessing whether mutual fund advisors breach fiduciary duties by charging\n excessive fees. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1984);\n \u2022 investment advisors to mutual funds are fiduciaries who cannot sell their trustee positions for a profit.\n Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d 1337 (2d Cir. 1971); and\n \u2022 management directors of mutual funds have a duty to make full disclosure to outside directors \u201cin\n every area where there was even a possible conflict of interest.\u201d Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1st\n Cir. 1971).\n\n Comments from the Courts\n\n Throughout its history, courts time and again have acknowledged the Firm\u2019s ability to vigorously pursue\n and successfully litigate actions on behalf of investors.\n\n U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation\n settlement in October 2019, stated:\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 62\n\n\n\n\n I commend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and\n thoughtful submissions during the motion practice aspect of this case . . . It\u2019s clear to me\n that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\n the settlement . . . This settlement appears to have been obtained through the hard work\n of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their efforts and not piggybacking on any other\n work that resulted in this settlement.\n\n In approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\n District of New York wrote:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\n In approving the $3 billion settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in June 2018, Judge Jed S.\n Rakoff of the Southern District of New York wrote:\n\n [T]he Court finds that Class Counsel's performance was in many respects exceptional, with\n the result that, as noted, the class is poised to enjoy a substantially larger per share\n recovery [65%] than the recovery enjoyed by numerous large and sophisticated plaintiffs\n who separately settled their claims.\n\n At the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February\n 2018, Judge Rakoff stated:\n\n [T]he lawyers in this case [are] some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the\n world.\n\n Two years earlier, in certifying two Classes in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February 2016, Judge\n Rakoff wrote:\n\n [O]n the basis not only of USS\u2019s counsel\u2019s prior experience but also the Court\u2019s\n observation of its advocacy over the many months since it was appointed Lead Counsel,\n the Court concludes that Pomerantz, the proposed class counsel, is \u201cqualified,\n experienced and able to conduct the litigation.\u201d . . . [T]he Pomerantz firm has both the\n skill and resources to represent the Classes adequately.\n\n In approving the settlement in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880, 2016\n U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144133 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016) Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote:\n\n Class Counsel has developed a reputation for zealous advocacy in securities class actions\n . . . The settlement amount of $24 million is an outstanding result.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 62\n\n\n\n At the May 2015 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in Courtney v. Avid Technology, Inc.,\n No. 13-cv-10686 (D. Mass. May 12, 2015), following oral argument by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Judge William\n G. Young stated:\n\n This has been very well litigated. It is always a privilege. I don't just say that as a matter\n of form. And I thank you for the vigorous litigation that I've been permitted to be a part\n of. [Tr. at 8-9.]\n\n At the January 2012 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in In re Chesapeake Energy Corp.\n Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. Jan. 30, 2012), following\n oral argument by Marc I. Gross, Judge Daniel L. Owens stated:\n\n Counsel, it\u2019s a pleasure, and I mean this and rarely say it. I think I\u2019ve said it two times in\n 25 years. It is an extreme pleasure to deal with counsel of such caliber. [Tr. at 48.])\n\n In approving the $225 million settlement in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-\n CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.) in June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis stated:\n\n As outlined above, the recovery in this case is one of the highest ever achieved in this type\n of securities action . . . The court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been\n impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s acumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough,\n clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has not taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts\n at any stage of the litigation.\n\n In approving a $146.25 million settlement in In re Charter Communications Securities Litigation, No. 02-\n CV-1186, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14772 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2005), in which Pomerantz served as sole Lead\n Counsel, Judge Charles A. Shaw praised the Firm\u2019s efforts, citing \u201cthe vigor with which Lead Counsel . . .\n investigated claims, briefed the motions to dismiss, and negotiated the settlement.\u201d He further stated:\n\n This Court believes Lead Plaintiff achieved an excellent result in a complex action, where\n the risk of obtaining a significantly smaller recovery, if any, was substantial.\n\n In approving a $24 million settlement in In re Force Protection, Inc., No. 08 CV 845 (D.S.C. 2011), Judge C.\n Weston Houk described the Firm as \u201cattorneys of great ability and great reputation\u201d and commended the\n Firm for having \u201cdone an excellent job.\u201d\n\n In certifying a class in a securities fraud action against analysts in DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc.,\n 228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Gerard D. Lynch stated that Pomerantz had \u201cably and zealously\n represented the interests of the class.\u201d\n\n Numerous courts have made similar comments:\n\n x Appointing Pomerantz Lead Counsel in American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, No 05-CV-0725\n (W.D. Mo.), a class action that involved a massive fraud and restatements spanning several years, the\n District Court observed that the Firm \u201chas significant experience (and has been extremely effective)\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 62\n\n\n\n litigating securities class actions, employs highly qualified attorneys, and possesses ample resources\n to effectively manage the class litigation and protect the class\u2019s interests.\u201d\n x In approving the settlement in In re Wiring Devices Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.\n 9, 1980), Chief Judge Jack B. Weinstein stated that \u201cCounsel for the plaintiffs I think did an excellent\n job . . . They are outstanding and skillful. The litigation was and is extremely complex. They assumed\n a great deal of responsibility. They recovered a very large amount given the possibility of no recovery\n here which was in my opinion substantial.\u201d\n x In Snyder v. Nationwide Insurance Co., No. 97/0633, (N.Y. Supreme Court, Onondaga Cty.), a case\n where Pomerantz served as Co-Lead Counsel, Judge Tormey stated, \u201cIt was a pleasure to work with\n you. This is a good result. You\u2019ve got some great attorneys working on it.\u201d\n x In Steinberg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (E.D.N.Y. 2004), Judge Spatt, granting class\n certification and appointing the Firm as class counsel, observed: \u201cThe Pomerantz firm has a strong\n reputation as class counsel and has demonstrated its competence to serve as class counsel in this\n motion for class certification.\u201d (224 F.R.D. 67, 766.)\n x In Mercury Savings & Loan, No. 90-cv-00087 LHM (C.D. Cal. 1993), Judge McLaughlin commended the\n Firm for the \u201cabsolutely extraordinary job in this litigation.\u201d\n x In Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litigation, MDL No. 712 (D. Conn.), Judge Eginton described the\n Firm\u2019s services as \u201cexemplary,\u201d praised it for its \u201cusual fine job of lawyering . . . [in] an extremely\n complex matter,\u201d and concluded that the case was \u201cvery well-handled and managed.\u201d (Tr. at 6,\n 5/20/92; Tr. at 10, 10/10/92.)\n x In Nodar v. Weksel, No. 84 Civ. 3870 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Broderick acknowledged \u201cthat the services\n rendered [by Pomerantz] were excellent services from the point of view of the class represented,\n [and] the result was an excellent result.\u201d (Tr. at 21-22, 12/27/90.)\n x In Klein v. A.G. Becker Paribas, Inc., No. 83 Civ. 6456 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Goettel complimented the Firm\n for providing \u201cexcellent . . . absolutely top-drawer representation for the class, particularly in light of\n the vigorous defense offered by the defense firm.\u201d (Tr. at 22, 3/6/87.)\n x In Digital Securities Litigation, No. 83-3255 (D. Mass.), Judge Young lauded the Firm for its \u201c[v]ery fine\n lawyering.\u201d (Tr. at 13, 9/18/86.)\n x In Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 75 F.R.D. 34, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), Judge Frankel,\n referring to Pomerantz, said: \u201cTheir experience in handling class actions of this nature is known to the\n court and certainly puts to rest any doubt that the absent class members will receive the quality of\n representation to which they are entitled.\u201d\n x In Rauch v. Bilzerian, No. 88 Civ. 15624 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), the court, after trial, referred to Pomerantz\n partners as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel,\u201d and as having provided \u201ctop drawer, topflight\n [representation], certainly as good as I\u2019ve seen in my stay on this court.\u201d\n\n\n Corporate Governance Litigation\n Pomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\n good corporate citizenship. We strongly support policies and procedures designed to give shareholders\n the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. We vigorously pursue corporate governance reform,\n particularly in the area of excess compensation, where it can address the growing disparity between the\n salaries of executives and the workers of major corporations. We have successfully utilized litigation to\n bring about corporate governance reform in numerous cases, and always consider whether such reforms\n are appropriate before any case is settled.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Pomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance Practice Group, led by Partner Gustavo F. Bruckner, enforces\n shareholder rights and prosecutes actions challenging corporate transactions that arise from an unfair\n process or result in an unfair price for shareholders.\n\n In September 2017, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery\n Division, approved Pomerantz\u2019s settlement in a litigation against Ocean Shore Holding Co. The settlement\n provided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In so doing, Judge Mendez became the first New\n Jersey state court judge to formally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521\n F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). There has never before been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting\n out the factors a court must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be\n determined to be fair and adequate. After conducting an analysis of each of the nine Girsh factors and\n holding that \u201cclass actions settlements involving non-monetary benefits to the class are subject to more\n exacting scrutiny,\u201d Judge Mendez held that the proposed settlement provided a material benefit to the\n shareholders.\n\n In February 2018, the Maryland Circuit Court, Montgomery County, approved a $17.5 million settlement\n that plaintiffs achieved as additional consideration on behalf of a class of shareholders of American\n Capital, Ltd. In re Am. Capital, Ltd. S\u2019holder Litig., C.A. No. 422598-V (2018). The settlement resolved\n Plaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding a forced sale of American Capital.\n\n Pomerantz filed an action challenging the sale of American Capital, a Delaware corporation with its\n headquarters in Maryland. Among other things, American Capital\u2019s board of directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d)\n agreed to sell the company at a price below what two other bidders were willing to offer. Worse, the\n merger price was even below the amount that shareholders would have received in the company\u2019s\n planned phased liquidation, which the company was considering under pressure from Elliott\n Management, an activist hedge fund and holder of approximate 15% of American Capital stock. Elliott was\n not originally named as a defendant, but after initial discovery showed the extent of its involvement in\n the Board\u2019s breaches of fiduciary duty, Elliott was added as a defendant in an amended complaint under\n the theory that Elliott exercised actual control over the Board\u2019s decision-making. Elliott moved to dismiss\n on jurisdictional grounds and additionally challenged its alleged status as a controller of American Capital.\n In June 2017, minutes before the hearing on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, a partial settlement was\n entered into with the members of the Board for $11.5 million. The motion to dismiss hearing proceeded\n despite the partial settlement, but only as to Elliott. In July 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss,\n finding that Elliott, \u201cby virtue solely of its own conduct, . . . has easily satisfied the transacting business\n prong of the Maryland long arm statute.\u201d The court also found that the \u201camended complaint in this case\n sufficiently pleads that Elliott was a controller with respect to\u201d the sale, thus implicating a higher standard\n of review. Elliott subsequently settled the remaining claims for an additional $6 million. Pomerantz served\n as Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n In May 2017, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon approved the settlement achieved by Pomerantz\n and co-counsel of a derivative action brought by two shareholders of Lithia Motors, Inc. The lawsuit\n alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the board of directors in approving, without any meaningful review,\n the Transition Agreement between Lithia Motors and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder,\n CEO, and Chairman, who was stepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, Bryan DeBoer,\n negotiated virtually all the material terms of the Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 62\n\n\n\n senior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car allowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits,\n in addition to the $200,000 per year that he would receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\n The Lithia settlement extracted corporate governance therapeutics that provide substantial benefits to\n Lithia and its shareholders and redress the wrongdoing alleged by plaintiffs. The board will now be\n required to have at least five independent directors\u2014as defined under the New York Stock Exchange\n rules\u2014by 2020; a number of other new protocols will be in place to prevent self-dealing by board\n members. Further, the settlement calls for the Transition Agreement to be reviewed by an independent\n auditor who will determine whether the annual payments of $1,060,000 for life to Sidney DeBoer are\n reasonable. Lithia has agreed to accept whatever decision the auditor makes.\n\n In January 2017, the Group received approval of the Delaware Chancery Court for a $5.6 million\n settlement it achieved on behalf of a class of shareholders of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. over an\n ignored merger offer in 2012. In re Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch.).\n\n The Group obtained a landmark ruling in Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch.), that fee-shifting\n bylaws adopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to shareholders affected by the transaction.\n They were also able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the going private\n transaction.\n\n In Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Super. Ct.), the Group caused Implant Sciences to hold\n its first shareholder annual meeting in five years and put an important compensation grant up for a\n shareholder vote.\n\n In Smollar v. Potarazu, C.A. No. 10287-VCN (Del. Ch.), the Group pursued a derivative action to bring about\n the appointment of two independent members to the board of directors, retention of an independent\n auditor, dissemination of financials to shareholders and the holding of first ever in-person annual meeting,\n among other corporate therapeutics.\n\n In Hallandale Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon athletica, Inc.,\n C.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch.), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, the Chancery Court ordered the\n production of the chairman\u2019s 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found that a stock trading plan\n established by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than the chairman himself,\n would liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude potential liability for\n insider trading.\n\n In Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct.), the Group caused the Merger\n Agreement to be amended to provide a \u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for the holders of North State\n Bancorp\u2019s common stock in connection with the shareholder vote on the merger. As a result of the Action,\n common shareholders could stop the merger if they did not wish it to go forward.\n\n In Re Qurate Retail, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2021-1116-SG (Del. Ch.): In a significant victory for\n stockholders, Pomerantz LLP, as co-counsel, secured a groundbreaking settlement on behalf of Qurate\n Retail, Inc., addressing allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment involving senior\n executives Gregory B. Maffei and Dr. John C. Malone. Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of nominal defendant\n Qurate following a series of allegedly sham transactions in 2021 between Maffei and Malone that resulted\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 13\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 62\n\n\n\n in the elimination of a call right held by Qurate, for which its predecessor paid $150 million in 1998. The\n litigation challenged these transactions, including stock exchanges and executive compensation\n agreements, as unfair and detrimental to Qurate\u2019s long-term interests. After defendants moved to dismiss\n the case, the Court of Chancery issued rulings allowing claims against Mr. Maffei and Dr. Malone to\n proceed. Pomerantz ultimately settled the action in exchange for the reimposition of the call right, an\n agreement that Dr. Malone would leave the Qurate Board of Directors, and enhanced independent\n oversight at the company.\n\n Pomerantz\u2019s commitment to advancing sound corporate governance principles is further demonstrated\n by the more than 26 years that we have co-sponsored the Abraham L. Pomerantz Lecture Series with\n Brooklyn Law School. These lectures focus on critical and emerging issues concerning shareholder rights\n and corporate governance and bring together top academics and litigators.\n\n Our bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor, provides institutional investors updates and insights\n on current issues in corporate governance.\n\n\n\n\n Strategic Consumer Litigation\n Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group, led by Partner Jordan Lurie, represents\n consumers in actions that seek to recover monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of class members while\n also advocating for important consumer rights. The attorneys in this group have successfully prosecuted\n claims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song\n Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Song Beverly Credit Card Act. They have resolved data breach\n privacy cases and cases involving unlawful recording, illegal background checks, unfair business practices,\n misleading advertising, and other consumer finance related actions. All of these actions also have resulted\n in significant changes to defendants\u2019 business practices.\n\n Pomerantz currently represents consumers in a nationwide class action against Facebook for mistargeting\n ads. Plaintiff alleges that Facebook programmatically displays a material percentage of ads to users\n outside the defined target market and displays ads to \u201cserial Likers\u201d outside the defined target audience\n in order to boost Facebook\u2019s revenue. IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Case No.\n 4:18-cv-05286 PJH.\n\n Pomerantz has pioneered litigation to establish claims for public injunctive relief under California\u2019s unfair\n business practices statute. For example, Pomerantz has filed cases seeking to prevent major auto\n manufacturers from unauthorized access to, and use of, drivers\u2019 vehicle data without compensation, and\n seeking to require the auto companies to share diagnostic data extracted from drivers\u2019 vehicles. The\n Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group is also prosecuting class cases against auto manufacturers\n for failing to properly identify high-priced parts that must be covered in California under extended\n emissions warranties.\n\n Other consumer matters handled by Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group include\n actions involving cryptocurrency, medical billing, price fixing, and false advertising of various consumer\n products and services.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 14\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Antitrust Litigation\n Pomerantz has earned a reputation for prosecuting complex antitrust and consumer class actions with\n vigor, innovation, and success. Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust and Consumer Group has recovered billions of\n dollars for the Firm\u2019s business and individual clients and the classes that they represent. Time and again,\n Pomerantz has protected our free-market system from anticompetitive conduct such as price fixing,\n monopolization, exclusive territorial division, pernicious pharmaceutical conduct, and false advertising.\n Pomerantz\u2019s advocacy has spanned across diverse product markets, exhibiting the Antitrust and\n Consumer Group\u2019s versatility to prosecute class actions on any terrain.\n\n Pomerantz has served and is currently serving in leadership or Co-Leadership roles in several high-profile\n multi-district litigation class actions. In December 2018, the Firm achieved a $31 billion partial settlement\n with three defendants on behalf of a class of U.S. lending institutions that originated, purchased or held\n loans paying interest rates tied to the U.S. Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (USD LIBOR). It is alleged\n that the class suffered damages as a result of collusive manipulation by the LIBOR contributor panel banks\n that artificially suppressed the USD LIBOR rate during the class period, causing the class members to\n receive lower interest payments than they would have otherwise received. In re Libor Based Financial\n Instruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262.\n\n Pomerantz represented baseball and hockey fans in a game-changing antitrust class action against Major\n League Baseball and the National Hockey League, challenging the exclusive territorial division of live\n television broadcasts, internet streaming, and the resulting geographic blackouts. See Laumann v. NHL\n and Garber v. MLB (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\n Pomerantz has spearheaded the effort to challenge harmful anticompetitive conduct by pharmaceutical\n companies\u2014including Pay-for-Delay Agreements\u2014that artificially inflates the price of prescription drugs\n by keeping generic versions off the market.\n\n Even prior to the 2013 precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Actavis, Pomerantz litigated and\n successfully settled the following generic-drug-delay cases:\n\n x In re Flonase Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2008) ($35 million);\n x In re Toprol XL Antitrust Litig. (D. Del. 2006) ($11 million); and\n x In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2004) ($21.5 million).\n\n Other exemplary victories include Pomerantz\u2019s prominent role in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust\n Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement in excess of $1 billion for class members, one of the\n largest antitrust settlements in history. Pomerantz also played prominent roles in In re Sorbates Direct\n Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in over an $82 million recovery, and in In re\n Methionine Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in a $107 million recovery. These cases illustrate\n the resources, expertise, and commitment that Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust Group devotes to prosecuting some\n of the most egregious anticompetitive conduct.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 15\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 62\n\n\n\n\n A Global Advocate for Asset Managers\n and Public and Taft-Hartley Pension Funds\n Pomerantz represents some of the largest pension funds, asset managers, and institutional investors\n around the globe, monitoring assets of over $9 trillion, and growing. Utilizing cutting-edge legal strategies\n and the latest proprietary techniques, Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights\n through our securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring program.\n\n Pomerantz partners routinely advise foreign and domestic institutional investors on how best to evaluate\n losses to their investment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct and how best to maximize their\n potential recoveries worldwide. In particular, Pomerantz Partners Jeremy Lieberman and Jennifer Pafiti\n regularly travel throughout the U.S. and across the globe to meet with clients on these issues and are\n frequent speakers at investor conferences and educational forums in North America, Europe, and the\n Middle East.\n\n Pomerantz was honored by European Pensions with its inaugural 2020 Thought Leadership award in\n recognition of significant contributions the Firm has made in the European pension environment.\n Institutional Investor Services\n Pomerantz offers a variety of services to institutional investors. Through the Firm\u2019s proprietary system,\n PomTrack\u0093, Pomerantz monitors client portfolios to identify and evaluate potential and pending\n securities fraud, ERISA and derivative claims, and class action settlements. Monthly customized\n PomTrack\u0093 reports are included with the service. PomTrack\u0093 currently monitors assets of over $9.4\n trillion for some of the most influential institutional investors worldwide.\n\n When a potential securities claim impacting a client is identified, Pomerantz offers to analyze the case\u2019s\n merits and provide a written analysis and recommendation. If litigation is warranted, a team of\n Pomerantz attorneys will provide efficient and effective legal representation. The experience and\n expertise of our attorneys\u2014which have consistently been acknowledged by the courts\u2014allow\n Pomerantz to vigorously pursue the claims of investors, taking complex cases to trial when warranted.\n\n Pomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and\n practice good corporate citizenship. The Firm strongly support policies and procedures designed to give\n shareholders the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. Pomerantz has successfully utilized\n litigation to bring about corporate governance reform, and always considers whether such reforms are\n appropriate before any case is settled.\n\n Pomerantz provides clients with insightful and timely commentary on matters essential to effective fund\n management in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor and regularly sponsors conferences\n and roundtable events around the globe with speakers who are experts in securities litigation and\n corporate governance matters.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 16\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 19 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys\n Partners\n\n Jeremy A. Lieberman\n\n Jeremy A. Lieberman is Pomerantz\u2019s Managing Partner. He became associated with the Firm in August\n 2004 and was elevated to Partner in January 2010. The Legal 500, in honoring Jeremy as a Leading Lawyer\n and Pomerantz as a 2021 and 2022 Tier 1 Plaintiffs Securities Law Firm, stated that \u201cJeremy Lieberman is\n super impressive\u2014a formidable adversary for any defense firm.\u201d Among the client testimonials posted on\n The Legal 500\u2019s website: \u201cJeremy Lieberman led the case for us with remarkable and unrelenting energy\n and aggression. He made a number of excellent strategic decisions which boosted our recovery.\u201d\n Lawdragon has named Jeremy among the Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers in the United States each\n year from 2019 to 2026. Super Lawyers\u00ae named him among the Top 100 Lawyers in the New York Metro\n area in 2021. In 2020, Jeremy won a Distinguished Leader award from the New York Law Journal. He was\n honored as Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 2019 Plaintiff Attorney of the Year. In 2018, Jeremy was honored as a\n Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360 and as a Benchmark Litigation Star. The Pomerantz team that Jeremy\n leads was named a 2018 Securities Practice Group of the Year.\n\n Jeremy led the securities class action litigation In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, which arose from a\n multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro\n S.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel. The biggest instance of corruption in the\n history of Brazil ensnared not only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including\n former president Lula da Silva and one-third of the Brazilian Congress. In January and February 2018,\n Jeremy achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class\n action settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a\n foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the\n largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities\n class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\n Jeremy also secured a significant victory for Petrobras investors at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,\n when the court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that\n had been imposed by the Third Circuit Courts of Appeals. The ruling will have a positive impact on plaintiffs\n in securities fraud litigation. Indeed, the Petrobras litigation was honored in 2019 as a National Impact\n Case by Benchmark Litigation.\n\n Jeremy was Lead Counsel in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF\n (S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm achieved a $110 million settlement for the class. Plaintiff alleged that Fiat\n Chrysler concealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d\n software designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had\n accused Fiat Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provided the class\n of investors with as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to\n historical statistics in class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between\n 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 17\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 20 of 62\n\n\n\n In November 2019, Jeremy achieved a critical victory for investors in the securities fraud class action\n against Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey\n certified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the New York Stock Exchange and\n the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of institutional investors that purchased\n Perrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V. to tender Perrigo shares. This is the first\n time since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a\n non-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency necessary allow for class\n certification.\n\n Jeremy headed the Firm\u2019s individual action against pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries\n Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together, \u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former\n employees and officers, relating to alleged anticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva\n is a dual-listed company, and the Firm represents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased\n Teva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global\n investors when the district court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims.\n Clal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\n In 2019, Jeremy achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile\n securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled\n institutional investors about the manipulation of the banking giant\u2019s so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems\n in order to provide a trading advantage to high-frequency traders over its institutional investor clients.\n This case turned on the duty of integrity owed by Barclays to its clients. In November 2017, Jeremy\n achieved precedent-setting victories for investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that\n direct evidence of price impact is not always necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the\n presumption of reliance, and that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by\n a preponderance of the evidence rather than merely meeting a burden of production.\n\n Jeremy led the Firm\u2019s securities class action litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., in which Pomerantz, as Lead\n Counsel, achieved an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case involved the biggest data\n breaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were compromised. This was the first\n significant settlement to date of a securities fraud class action filed in response to a data breach.\n\n In 2018 Jeremy achieved a $3.3 million settlement for the Class in the Firm\u2019s securities class action against\n Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in the country, for alleged\n misrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable regulations, and enrollment\n statistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a particularly noteworthy victory\n because Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had dismissed two prior lawsuits\n against Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).\n\n Jeremy led the Firm\u2019s litigation team that in 2018 secured a $31 million partial settlement with three\n defendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, a closely watched multi-district\n litigation, which concerns the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rigging scandal.\n\n In In re China North East Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation, Jeremy achieved a significant victory for\n shareholders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whereby the Appeals Court\n ruled that a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 18\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 21 of 62\n\n\n\n disclosure did not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. The Second Circuit\u2019s decision was deemed\n \u201cprecedential\u201d by the New York Law Journal and provides critical guidance for assessing damages in a \u00a7\n 10(b) action.\n\n Jeremy had an integral role in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which he and his\n partners achieved a historic $225 million settlement on behalf of the Class, which was the second-largest\n options backdating settlement to date.\n\n Jeremy regularly consults with Pomerantz\u2019s international institutional clients, including pension funds,\n regarding their rights under the U.S. securities laws. Jeremy is working with the Firm\u2019s international clients\n to craft a response to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., which limited\n the ability of foreign investors to seek redress under the federal securities laws.\n\n Jeremy is a frequent lecturer worldwide regarding current corporate governance and securities litigation\n issues.\n\n Jeremy graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2002. While in law school, he served as a\n staff member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Upon graduation, he began his career at a major New\n York law firm as a litigation associate, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation.\n\n Jeremy is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern,\n Eastern, and Western Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern\n Districts of Texas, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of\n Wisconsin, and the Northern District of Illinois; United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third,\n Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme\n Court.\n\n Gustavo F. Bruckner\n\n Gustavo F. Bruckner heads Pomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance practice group, which enforces\n shareholder rights and prosecutes litigation challenging corporate actions that harm shareholders. Under\n Gustavo\u2019s leadership, the Corporate Governance group has achieved numerous noteworthy litigation\n successes. He has been quoted on corporate governance issues by The New York Times, The Wall Street\n Journal, Bloomberg, Law360, and Reuters, and was honored from 2016 through 2021 by Super Lawyers\u00ae\n as a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on no more than 5% of eligible\n attorneys in the New York Metro area. In 2023 and 2026, he was included on Lawdragon\u2019s list of the 500\n Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. Gustavo regularly appears in state and federal courts across the nation.\n Gustavo presented at the prestigious Institute for Law and Economic Policy conference.\n\n Gustavo is a fierce advocate of aggressive corporate clawback policies that allow companies to recover\n damages from officers and directors for reputational and financial harm. Most recently, in McIntosh vs\n Keizer, et al., Docket No. 2018-0386 (Del. Ch.), Pomerantz filed a derivative suit on behalf of Hertz Global\n Holdings, Inc. shareholders, seeking to compel the Hertz board of directors to claw back millions of dollars\n in unearned and undeserved payments that the Company made to former officers and directors who\n significantly damaged Hertz through years of wrongdoing and misconduct. Under pressure from plaintiff\u2019s\n ligation efforts, the Hertz board of directors elected to take unprecedented action and mooted plaintiff\u2019s\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 19\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 22 of 62\n\n\n\n claims, initiating litigation to recover tens of millions of dollars in incentive compensation and more than\n $200 million in damages from culpable former Hertz executives.\n\n Pomerantz, through initiation and prosecution of a shareholder derivative action, forced the Hertz board\n to seek clawback from former officers and directors of the company, unjustly enriched after causing the\n Company to file inaccurate and false financial statements leading to a $235 million restatement and $16\n million fee to the SEC.\n\n In September 2017, Gustavo\u2019s Corporate Governance team achieved a settlement in New Jersey Superior\n Court that provided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In approving the settlement, Judge\n Julio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery Division, became the first New Jersey state court judge to\n formally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975).\n Never before has there been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting out the factors a court\n must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be determined to be fair and\n adequate.\n\n Gustavo successfully argued Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015), obtaining a landmark\n ruling in Delaware that bylaws adopted after shareholders are cashed out do not apply to shareholders\n affected by the transaction. In the process, Gustavo and the Corporate Governance team beat back a fee-\n shifting bylaw and were able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the\n \u201cgoing private\u201d transaction. Shortly thereafter, the Delaware Legislature adopted legislation to ban fee-\n shifting bylaws.\n\n In Stein v. DeBoer (Or. Cir. Ct. 2017), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance group achieved a settlement\n that provides significant corporate governance therapeutics on behalf of shareholders of Lithia Motors,\n Inc. The company\u2019s board had approved, without meaningful review, the Transition Agreement between\n the company and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder, CEO, and Chairman, who was\n stepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, negotiated virtually all the material terms of\n the Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the senior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car\n allowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits, in addition to the $200,000 per year that he\n would receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\n In Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance\n group, by initiating litigation, caused Implant Sciences to hold its first shareholder annual meeting in 5\n years and to place an important compensation grant up for a shareholder vote.\n\n In Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate\n Governance team caused the North State Bancorp merger agreement to be amended to provide a\n \u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for common shareholders in connection with the shareholder vote\n on the merger. As a result of the action, common shareholders had the ability to stop the merger if they\n did not wish it to go forward.\n\n In Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters\u2019 Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon Athletica,\n Inc., C.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, Gustavo successfully\n argued for the production of the company chairman\u2019s Rule 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found\n that a stock trading plan established by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 20\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 23 of 62\n\n\n\n the chairman himself, would liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude\n potential liability for insider trading.\n\n Gustavo was Co-Lead Counsel in In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7328-VCN\n (Del. Ch. 2012), obtaining the elimination of stand-still provisions that allowed third parties to bid for\n Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a third-party bidder and approximately $94 million\n (57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf shareholders.\n\n In In Re Qurate Retail, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Gustavo secured a groundbreaking settlement on behalf\n of Qurate Retail, Inc., addressing allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment involving\n senior executives Gregory B. Maffei and Dr. John C. Malone. Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of nominal\n defendant Qurate following a series of allegedly sham transactions in 2021 between Maffei and Malone\n that resulted in the elimination of a call right held by Qurate, for which its predecessor paid $150 million\n in 1998. The litigation challenged these transactions, including stock exchanges and executive\n compensation agreements, as unfair and detrimental to Qurate\u2019s long-term interests. After defendants\n moved to dismiss the case, the Court of Chancery issued rulings allowing claims against Mr. Maffei and\n Dr. Malone to proceed. Pomerantz ultimately settled the action in exchange for the reimposition of the\n call right, an agreement that Dr. Malone would leave the Qurate Board of Directors, and enhanced\n independent oversight at the company.\n\n Gustavo received his law degree in 1992 from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he served\n as an editor of the Moot Court Board and on the Student Council. Upon graduation, he received the award\n for outstanding student service.\n\n After graduating law school, Gustavo served as Chief-of-Staff to a New York City legislator.\n\n Gustavo is a Mentor and Coach to the NYU Stern School of Business, Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial\n Studies, New Venture Competition. He was a University Scholar at NYU where he obtained a B.S. in\n Marketing and International Business in 1988 and an MBA in Finance and International Business in 1989.\n Gustavo is a Trustee and former Treasurer of the Beit Rabban Day School, and an arbitrator in the Civil\n Court of the City of New York.\n\n Gustavo is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey; the United States District Courts for the\n Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey; the United States\n District Court for Connecticut; the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United States Courts of Appeals for\n the Second and Seventh Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Brian Calandra\n\n Brian Calandra joined Pomerantz in June 2019 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in January 2023.\n He has extensive experience in securities, antitrust, complex commercial, and white-collar matters in\n federal and state courts nationwide. Brian has represented issuers, underwriters, and individuals in\n securities class actions involving the financial, telecommunications, real estate, and pharmaceutical\n industries. He has also represented financial institutions in antitrust class actions concerning foreign\n exchange; supra-national, sub-sovereign and agency bonds; bonds issued by the government of Mexico;\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 21\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 24 of 62\n\n\n\n and credit card fees. In 2021, Brian was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation\n Attorney\u201d and was named to Lawdragon\u2019s 2026 Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n Brian has written multiple times on developments in securities law and other topics, including co-\n authoring an overview of insider trading law and enforcement for Practical Compliance & Risk\n Management for the Securities Industry, co-authoring an analysis of anti-corruption compliance risks\n posed by sovereign wealth funds for Risk & Compliance, and authoring an analysis of the effects of the\n 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act on women in bankruptcy for\n the Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Brian was a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP. Brian graduated\n from Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 2009, cum laude, Order of the Coif. While at Rutgers, Brian was co-\n editor-in-chief of the Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter and received the Justice Henry E. Ackerson Prize for\n Distinction in Legal Skills and the Carol Russ Memorial Prize for Distinction in Promoting Women\u2019s Rights.\n\n Brian is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern and\n Eastern Districts of New York; the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United\n States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Tenth Circuits; and the United States\n Supreme Court.\n\n Justin D. D\u2019Aloia\n\n Justin D. D\u2019Aloia is a leading class action attorney who specializes in securities fraud litigation. He has\n extensive experience litigating high-profile securities cases in federal and state courts across the country.\n Justin has represented issuers, underwriters, and senior executives in matters involving a range of\n industries, including the financial services, life sciences, real estate, technology, and consumer retail\n sectors. His practice covers the full spectrum of proceedings from pre-suit demand through settlement.\n Justin was named to Lawdragon\u2019s 2026 Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n Justin joined Pomerantz as a Partner in October 2022. Before joining Pomerantz, Justin was counsel at a\n large international law firm where he focused on securities litigation and other complex shareholder class\n action litigation. He previously served as a law clerk to Judge Mark Falk of the United States District Court\n for the District of New Jersey.\n\n Justin received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the\n Fordham International Law Journal. Before entering private practice, he served as a law clerk to Judge\n Mark Falk of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.\n\n Justin is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York and the District of Colorado; United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,\n Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits.\n\n Emma Gilmore\n Emma Gilmore is a Partner at Pomerantz and is regularly involved in high-profile class-action litigation. In\n 2024, Benchmark Litigation selected her as \u201cPlaintiff Litigator of the Year.\u201d In 2023, the National Law\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 22\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 25 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Journal named her a Plaintiffs\u2019 Attorney Trailblazer and Benchmark Litigation shortlisted her for Plaintiff\n Litigator of the Year.\n\n Emma was honored by Law360 in 2023 and in 2018 as an MVP in Securities Litigation, part of an \u201celite\n slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-earned\n successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to six\n attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. In 2018, Emma was the first\n woman plaintiff attorney to receive this outstanding award since it was initiated in 2011. In 2021, Emma\n was awarded a spot on National Law Journal\u2019s prestigious Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar list. In 2021\n and 2020, she was named by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation\u2014an honor\n bestowed on only seven plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers in the U.S. those years. The National Law Journal and the New\n York Law Journal honored her as a \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer.\u201d Emma has been honored since 2018 as\n a Super Lawyer\u00ae. She has been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n Lawyers in 2024 and 2026.\n\n Emma is regularly invited to speak about recent trends and developments in securities litigation. She\n serves on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Securities Litigation Committee. Emma regularly counsels\n clients around the world on how to maximize recoveries on their investments.\n\n Emma leads the Firm\u2019s high-profile litigation against Koninklijke Philips N.V., arising from the company\u2019s\n alleged misrepresentations about its compliance with FDA regulations and about Philips\u2019 business and\n specific products, including devices used to treat breathing conditions in millions of people worldwide.\n The complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to the market and the device users, but known to Defendants,\n the foam in the devices was degrading, allowing foam particles to enter the devices\u2019 air pathway and be\n ingested or inhaled. The degrading foam could also off-gas chemicals with carcinogenic effects. As of\n September 30, 2023, according to the latest death-related updates from the FDA, there have been 561\n reported deaths connected to the devices.\n\n Emma co-leads the Firm\u2019s litigation against Alphabet and Google over alleged misrepresentations\n Alphabet\u2019s CEO made in testimony to Congress when it described the workings of Google\u2019s advertising\n technology. The complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors and contrary to its public\n representations, Google enjoyed special advantages over other bidding participants. Google has also been\n sued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of dozens of states for related antitrust\n violations.\n\n Emma played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s class action case in the Southern District of New York against\n Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in\n which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. In a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz achieved a historic\n $3 billion settlement with Petrobras. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 23\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 26 of 62\n\n\n\n\n decade but is the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest class\n action settlement ever achieved in the United States, and the largest settlement achieved by a foreign\n lead plaintiff. The biggest instance of corruption in the history of Brazil had ensnared not only Petrobras'\n former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former president Lula da Silva and one-third of\n the Brazilian Congress. Emma traveled to Brazil to uncover evidence of fraud and drafted the complaint.\n She deposed and defended numerous fact and expert witnesses, including deposing the former CEO of\n Petrobras, the whistleblower, and the chief accountant. She drafted the appellate brief, playing an\n instrumental role in securing a significant victory for investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of\n Appeals, when the Court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class\n certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts. She opposed defendants' petition for a writ\n of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Emma successfully obtained sanctions against a professional objector\n challenging the integrity of the settlement, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the\n Second Circuit.\n\n Emma organized a group of twenty-seven of the foremost U.S. scholars in the field of evidence and\n spearheaded the effort to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf in a critical\n issue for investors. One of the two issues before the High Court in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al v.\n Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20-222) squarely affected investors\u2019 ability to pursue\n claims collectively as a class: whether, in order to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the\n Court in the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, defendants bear the burden of persuasion, or whether\n they bear only the much lower burden of production. The scholars argued that defendants carry the higher\n burden of persuasion. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Pomerantz and the scholars.\n\n Emma led the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Deutsche Bank and its executives, arising from the\n Bank\u2019s improper anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that,\n despite the Bank\u2019s representations that it implemented a \u201crobust and strict\u201d Know Your Customer\n program with \u201cspecial safeguards\u201d for politically exposed persons (PEPs), defendants repeatedly\n exempted high-net-worth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, enabling their criminal\n activities through the Bank\u2019s facilities. For example, Deutsche Bank continued \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d with\n Jeffrey Epstein even after learning that 40 underage girls had come forward with testimony that he had\n sexually assaulted them. Deutsche Bank\u2019s former CEOs also onboarded, retained, and serviced Russian\n oligarchs and other clients reportedly engaged in criminal activities, with little or no due diligence. On\n October 20, 2022, Emma secured for investors nearly 50% of recoverable damages, which reflects a\n premium for the palpable misconduct and is exceptionally high for securities class action settlements. The\n Deutsche Bank litigation and settlement serve as important legal precedents aimed to deter financial\n institutions from enabling the wealthy and powerful to commit crimes in return for financial benefits to\n the institutions.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 24\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 27 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Emma played a leading role in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action that alleged\n Barclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking giant\u2019s use of so-called\n \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. She secured an important precedent-setting opinion from the Second Circuit.\n Emma organized a group of leading evidence experts who filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs\u2019 position\n in the Second Circuit.\n\n Emma secured a unanimous decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, benefiting\n defrauded investors in Costa Brava Partnership III LP v. ChinaCast Education Corp. In an issue of first\n impression, the Ninth Circuit held that imputation of the CEO's scienter to the company was warranted\n vis-a-vis innocent third parties, despite the fact that the executive acted for his own benefit and to the\n company's detriment.\n\n She was Lead Counsel in the Firm's class action litigation against Arconic, in which she secured a $74\n million settlement for the class. Arconic is the U.S. company that manufactured the highly flammable\n aluminum cladding allegedly responsible for the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that eradicated a\n public housing block, killing 72 people and injuring 70 other tenants. Arconic repeatedly misrepresented\n to the market its safety protocols and the safety classification of its cladding products. When the truth\n about Arconic\u2019s unsafe practices emerged, investors lost over $1 billion in damages.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Emma was a litigation associate with the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher\n and Flom, LLP, and Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. She worked on the WorldCom Securities Litigation, which\n settled for $2 billion.\n\n She also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, former U.S. Chief Judge for the Eastern\n District of New York.\n\n Emma graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, where she served as a staff editor for the Brooklyn\n Law Review. She was the recipient of two CALI Excellence for the Future Awards, in the subjects of\n evidence and discovery. She graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University, with a BA in\n French and a minor in Business.\n\n She serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n Michael Grunfeld\n\n Michael Grunfeld is a Partner at Pomerantz LLP. He has extensive experience in securities, derivative,\n complex commercial, and white-collar matters in both federal and state courts nationwide.\n\n He has played a leading role in some of the Firm\u2019s significant class action litigation, including its case\n against Yahoo!, Inc. arising out of the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which the Firm, as Lead\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 25\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 28 of 62\n\n\n\n Counsel, achieved an $80 million settlement on behalf of the Class. This settlement made history as the\n first substantial shareholder recovery in a securities fraud class action related to a cybersecurity breach.\n Michael also plays a leading role in many of the Firm\u2019s other ongoing class actions.\n\n In 2020 and 2022, Michael was included on Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under Hot List, an honor granted\n to a few of the \u201cbest and brightest law firm partners [under 40 years old] who stand out in their practices.\u201d\n In 2019, Law360 named him a Rising Star. Michael has been ranked by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Top-Rated\n Securities Litigation Attorney from 2020 - 2024, and as a New York Metro Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.\n He was also named to Lawdragon\u2019s 2026 Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n Michael also leads Pomerantz\u2019s litigation on behalf of the Colorado Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System\n as an intervenor in The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust v. Johnson & Johnson. At issue is an activist\n investor\u2019s attempt to have Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d) shareholders vote on a proxy proposal instituting a\n corporate bylaw that would require all securities fraud claims against the company to be pursued through\n mandatory arbitration, and that would waive shareholder\u2019s rights to bring securities\n class actions. In March 2022, the district court handed down an important victory for shareholders when\n it granted J&J\u2019s and the Intervenors\u2019 Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.\n\n Michael co-authored a chapter on damages in securities class actions for the LexisNexis treatise, Litigating\n Securities Class Actions.\n\n His earlier career highlights include serving as a clerk for Judge Ronald Gilman of the Sixth Circuit Court of\n Appeals and as a foreign law clerk for Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court. Before joining\n Pomerantz, he worked as a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,\n Wharton & Garrison LLP.\n\n Michael graduated from Columbia Law School in 2008, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. He\n graduated from Harvard University with an A.B. in Government, magna cum laude, in 2004.\n\n Michael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado; and the United States\n Courts of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.\n\n J. Alexander Hood II\n\n J. Alexander Hood II joined Pomerantz in June 2015 and was elevated to Of Counsel to the Firm in 2019.\n He was elevated to Partner in 2022. Alex leads the Firm\u2019s case origination team, identifying and\n investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws. In 2023, Alex was selected as a Rising Star\n in the National Law Journal\u2019s Elite Trial Lawyers awards competition. This award honors lawyers under 40\n who represent the next generation of legal leaders. He has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each\n year since 2019 and was named to Lawdragon\u2019s 2026 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers.\n\n Alex played a key role in securing Pomerantz\u2019s appointment as Lead Counsel in actions against Meta\n Platforms, Inc., AT&T, Inc., Adobe, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Yahoo!,\n Inc., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Wynn Resorts Limited, Perrigo Company plc, among others.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 26\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 29 of 62\n\n\n\n Alex also oversees the firm\u2019s involvement on behalf of institutional investors in non-U.S. litigations,\n assisting Pomerantz clients with respect to evaluating and pursuing recovery in foreign jurisdictions,\n including matters in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, and elsewhere.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Alex practiced at nationally recognized law firms, where he was involved in\n commercial, financial services, corporate governance, and securities matters.\n\n Alex graduated from Boston University School of Law (J.D.) and from the University of Oregon School of\n Law (LL.M.). During law school, he served as a member of the Boston University Review of Banking &\n Financial Law and participated in the Thomas Tang Moot Court Competition. In addition, Alex clerked for\n the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and, as a legal extern, worked on the Center for Biological\n Diversity\u2019s Clean Water Act suit against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.\n\n Alex is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern,\n Western and Northern Districts of New York; the District of Colorado; the Eastern District of Michigan; the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin; the Northern District of Illinois; the Northern District of Indiana; the\n Southern District of Texas; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n Omar Jafri\n\n Omar Jafri is a Partner at Pomerantz. He represents defrauded investors in individual and class action\n securities litigation.\n\n Lawdragon named him one of the country\u2019s 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers in 2026, and Super\n Lawyers\u00ae has repeatedly recognized him as a Top-Rated Securities Litigator. Previously, Omar was\n recognized by the National Law Journal as a Rising Star of the Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar. The National Law Journal\n selected lawyers who \u201cdemonstrated repeated success in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over\n the last 18 months [and] possess a solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years.\u201d He\n was also recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation between 2021 and 2023.\n\n Omar has played an integral role in numerous cases where the Firm achieved significant recoveries for\n defrauded shareholders as Lead, Co-Lead or Additional Counsel, including: Roofer\u2019s Pension Fund v. Papa\n et al. ($97 million recovery); Glazer Capital Management, L.P. et al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et\n al. ($45 million recovery); In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Securities Litigation ($44 million recovery);\n In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation ($24 million recovery); In re Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.\n Securities Litigation ($18 million recovery, which was more than four times larger than the SEC\u2019s fair fund\n recovery in its parallel litigation); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million settlement); Cooper v.\n Thoratec Corporation et al. ($11.9 million settlement following a reversal in the United States Court of\n Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the lower court repeatedly dismissed the case); Felipe v. Playstudios,\n Inc. et al. ($6.5 million settlement); Thomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. Securities Litigation ($6.2\n million settlement with majority shareholder, Avenue Capital); Solomon v. Sprint Corporation et al. ($3.75\n million settlement); In re Paysign, Inc. Securities Litigation ($3.75 million settlement); Schaeffer v. Nabriva\n Therapeutics plc et al. ($3 million settlement); In re Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation\n ($2.75 million settlement); Torres et al. v. Berry Corporation et al. ($2.5 million settlement); and Busic v.\n Orphazyme A/S et al. ($2.5 million settlement).\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 27\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 30 of 62\n\n\n\n Through vigorous litigation, Omar has helped shape important precedents for all investors. NantKwest\n was the first case in the United States to recognize statistical proof of traceability. In Roofer\u2019s Pension\n Fund v. Papa et al., the District Court independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a foreign\n exchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency to allow for class certification for the\n first time since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morrison. Nabriva was the first case in the Second Circuit\n to sustain a complaint based on the failure to disclose the FDA\u2019s serious criticisms identified in a Form 483\n letter. In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics et al., while the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit\n disagreed on the merits, the Circuit held that it is erroneous to dismiss a case for lack of standing when a\n named plaintiff can be substituted with another class member, shutting the door on such defense tactics\n in any future case filed in that Circuit. In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation Securities Litigation was one\n of the first decisions in the country to conclude that the dissemination of a misleading emoji can be an\n actionable misrepresentation under the federal securities laws. And in Glazer Capital Management, L.P.\n et al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al., Omar won a rare reversal in a securities fraud class action in\n the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a published decision that reversed the dismissal\n in Forescout, the Ninth Circuit held that lower courts must not comingle the lower standard for falsity with\n the higher standard for scienter in analyzing the sufficiency of a securities fraud complaint, and repudiated\n numerous arguments concerning the testimony of Confidential Witnesses that the defense bar had\n convinced many lower courts to erroneously endorse over the years.\n\n Omar started his legal career at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and has litigated major disputes\n on behalf of institutional investors arising out of the credit crisis, including disputes related to\n Collateralized Debt Obligations, Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps and other\n complex financial investments. Omar also represented the Examiner in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,\n the largest in history at the time, and helped draft a report that identified colorable claims against\n Lehman\u2019s senior executives for violating their fiduciary duties. He also has a robust pro bono criminal\n defense practice and has represented indigent defendants charged with crimes that range from simple\n battery to arson and murder.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Omar was a law clerk to Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States District\n Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and an associate at an international law firm where he\n represented clients in a wide variety of matters, including securities litigation, complex commercial\n litigation, white collar criminal defense, and internal investigations.\n\n Omar is a 2004 honors graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, and a 2008, magna cum laude,\n graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and\n received the Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\n\n Omar is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois\n (Trial Bar) and the Northern District of Indiana; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,\n Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Jordan L. Lurie\n\n Jordan L. Lurie joined Pomerantz as a partner in the Los Angeles office in December 2018. Jordan heads\n Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice. He was named a 2021 Southern California Super\n Lawyer\u00ae, and named to Lawdragon\u2019s 2026 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 28\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 31 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Jordan has litigated shareholder class and derivative actions, complex corporate securities and consumer\n litigation, and a wide range of fraud and misrepresentation cases brought under state and federal\n consumer protection statutes involving unfair competition, false advertising, and privacy rights. Among\n his notable representations, Jordan served as Lead Counsel in the prosecution and successful resolution\n of major nationwide class actions against Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Chrysler and General\n Motors. He also successfully preserved a multi-million dollar nationwide automotive class action\n settlement by convincing the then Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit and his wife, who were also class\n members and had filed objections to the settlement, to withdraw their objections and endorse the\n settlement.\n\n Jordan has argued cases in the California Court of Appeals and in the Ninth Circuit that resulted in\n published opinions establishing class members\u2019 rights to intervene and clarifying the standing\n requirements for an objector to appeal. He also established a Ninth Circuit precedent for obtaining\n attorneys\u2019 fees in a catalyst fee action. Jordan has tried a federal securities fraud class action to verdict.\n He has been a featured speaker at California Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminars and is a\n trained ombudsman and mediator. In 2020, Jordan was recognized as a 2021 Southern California Super\n Lawyer.\n\n Outside of his legal practice, Jordan is an active educator and community leader and has held executive\n positions in various organizations in the Los Angeles community. Jordan participated in the first Wexner\n Heritage Foundation leadership program in Los Angeles and the first national cohort of the Board Member\n Institute for Jewish Nonprofits at the Kellogg School of Management.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Jordan was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Weiss & Lurie\n and Senior Litigator at Capstone Law APC.\n\n Jordan graduated cum laude from Yale University in 1984 with a B.A in Political Science and received his\n law degree in 1987 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, where he served as\n Notes Editor of the University of Southern California Law Review.\n\n Jordan is a member of the State Bar of California and has been admitted to practice before the United\n States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, the Eastern\n and Western Districts of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.\n\n Jennifer Pafiti\n\n Jennifer Pafiti became associated with the Firm in April 2014 and was elevated to Partner in December\n 2015. A dually qualified U.K. solicitor and U.S. attorney, she is the Firm\u2019s Head of Client Services and also\n takes an active role in complex securities litigation, representing clients in both class and non-class action\n securities litigation.\n\n Jennifer received the Innovative Leader Award in Corporate Counsel\u2019s 2024 Women, Influence, and Power\n in Law Awards. She has been recognized with inclusion in the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers\n list and the 2024 and 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Leaders list. In 2023, Jennifer was\n one of only four individuals to be honored with the New York Law Journal\u2019s Innovation Award, which\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 29\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 32 of 62\n\n\n\n recognizes \u201ccreative and inspiring approaches by forward-thinking firms and individuals.\u201d Jennifer was\n nominated as a 2023 Lawyer of Distinction. In 2022, The Enterprise World named Jennifer as The Most\n Successful Business Leader to Watch. In 2021, Jennifer was selected as one of the \u201cWomen, Influence and\n Power in Law\u201d honorees by Corporate Counsel, in the Collaborative Leadership\u2014Law Firm category.\n Lawdragon has named Jennifer among the Leading 500 Lawyers in the United States every year since\n 2021. In 2020 she was named a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae and was recognized by\n Benchmark Litigation as a Future Star. Lawdragon has recognized Jennifer as a Leading Plaintiff Financial\n Attorney from 2019 through 2021. In 2019, she was also honored by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Southern\n California Rising Star in Securities Litigation, named to Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 40 & Under Hot List of the\n best young attorneys in the United States, and recognized by Los Angeles Magazine as one of Southern\n California\u2019s Top Young Lawyers. In 2018, Jennifer was recognized as a Lawyer of Distinction. She was\n honored by Super Lawyers\u00ae in 2017 as both a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern\n California. In 2016, the Daily Journal selected Jennifer for its \u201cTop 40 Under 40\u201d list of the best young\n attorneys in California.\n\n Jennifer was an integral member of the Firm\u2019s litigation team for In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, a\n case relating to a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme at Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo\n Brasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. She helped secure a significant victory\n for investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court rejected the heightened\n ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other Circuit courts\n such as the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Working closely with Lead Plaintiff, Universities\n Superannuation Scheme Limited, she was also instrumental in achieving the historic settlement of $3\n billion for Petrobras investors. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\n but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\n securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\n settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\n not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\n Jennifer was involved, among other cases, in the securities class action against rare disease\n biopharmaceutical company, KaloBios, and certain of its officers, including CEO Martin Shkreli. In 2018,\n Pomerantz achieved a settlement of $3 million plus 300,000 shares for defrauded investors\u2014an excellent\n recovery in light of the company\u2019s bankruptcy. Isensee v. KaloBios. Jennifer also helped achieve a $10\n million recovery for the class in a securities litigation against the bankrupt Californian energy company,\n PG&E, which arose from allegedly false statements made by the company about its rolling power outages\n in the wake of the catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. Vataj\n v. Johnson, et al.\n\n Jennifer earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology at Thames Valley University in England, prior\n to studying law. She earned her law degrees at Thames Valley University (G.D.L.) and the Inns of Court\n School of Law (L.P.C.) in the U.K.\n\n Before studying law in England, Jennifer was a regulated financial advisor and senior mortgage\n underwriter at a major U.K. financial institution. She holds full CeFA and CeMAP qualifications. After\n qualifying as a solicitor, Jennifer specialized in private practice civil litigation, which included the\n representation of clients in high-profile cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. Prior to joining Pomerantz,\n Jennifer was an associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in their San Diego office.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 30\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 33 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Jennifer regularly travels throughout the U.S. and Europe to advise clients on how best to evaluate losses\n to their investment portfolios attributable to financial fraud or other misconduct, and how best to\n maximize their potential recoveries. Jennifer is also a regular speaker at events on securities litigation and\n fiduciary duty. In 2022, Thought Leaders 4 Disputes published Jennifer\u2019s article entitled \u201cThe Globalisation\n of Securities Litigation.\u201d\n\n Jennifer served on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on\n specific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and expands\n economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.\n\n Jennifer is a member of the National Association of Pension Fund Attorneys and represents the Firm as a\n member of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems, the State Association of County\n Retirement Systems, the National Association of State Treasurers, the National Conference of Employee\n Retirement Systems, the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the\n U.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds.\n\n Jennifer is admitted to practice in England and Wales; California; the United States District Courts for the\n Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\n Circuit.\n\n Joshua B. Silverman\n\n Joshua B. Silverman is a partner in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office. He specializes in individual and class action\n securities litigation. He was named to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers list.\n\n Josh was Lead Counsel in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, achieving a $45 million settlement, one\n of the highest percentage recoveries in the Seventh Circuit. He was also Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in In re\n MannKind Corp. Securities Litigation ($23 million settlement); In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities\n Litigation ($18 million settlement, more than four times larger than the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in parallel\n litigation); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (very favorable\n confidential settlement); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Cheslock Bakker & Associates (summary\n judgment award in excess of $30 million); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million settlement); Bruce\n v. Suntech Power Holdings Corp. ($5 million settlement); In re AgFeed, Inc. Securities Litigation ($7 million\n settlement); and In re Hemispherx BioPharma Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement). Josh also\n played a key role in the Firm's representation of investors before the United States Supreme Court\n in StoneRidge, and prosecuted many of the Firm's other class cases, including In re Sealed Air Corp.\n Securities Litigation ($20 million settlement).\n\n Josh, together with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a critical victory for investors in the\n securities fraud class action against Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court\n for the District of New Jersey certified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the\n New York Stock Exchange and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of\n institutional investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V.\n to tender Perrigo shares. This is the first time since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 31\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 34 of 62\n\n\n\n the market of a security traded on a non-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market\n efficiency necessary allow for class certification.\n\n Several of Josh\u2019s cases have set important precedent. For example, In re MannKind established that\n investors may support complaints with expert information. New Mexico v. Countrywide recognized that\n investors may show Section 11 damages for asset-backed securities even if there has been no interruption\n in payment or threat of default. More recently, NantKwest was the first Section 11 case in the nation to\n recognize statistical proof of traceability.\n\n In addition to prosecuting cases, Josh regularly speaks at investor conferences and continuing legal\n education programs.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Josh practiced at McGuireWoods LLP and its Chicago predecessor, Ross &\n Hardies, where he represented one of the largest independent futures commission merchants in\n commodities fraud and civil RICO cases. He also spent two years as a securities trader, and continues to\n actively trade stocks, futures, and options for his own account.\n\n Josh is a 1993 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he received Phi Beta Kappa honors, and a\n 1996 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.\n\n Josh is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;\n the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; and\n the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Brenda Szydlo\n\n Brenda Szydlo joined Pomerantz in January 2016 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in 2022. She\n brings to the Firm extensive experience in complex civil litigation in federal and state court on behalf of\n plaintiffs and defendants, with a particular focus on securities and financial fraud litigation, litigation\n against pharmaceutical corporations, accountants\u2019 liability, and commercial litigation. In 2020-2024,\n Brenda was recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d She was\n included on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list in 2022\u20132026 and was named New\n York Metro Top Women 2024 for Securities Litigation.\n\n Brenda played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case in the Southern District of New York\n against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\n scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved a precedent-setting legal ruling and a historic\n $3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\n but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\n securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\n settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\n not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\n Brenda has represented investors in additional class and private actions that have resulted in significant\n recoveries, such as In re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was $486 million, and In re\n Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was in excess of $407 million. She has also represented\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 32\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 35 of 62\n\n\n\n investors in opt-out securities actions, such as investors opting out of In re Bank of America Corp.\n Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation in order to pursue their own securities action.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Brenda served as Senior Counsel in a prominent plaintiff advocacy firm, where\n she represented clients in securities and financial fraud litigation, and litigation against pharmaceutical\n corporations and accounting firms. Brenda also served as Counsel in the litigation department of one of\n the largest premier law firms in the world, where her practice focused on defending individuals and\n corporations in securities litigation and enforcement, accountants\u2019 liability actions, and commercial\n litigation.\n\n Brenda is a graduate of St. John\u2019s University School of Law, where she was a St. Thomas More Scholar and\n member of the Law Review. She received a B.A. in economics from Binghamton University.\n\n Brenda is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits; the United\n States District Court for the District of Colorado; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Matthew L. Tuccillo\n\n A Partner since 2013, Matthew L. Tuccillo joined Pomerantz in 2011. With 26+ years of experience, he is\n recognized as a top national securities litigator.\n\n Matt serves as the Firm\u2019s lead litigator on high-stakes securities class action litigation in courts nationwide.\n He closely advises institutional clients, which are regularly appointed to serve as lead plaintiffs overseeing\n such lawsuits, which often have class-wide damages of $500 million - $1 billion+. Matt\u2019s representative\n cases include:\n\n \u2022 In In re Emergent Biosolutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (D. Md.), arising\n from a company\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing failures, Matt investigated and prepared a robust\n amended complaint, then succeeded in overcoming Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in September 2023,\n in securing class certification in June 2024, and in leading the case is through discovery. Matt secured a\n $40 million class-wide settlement following a mediation and months of ensuring negotiations. The court\n granted final approval in February 2025 and distributed in August 2025.\n\n \u2022 In Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-4330-AB (S.D. Tex.), Matt successfully opposed a\n motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging a years-long, multi-prong fraud by an engineering and\n construction company that did a risky merger, delayed massive write-downs, and declared bankruptcy.\n Matt led the case through discovery. He secured court orders that required defendants to review for\n production 1.25 million+ documents identified via plaintiff-authored search terms on plaintiff-selected\n custodians. He oversaw review of 450,000+ defense and third party documents and 40 party and non-\n party fact depositions. Matt secured an order partially certifying the class in June 2024, which he\n successfully defended on Rule 23(f) appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which issued its order in December 2025.\n The litigation is ongoing.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 33\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 36 of 62\n\n\n\n \u2022 In In re Miniso Group Holding Limited Securities Litigation, No. CV-22-5815 (MR Wx) (S.D.N.Y.),\n securities class action claims arose from a China-based retail company\u2019s U.S. IPO. A motion to dismiss\n the third amended complaint has been fully briefed and is awaiting decision.\n\n \u2022 In Chun v. Fluor Corp., et al., No. 3:18-cv-01338-S (N.D. Tex.), Matt served as co-lead counsel in\n hard-fought litigation concerning underperforming, large-scale, fixed-bid projects through two motions\n to dismiss. A months-long mediation and negotiation process resulted in a court-approved $33 million\n settlement, which was a 37.5% recovery of the upheld claim value.\n\n \u2022 In Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-01828-H-LL (S.D. Cal.), Matt successfully\n opposed a motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit arising from a pharmaceuticals company\u2019s failure to\n advance its lead drug candidate to FDA approval. Notably, the court held that the individual defendants\u2019\n scienter (intent) was sufficiently pled, even though they bought, rather than sold, company stock during\n the period of alleged fraud. A successful mediation resulted in a court-approved $12.75 million\n settlement.\n\n \u2022 In In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.), where the court praised the\n \u201cuniformly excellent\u201d \u201cquality of lawyering,\u201d Matt spearheaded lawsuits over BP\u2019s Gulf of Mexico oil spill\n by 125+ global institutional investors. Over 9 years, he successfully opposed three motions to dismiss,\n oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million documents, led the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, was the sole\n interface with BP and the Court, and secured some of the Firm\u2019s most ground-breaking rulings. In a\n ruling of first impression, he successfully argued that investors asserted viable English law \u201cholder\n claims\u201d for losses due to retention of already-owned shares in reliance on a fraud, a theory barred under\n U.S. law since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). He successfully argued\n against forum non conveniens (wrong forum) dismissal of 80+ global institutions\u2019 lawsuits - the first\n ruling after Morrison v. Nat\u2019l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), to permit foreign investors to\n pursue in U.S. court their foreign law claims for losses in a foreign company\u2019s securities traded on a\n foreign exchange. He successfully argued that the U.S. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of\n 1998 (SLUSA), which extinguishes U.S. state law claims in deference to the U.S. federal law, should not\n extend to the foreign law claims of U.S. and foreign investors, a ruling that saved those claims from\n dismissal where U.S. federal law afforded no remedy after Morrison. In 2021, Matt achieved mediator-\n assisted, confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients including public and private\n pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K.,\n France, the Netherlands, and Australia. Notably, seven of these plaintiffs were Matt\u2019s institutional\n clients from the U.S., U.K., and Canada.\n\n \u2022 In In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J.), Matt pled a\n multi-year fraud arising at one of Canada\u2019s largest banks, based on extensive statements by former\n employees detailing underlying retail banking misconduct. Matt persuaded the court to reject a motion\n to dismiss in an order noteworthy because it validated the scienter (intent) pleading despite no witness\n speaking directly to the individual defendants\u2019 state of mind. The court approved a $13.25 million class-\n wide settlement achieved after mediation.\n\n \u2022 In Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00755-AWT (D. Conn.), Matt persuaded\n the court, after an initial dismissal, to uphold a second amended complaint asserting five threads of\n fraud by an education funding company and its founders and to approve a $7.5 million class-wide\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 34\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 37 of 62\n\n\n\n settlement. Notably, the court held that the company\u2019s reported financial results violated SEC\n Regulation S-K, Item 303, for failure to disclose known trends and impacts from underlying misconduct \u2013\n a rare ruling absent an accounting restatement.\n\n \u2022 In In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-05841 (N.D. Cal.), a lawsuit\n against a bankrupt drug company and its jailed ex-CEO, Matt negotiated two class-wide settlements\n totaling $3.25+ million, including cash payments and stock from the company, that were approved by\n the bankruptcy and district courts.\n\n \u2022 In In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-cv-09456 (S.D.N.Y.), Matt worked\n with mining, accounting, damages, and market efficiency experts to survive a motion to dismiss by a\n Canadian company with mining operations in China and NYSE-traded stock. In approving the $14 million\n settlement achieved after two mediations, Judge Rakoff called the case \u201cunusually complex,\u201d given the\n technical nature of mining metrics, the need to compare mining standards in Canada, China, and the\n U.S., and the volume of Chinese-language evidence.\n\n Matt was also on the multi-firm team that represented commercial real estate investors against the\n Empire State Building\u2019s long-term lessees/operators regarding a consolidation, REIT formation, and IPO in\n In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which was resolve for\n a $55 million cash/securities settlement fund, a $100 million tax benefit from restructured terms, remedial\n disclosures, and deal protections.\n\n Matt regularly counsels institutional investors, foreign and domestic, regarding pending or potential\n complex litigation in the U.S. He is skilled at identifying potential securities frauds early, regularly\n providing clients with the first opportunity to evaluate and pursue their claims, and he has worked\n extensively with outside investment management firms retained by clients to identify a winning set of\n supporting evidence. When litigation is filed, he fully oversees its conduct and resolution, counseling\n clients throughout every step of the process, while handling all significant motions and courtroom\n arguments. These skills have enabled him to sign numerous institutional clients for litigation and portfolio\n monitoring services, including public and private pension plans, investment management firms and\n sponsored investment vehicles, from both the U.S. and abroad. These clients have spearheaded the Firm\u2019s\n litigation efforts in the BP, Fluor, McDermott, Emergent, and Miniso litigations discussed above.\n\n Matt takes great pride in representing union clients. He got his own union card as a teenager (United\n Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 371), following in the footsteps of his grandfather\n (International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 560).\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Matt worked at a large full-service firm then plaintiff-side boutique firms in\n Boston and Connecticut, litigating complex business disputes and securities, consumer, and employment\n class actions. His pro bono work included securing Social Security benefits for a veteran with non-service-\n related disabilities.\n\n Matt graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999, where he made the Dean\u2019s List. He\n graduated from Wesleyan University in 1995, and among his various volunteer activities, he served as\n President of the Wesleyan Lawyers Association from 2017-2020.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 35\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 38 of 62\n\n\n\n His has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d (2016-present),\n Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer (2019-present), Benchmark Litigation Star (2021-2023,\n 2026), Legal 500 Recommended Securities Litigator (2016, 2021), American Lawyer Top Rated Litigator\n (2023) and Northeast Trailblazer (2021), and a Martindale-Hubbell AV\u00ae Preeminent\u2122 peer-rated attorney\n (2014-present). His advocacy has been covered by Bloomberg, Law360, the Houston Chronicle, the\n Hartford Business Journal, and other outlets.\n\n He is a member of the Bars the Supreme Court of the United States; the State of New York; the State of\n Connecticut; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals; and\n the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, Connecticut,\n Massachusetts, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Southern District\n of Texas. He is regularly admitted pro hac vice in state and federal courts nationwide.\n\n Austin P. Van\n\n Austin focuses his practice on securities class actions and other high-profile litigations. Austin has\n repeatedly been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and\n has been named as a Recommended Lawyer by The Legal 500. From 2018\u20132024, Austin has been honored\n as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star. In 2020, Austin was named an MVP in Securities Litigation by Law360, as\n part of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\n earned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\n six attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. Austin was named to\n Benchmark Litigation\u2019s \u201c40 and Under Hotlist\u201d in 2020 and 2021.\n\n Austin represents clients in some of the largest class actions in the country:\n x Currently represents institutional investor lead plaintiffs in a shareholder securities class action\n against social media and technology behemoth Meta Platforms, Inc. The complaint alleges that Meta\n misrepresented the impact of privacy changes in Apple\u2019s iOS operating system on Meta\u2019s core\n advertising business. Seeks to recover damages amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf\n of global investors resulting from the 26% drop in Meta\u2019s share price following the revelation of the\n true impact of these privacy changes\u2014in absolute terms, the largest one-day drop of a publicly traded\n company in U.S. history. (N.D. Cal. 2024)\n x Currently represents plaintiffs in a putative nationwide consumer class action against Apple, Inc.,\n maker of the iPhone and other technology products. The complaint alleges that Apple violated federal\n and state computer intrusion statutes and state consumer protection laws by tricking iPhone users to\n install updates to their older iPhone devices that effectively crippled them. Successfully argued and\n defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Casey Pitts. (N.D. Cal. 2024)\n x Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Hawaiian Electric Company\n and its officers. The complaint alleges that Hawaiian Electric misrepresented the actions it was taking\n to mitigate wildfire risk, and so concealed the extent of the unmitigated risk of wildfire from investors,\n who suffered billions of dollars in losses when this risk materialized in the 2023 Maui wildfire disaster\n in Lahaina. (N.D. Cal. 2023)\n x Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against GSX Techedu, n/k/a Gaotu\n Techedu, a Chinese online education company. Complaint alleges that GSX falsified half of its student\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 36\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 39 of 62\n\n\n\n enrollment and revenues and caused investors billions of dollars in losses when the truth became\n known. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss. (D.N.J. 2023)\n x Represented institutional investor as lead plaintiff in a securities class action against ATI Physical\n Therapy and its SPAC acquirer. The complaint alleged that ATI misrepresented that its attrition rate\n was low, when in fact the rate was twice the industry average. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019\n motion to dismiss and proceeded to discovery on all claims under Section 10(b), Section 14 and\n Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to proceed. Settled for $24.9 million. (N.D. Ill. 2023)\n x Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Citrix Systems, Inc. The complaint\n alleged that defendants violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by soliciting votes to approve the sale\n of Citrix based on a proxy that concealed from shareholders accelerating SaaS ARR, a key business\n trend, so Citrix paid shareholders less for their shares than was fair. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz. Settled case on favorable terms for\n $17.5 million. (S.D. Fl. 2024)\n x Represented certified class in a securities class action against TechnipFMC, a Fortune 500 oil and gas\n services company. Plaintiffs alleged TechnipFMC overstated its net income in its initial registration\n statement due to its use of incorrect foreign exchange rates. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, argued and won lead plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification, and\n argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion for summary judgment, all before District Judge Alfred\n Bennett. Led the class through complete preparations for trial. The case settled for approximately\n $20 million. (S.D. Tex. 2020)\n x Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against electric vehicle manufacturer Faraday\n Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. and its SPAC acquirer, Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. The\n complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Section\n 11 of the Securities Act by misrepresenting the level of committed reservations Faraday had for its\n flagship car in SEC filings, including in a proxy statement for the de-SPAC acquisition of Faraday.\n Successfully argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss before District Judge Christina Snyder\n and defeated defendants\u2019 motion for reconsideration. Settled case on favorable terms for $7.5\n million. (C.D. Cal. 2021)\n x Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Rockwell Medical, Inc. Based on the\n strength of the complaint, at a pre-motion conference for defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, District\n Senior Judge Allyn R. Ross stated that\u201c based on what I have reviewed, it is virtually inconceivable to\n me that the consolidated amended complaint could possibly be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion\n or a Rule 9(b) motion\u201d and that any proposed motion to dismiss \u201cwould be a complete waste of time\n and resources of counsel, of the clients \u2019money, and my time.\u201d Defendants declined even to move to\n dismiss the complaint and settled the case $3.7 million\u2014a highly favorable settlement for the class.\n (E.D.N.Y. 2019)\n x Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Franklin Wireless Inc., a maker of\n wireless routers and communications devices. Based on the strength of the complaint, defendants\n declined to move to dismiss. Successfully obtained class certification and settled the matter on terms\n highly favorable for the class for $2.4 million. (S.D. Cal. 2021)\n\n Austin received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale\n Journal of International Law. He has a B.A. from Yale University and an M.Sc. from the London School of\n Economics. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Austin worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 37\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 40 of 62\n\n\n\n Austin is admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the\n Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, the\n Southern District of Texas, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Seventh and Ninth\n Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Murielle Steven Walsh\n\n Murielle Steven Walsh joined the Firm in 1998 and was elevated to Partner in 2007. In 2024 Murielle was\n named a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360, and in 2022 she was selected to participate on the\n publication\u2019s Securities Editorial Board. She was named a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the\n National Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a handful of individuals from each practice area that\n are truly agents of change\u201d and was also honored as a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Trailblazer by the New York Law\n Journal. Murielle was honored in 2019, 2020 and 2021 as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\n Litigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on 5% of eligible attorneys in the New York Metro\n area. Lawdragon has recognized Murielle among the 500 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers every year\n since 2019.\n\n During her career at Pomerantz, Murielle has prosecuted highly successful securities class action and\n corporate governance cases. She was one of the lead attorneys litigating In re Livent Noteholders\u2019\n Securities Litigation, a securities class action in which she obtained a $36 million judgment against the\n company\u2019s top officers, a ruling which was upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal. Murielle was also part\n of the team litigating EBC I v. Goldman Sachs, where the Firm obtained a landmark ruling from the New\n York Court of Appeals, that underwriters may owe fiduciary duties to their issuer clients in the context of\n a firm-commitment underwriting of an initial public offering.\n\n Murielle led Firm's high-profile securities class action against Wynn Resorts Ltd., where the Firm served\n as lead counsel. The litigation stemmed from the company\u2019s alleged cover-up of a prolonged pattern of\n sexual misconduct by its founder and former CEO, billionaire casino mogul Stephen Wynn. In January\n 2025, Murielle secured final approval of a $70 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors. Wynn\n is widely regarded as the first high-profile executive whose misconduct was exposed by the #MeToo\n movement. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-cv-479 (D. Nev.)\n\n In a securities class action against Ormat Technologies, Inc., Murielle achieved a $3.75 million settlement\n on behalf of defrauded investors in January 2021. Ormat\u2019s securities are dual-listed on the NYSE and the\n Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Murielle persuaded the district court in exercise supplemental jurisdiction in\n order to apply U.S. securities law to the claims in the case, regardless of where investors purchased their\n securities.\n\n Murielle led the Firm\u2019s ground-breaking litigation that arose from the popular Pok\u00e9mon Go game, in which\n Pomerantz was lead counsel. Pok\u00e9mon Go is an \u201caugmented reality\u201d game in which players use their\n smart phones to \u201ccatch\u201d Pok\u00e9mon in real-world surroundings. GPS coordinates provided by defendants\n to gamers included directing the public to private property without the owners\u2019 permission, amounting\n to an alleged mass nuisance. In re Pok\u00e9mon Go Nuisance, No. 3:16-cv-04300 (N.D. Cal.)\n\n Murielle was co-lead counsel in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880 (S.D.\n Fla.), a securities fraud class action challenging the defendants\u2019 representations that their lending\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 38\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 41 of 62\n\n\n\n activities were regulatory-compliant, when in fact the company\u2019s key subsidiary engaged in rampant\n violations of federal consumer financial protection laws, subjecting it to various government\n investigations and enforcement action by the CFPB and FTC. In 2016, the Firm obtained a $24 million\n settlement on behalf of the class. She was also co-lead counsel in Robb v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 16-cv-00151\n (N.D. Cal.), a securities class action alleging that the defendants misrepresented that their key product\n delivered \u201chighly accurate\u201d heart rate readings when in fact their technology did not consistently deliver\n accurate readings during exercise and its inaccuracy posed serious health risks to users of Fitbit\u2019s products.\n The Firm obtained a $33 million settlement on behalf of the investor class in this action.\n\n In 2018 Murielle, along with then-Senior Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a $3.3 million settlement\n for the Class in the Firm\u2019s case against Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in\n the country, for alleged misrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable\n regulations, and enrollment statistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a\n particularly noteworthy victory because Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had\n dismissed two prior lawsuits against Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges,\n Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07466 (C.D. Cal.).\n\n Murielle serves as a member and on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the non-profit\n organization Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children (\u201cCASA\u201d) of Monmouth County. She also\n served on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on and\n discusses specific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and\n expands economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. In the past, Murielle\n served as a member of the editorial board for Class Action Reports, a Solicitor for the Legal Aid Associates\n Campaign, and has been involved in political asylum work with the Association of the Bar of the City of\n New York.\n\n Murielle serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n Murielle graduated cum laude from New York Law School in 1996, where she was the recipient of the\n Irving Mariash Scholarship. During law school, Murielle interned with the Kings County District Attorney\n and worked within the mergers and acquisitions group of Sullivan & Cromwell.\n\n Murielle is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern District of New\n York; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits\n\n Tamar A. Weinrib\n\n Tamar A. Weinrib joined Pomerantz in 2008. She was Of Counsel to the Firm from 2014 through 2018 and\n was elevated to Partner in 2019. In 2020, The Legal 500 honored her as a Next Generation Partner. Tamar\n was named a 2018 Rising Star under 40 years of age by Law360, a prestigious honor awarded to a select\n few \u201ctop litigators and dealmakers practicing at a level usually seen from veteran attorneys.\u201d Tamar has\n been recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a 2021 \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney;\u201d she was honored\n as a New York Metro Rising Star every year from 2014 to 2019. She was also named to the 2026 Lawdragon\n 500 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers list.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 39\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 42 of 62\n\n\n\n In 2019, Tamar and Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class\n in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\n Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking\n giant\u2019s use of so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. This case turned on the duty of integrity owed by\n Barclays to its clients. In November 2016, Tamar and Jeremy achieved precedent-setting victories for\n investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that direct evidence of price impact is not always\n necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the presumption of reliance, and that defendants\n seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than\n merely meeting a burden of production. In 2018, Tamar successfully opposed Defendants\u2019 petition to the\n Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.\n\n In approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\n District of New York stated:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\n Tamar headed the litigation of In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz\n achieved a settlement of $8,500,000 for the class. She successfully argued before the Second Circuit in In\n re China North East Petroleum Securities Litigation, to reverse the district court\u2019s dismissal of the\n defendants on scienter grounds.\n\n Among other securities fraud class actions that Tamar led to successful settlements are KB Partners I, L.P.\n v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc. ($8,500,000); New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. ($3,150,000);\n and Whiteley v. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. ($4,000,000).\n\n Before coming to Pomerantz, Tamar had over three years of experience as a litigation associate in the\n New York office of Clifford Chance US LLP, where she focused on complex commercial litigation. Tamar\n has successfully tried pro bono cases, including two criminal appeals and a housing dispute filed with the\n Human Rights Commission.\n\n Tamar graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2004 and while there, won awards for\n successfully competing in and coaching Moot Court competitions.\n\n Tamar is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth\n Circuits.\n\n Michael J. Wernke\n\n Michael J. Wernke joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in 2014 and was elevated to Partner in 2015. He was\n named a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the National Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a\n handful of individuals from each practice area that are truly agents of change.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 40\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 43 of 62\n\n\n\n Michael, along with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, led the litigation in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler\n Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, achieved a\n $110 million settlement for the class. This high-profile securities class action alleges that Fiat Chrysler\n concealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software\n designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat\n Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors\n with as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics\n in class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n Michael led the securities class action Zwick Partners, LP v. Quorum Health Corp., et al., No. 3:16-cv-2475,\n achieving a settlement of $18 million for the class in June 2020. The settlement represented between\n 12.7% and 42.9% of estimated recoverable damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented to\n investors the poor prospects of hospitals that the parent company spun off into a stand-alone company.\n In defeating defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the complaint, Michael successfully argued that the company\n from which Quorum was spun off was a \u201cmaker\u201d of the false statements even though all the alleged false\n statements concerned only Quorum\u2019s financials and the class involved only purchasers of Quorum\u2019s\n common stock. This was a tremendous victory for plaintiffs, as cases alleging false statements of goodwill\n notoriously struggle to survive motions to dismiss.\n\n Along with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, Michael leads the Firm\u2019s individual action against\n pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together,\n \u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former employees and officers, relating to alleged\n anticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva is a dual-listed company; the Firm\n represents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased Teva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock\n Exchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global investors when the district court\n agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims. Clal Insurance Company Ltd. v.\n Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\n In December 2018, Michael, along with Pomerantz Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, secured a $31\n million partial settlement with three defendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust\n Litigation, a closely watched multi-district litigation, which concerns the LIBOR rigging scandal.\n\n In October 2018, Michael secured a $15 million settlement in In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities\n Litigation, No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), a securities class action that alleges that, following an\n accounting fraud by prior management, Symbol\u2019s management misled investors about the state of its\n internal controls and the Company\u2019s ability to forecast revenues.\n\n He was Lead Counsel in Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., in which he achieved a $23.5 million\n partial settlement with certain defendants, securing the settlement despite an ongoing investigation by\n the Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholder derivative actions. He played a leading role in\n In re Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved a\n settlement of $26 million in cash and 1,000,000 shares of Lumber Liquidators common stock for the Class.\n Michael also secured a $7 million settlement (over 30% of the likely recoverable damages) in the securities\n class action Todd v. STAAR Surgical Company, et al., No. 14-cv-05263-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal.), which alleged\n that STAAR concealed from investors violations of FDA regulations that threatened the approval of\n STAAR\u2019s long awaited new product.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 41\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 44 of 62\n\n\n\n\n In the securities class action In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-01836-RSM (W.D.\n Wash.), Michael secured a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed the district court\u2019s\n dismissal of the complaint. The Ninth Circuit held that the CEO\u2019s public statements that the company\u2019s\n flagship product had been approved by the FDA were misleading despite the fact that the company\u2019s\n previously filed registration statement stated that that the product did not, at that time, require FDA\n approval.\n\n During the nine years prior to coming to Pomerantz, Michael was a litigator with Cahill Gordon & Reindel\n LLP, with his primary focus in the securities defense arena, where he represented multinational financial\n institutions and corporations, playing key roles in two of only a handful of securities class actions to go to\n jury verdict since the passage of the PSLRA.\n\n In 2024, Michael was recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 attorneys in the nation. He was also\n named to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Financial Plaintiff Lawyers list. He has been ranked by Super\n Lawyers\u00ae as a \"Top Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\" \u00ae from 2020 through 2024 and as a New York\n Metro Rising Star in 2014 and 2015.\n\n Michael received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2004. He also holds a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A.\n in Political Science from Ohio State University, where he graduated summa cum laude.\n\n He serves on the Firm\u2019s Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n Michael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Court for the Southern District of\n New York; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Senior Counsel\n\n Stanley M. Grossman\n\n Stanley M. Grossman, Senior Counsel, is a former Managing Partner of Pomerantz. Widely recognized as\n a leader in the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, he was honored in 2020 with a Lifetime Achievement award by\n the New York Law Journal. Martindale Hubbell awarded Stan its 2021 AV Preeminent Rating\u00ae, \u201cgiven to\n attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise,\n communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers.\u201d Stan was selected by Super Lawyers\u00ae as an\n outstanding attorney in the United States for the years 2006 through 2020 and was featured in the New\n York Law Journal article Top Litigators in Securities Field\u2014A Who\u2019s Who of City\u2019s Leading Courtroom\n Combatants. Lawdragon named Stan a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020, and in 2021,\n he was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. In 2013, Brooklyn Law School honored Stan as an\n Alumnus of the Year.\n\n Stan has primarily represented plaintiffs in securities and antitrust class actions, including many of those\n listed in the Firm biography. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970); Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d\n 137 (2d Cir. 1971); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987); and In re Salomon Bros.\n Treasury Litig., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993). In 2008 he appeared before the United States Supreme Court to\n argue that scheme liability is actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). See StoneRidge\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 42\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 45 of 62\n\n\n\n Inv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (2008). Other cases where he was the Lead or Co-Lead\n Counsel include: In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, No. 91 Civ. 5471 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ($100 million\n cash recovery); In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV-89-7135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n ($100 million settlement); and In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. C98-4886 (N.D. Cal.\n 2000) (over $80 million settlement for the class).\n\n In 1992, Senior Judge Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York appointed Stan to the Executive\n Committee of counsel charged with allocating to claimants hundreds of millions of dollars obtained in\n settlements with Drexel Burnham & Co. and Michael Milken.\n\n Many courts have acknowledged the high quality of legal representation provided to investors by Stan. In\n Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., No. 79 Civ. 3123 (S.D.N.Y.), where Stan was lead trial\n counsel for plaintiff, Judge Pollack noted at the completion of the trial:\n\n [I] can fairly say, having remained abreast of the law on the factual and legal matters that\n have been presented, that I know of no case that has been better presented so as to give\n the Court an opportunity to reach a determination, for which the court thanks you.\n\n Stan was also the lead trial attorney in Rauch v. Bilzerian (N.J. Super. Ct.) (directors owed the same duty\n of loyalty to preferred shareholders as common shareholders in a corporate takeover), where the court\n described the Pomerantz team as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel.\u201d He headed the six week trial on\n liability in Walsh v. Northrop Grumman (E.D.N.Y.) (a securities and ERISA class action arising from\n Northrop\u2019s takeover of Grumman), after which a substantial settlement was reached.\n\n Stan frequently speaks at law schools and professional organizations. In 2010, he was a panelist on\n Securities Law: Primary Liability for Secondary Actors, sponsored by the Federal Bar Council, and he\n presented Silence Is Golden\u2014Until It Is Deadly: The Fiduciary\u2019s Duty to Disclose, at the Institute of\n American and Talmudic Law. In 2009, Stan was a panelist on a Practicing Law Institute \u201cHot Topic Briefing\u201d\n entitled StoneRidge\u2014Is There Scheme Liability or Not?\n\n Stan served on former New York State Comptroller Carl McCall\u2019s Advisory Committee for the NYSE Task\n Force on corporate governance. He is a former president of NASCAT. During his tenure at NASCAT, he\n represented the organization in meetings with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission\n and before members of Congress and of the Executive Branch concerning legislation that became the\n PSLRA.\n\n Stan served for three years on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Committee on Ethics, as well as on the\n Association\u2019s Judiciary Committee. He is actively involved in civic affairs. He headed a task force on behalf\n of the Association, which, after a wide-ranging investigation, made recommendations for the future of\n the City University of New York. He was formerly on the board of the Appleseed Foundation, a national\n public advocacy group.\n\n Stan is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York, Central District of California, Eastern District of Wisconsin, District of Arizona,\n District of Colorado; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Ninth and Eleventh\n Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 43\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 46 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Marc I. Gross\n\n Marc I. Gross is Senior Counsel at Pomerantz LLP, where he has litigated securities fraud class actions for\n over four decades, serving as its Managing Partner from 2009 to 2016. His major lawsuits include SAC\n Capital (Steven Cohen\u2014insider trading); Chesapeake Energy (Aubrey McClendon\u2014insider bail out);\n Citibank (analyst Jack Grubman\u2014false AT&T stock recommendation); and Charter Communications (Paul\n Allen\u2014accounting fraud). He also litigated market efficiency issues in the firm\u2019s landmark $3 billion\n recovery in Petrobras.\n\n Marc has also served as President of the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (\u201cILEP\u201d), which has\n organized symposiums each year where leading academics have presented papers on securities law and\n consumer protection issues. These papers have been cited in over 200 cases, including several in the\n United States Supreme Court. http://www.ilep.org.\n\n Marc has addressed numerous forums in the United States on shareholder-related issues, including ILEP;\n Loyola-Chicago School of Law\u2019s Institute for Investor Protection Conference; the National Conference on\n Public Employee Retirement Systems\u2019 (\u201cNCPERS\u201d) Legislative Conferences; PLI conferences on Current\n Trends in Securities Law; a panel entitled Enhancing Consistency and Predictability in Applying Fraud-on-\n the-Market Theory, sponsored by the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies, as well as securities law\n students at NYU and Georgetown Law schools.\n\n Among other articles, Marc authored Cooking Books? The Valuation Treadmill, 50 Sec. Reg. L. Jrl. 363\n (2022); Reputation and Securities Litigation, 47 Sec. Reg. l Jrl. 99 (2019) Back to Basic(s): Common Sense\n Trumps Econometrics, N.Y.L.J. (Jan. 8, 2018) (with Jeremy Lieberman); and Class Certification in a Post-\n Halliburton II World, 46 Loyola-Chicago L.J. 485 (2015).\n\n Marc was honored in 2022 by T\u2019ruah, the Rabbinic Call to Human Rights, for his pro bono work in support\n of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida in their battle for recognition by Wendy\u2019s Restaurants,\n and recently joined the Board of Mainchance, a homeless drop-in shelter operating in Manhattan.\n\n Marc is a graduate of NYU Law \u201976 and Columbia College \u201973.\n\n Patrick V. Dahlstrom\n\n Patrick Dahlstrom joined Pomerantz as an associate in 1991 and was elevated to Partner in January 1996.\n He served as Co-Managing Partner with Jeremy Lieberman in 2017 and 2018 and is now Senior Counsel.\n Patrick heads the Firm\u2019s Chicago office. He was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\n Litigation Attorney\u201d from 2018\u20132021 in both Securities Litigation and Appellate matters. In 2021, Patrick\n was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.\n\n Patrick, a member of the Firm\u2019s Institutional Investor Practice and New Case Groups, has extensive\n experience litigating cases under the PSLRA. He led In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,\n No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, recovered a $225 million settlement for\n the Class\u2014the second-highest ever for a case involving back-dating options, and one of the largest\n recoveries ever from an individual officer-defendant, the company\u2019s founder and former CEO. In\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 44\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 47 of 62\n\n\n\n Comverse, the Firm obtained an important clarification of how courts calculate the \u201clargest financial\n interest\u201d in connection with the selection of a Lead Plaintiff, in a manner consistent with Dura\n Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005). Judge Garaufis, in approving the settlement, lauded\n Pomerantz: \u201cThe court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s\n acumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough, clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has\n not taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts at any stage of the litigation.\u201d\n\n In DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Patrick obtained the first class\n certification in a federal securities case involving fraud by analysts.\n\n Patrick\u2019s extensive experience in litigation under the PSLRA has made him an expert not only at making\n compelling arguments on behalf of Pomerantz\u2019s clients for Lead Plaintiff status, but also in discerning\n weaknesses of competing candidates. In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation and Comverse\n are the most recent examples of his success in getting our clients appointed sole Lead Plaintiff despite\n competing motions by numerous impressive institutional clients.\n\n Patrick was a member of the trial team in In re ICN/Viratek Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which,\n after trial, settled for $14.5 million. Judge Wood praised the trial team: \u201c[P]laintiffs counsel did a superb\n job here on behalf of the class . . . This was a very hard fought case. You had very able, superb opponents,\n and they put you to your task . . . The trial work was beautifully done and I believe very efficiently done.\u201d\n\n Patrick\u2019s speaking engagements include interviews by NBC and the CBC regarding securities class actions,\n and among others, a presentation at the November 2009 State Association of County Retirement Systems\n Fall Conference as the featured speaker at the Board Chair/Vice Chair Session entitled: \u201cCleaning Up After\n the 100 Year Storm. How trustees can protect assets and recover losses following the burst of the housing\n and financial bubbles.\u201d\n\n Patrick is a 1987 graduate of the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C.,\n where he was a Dean\u2019s Fellow, Editor in Chief of the Administrative Law Journal, a member of the Moot\n Court Board representing Washington College of Law in the New York County Bar Association\u2019s Antitrust\n Moot Court Competition, and a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services/Public Interest\n Law Clinic. Upon graduating, Patrick served as the Pro Se Staff Attorney for the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of New York and was a law clerk to the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States\n Magistrate Judge.\n\n Patrick is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Southern\n and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Indiana, Eastern District\n of Wisconsin, District of Colorado, and Western District of Pennsylvania; the United States Courts of\n Appeals for the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits; and the United States Supreme\n Court.\n Of Counsel\n\n Samuel J. Adams\n\n Samuel J. Adams became an Associate at Pomerantz in January 2012 and was elevated to Of Counsel to\n the Firm in 2021. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cRising Star\u201d every year from 2015 through\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 45\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 48 of 62\n\n\n\n 2021.\n\n Sam focuses his practice on corporate governance litigation and has served as a member of the litigation\n team in numerous actions that concluded in successful resolutions for stockholders. He was an integral\n member of the litigation team that secured a $5.6 million settlement on behalf of a class of shareholders\n of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. following an ignored merger offer. In re Physicians Formula Holdings,\n Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.). Sam was also instrumental in achieving a settlement\n in Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. Ct.) which provided for a 25% price increase for\n members of the class cashed out in the going-private transaction and established that fee-shifting bylaws\n adopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to stockholders affected by the transaction.\n Additionally, he was on the team of Pomerantz attorneys who obtained the elimination of stand-still\n provisions that allowed third parties to bid for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a\n third-party bidder and approximately $94 million (57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf\n shareholders. In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7328-VCN (Del. Ch.).\n\n Sam is a 2009 graduate of the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. While in law school,\n he was a member of the National Health Law Moot Court Team. He also participated in the Louis D.\n Brandeis American Inn of Court.\n\n Sam is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, and\n Eastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and the United States Court of Appeals\n for the Fifth Circuit.\n\n Ari Y. Basser\n\n Ari Y. Basser joined Pomerantz as an associate in April 2019 and was elevated to Of Counsel in January\n 2022. He focuses his practice on strategic consumer litigation by representing consumers in unfair\n competition, fraud, false advertising, and auto defect actions that recover monetary and injunctive relief\n on behalf of class members while also advocating for important consumer rights. Ari has successfully\n prosecuted claims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies\n Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Ari was an associate at major litigation law firms in Los Angeles. Ari also worked\n as a Law Clerk in the Economic Crimes Unit of the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Ari\n has litigated antitrust violations, product defect matters, and a variety of fraud and misrepresentation\n cases brought under state and federal consumer protection statutes involving unfair competition and\n false advertising. He has also been deputized in private attorneys general enforcement actions to recover\n civil penalties from corporations, on behalf of the State of California, for violations of the Labor Code.\n\n Ari is a contributing author to the Competition Law Journal, the official publication of the Antitrust, UCL,\n and Privacy Section of the State Bar of California, where he has examined trends in antitrust litigation and\n the regulatory authority of the Federal Trade Commission.\n\n Ari received dual degrees in Economics and Psychology from the University of California, San Diego in\n 2004. He earned his Juris Doctor in 2010 from Santa Clara University School of Law.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 46\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 49 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Rupita Chakraborty\n\n Rupita Chakraborty is an experienced commercial litigator and trial lawyer, with a decade of experience\n in securities litigation, criminal defense, and white-collar investigations. Her current practice involves\n representing aggrieved shareholders in securities class actions across a number of industries, including\n advertising technology, biotechnology, and commodities mining.\n\n Rupita previously defended individuals and corporations in criminal, regulatory, and civil matters involving\n allegations of racketeering conspiracy, market manipulation, unlawful drug price increases, improper\n lobbying, and discriminatory hiring. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Rupita was an associate at a New York law\n firm, where she was a member of the criminal trial team representing the former CFO of Archegos Capital\n Management in a nine-week federal jury trial involving charges of racketeering conspiracy, securities\n fraud, and wire fraud. She has also handled a wide range of complex commercial disputes, including civil\n racketeering and breach of contract.\n\n Rupita enjoys a robust pro bono practice. She has represented federally incarcerated individuals in both\n Section 1983 and compassionate release claims, in addition to previously representing a victim-witness in\n a sensitive racketeering and sex trafficking trial in the Southern District of New York.\n\n Rupita earned a J.D. from the New York University School of Law, where she was clinically trained at the\n Federal Defenders of New York and the Office of the Appellate Defender. She is a Fulbright scholar, having\n served as an English Teaching Assistant in East Kalimantan, Indonesia from August 2011 to June 2012.\n\n Samantha Daniels\n\n Samantha brings years of commercial litigation experience to the Pomerantz team, joining the Firm as Of\n Counsel in 2024. Her practice involves representing aggrieved shareholders in securities litigation to\n recover losses across a number of industries, including pharma, technology, and entertainment.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Samantha was an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, primarily in the\n firm\u2019s renowned appellate practice, representing highly visible clients in a range of issues from securities\n litigation, consumer deception, and labor and employment, to constitutional crises. Her former matters\n include resolving first impression questions of employment status for gig workers for Uber and Postmates,\n securing victory for Apple against allegations of consumer fraud regarding FaceTime, and helping win NML\n shareholders 2.1 billion in due Argentine bonds.\n\n Samantha earned her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School where she published her\n student comment on consumer protection. Before that, Samantha studied at Cornell University in Ithaca,\n New York, earning degrees in Political Science and History.\n\n Samantha is admitted to practice in New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 47\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 50 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Jonathan D. Park\n\n Jonathan D. Park joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in April 2022. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was\n associated with a prominent plaintiff-side litigation firm, where he represented clients in securities and\n investment litigation. He is regularly recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\n Jonathan focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is currently pursuing claims against Twitter\n concerning its cybersecurity practices and user metrics. Jonathan was a key member of the litigation\n teams that obtained settlements in Poirier v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) and Lako v. loanDepot, Inc.\n (C.D. Cal.). Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was a member of the litigation team that obtained $19 million\n for the class in In re Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, and he represented investors in\n In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, which arose from the \u201cLondon Whale\u201d scandal and was\n settled for $150 million. He has also represented investors in opt-out securities actions against\n pharmaceutical manufacturers and other companies.\n\n Jonathan also has experience representing investors in breach of contract actions. He was the primary\n associate representing institutional investors injured by the early redemption of bonds issued by CoBank,\n ACB and AgriBank, FCB. In the litigation against CoBank, the plaintiffs secured a summary judgment ruling\n on liability, and in the litigation against AgriBank, the plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, permitting\n the claims to proceed though the plaintiffs were beneficial owners and not record holders of the bonds\n at issue. Both cases were resolved on confidential terms.\n\n At the New York City Bar Association, Jonathan has served on the Task Force on Puerto Rico, the New\n Lawyers Council, and the International Human Rights Committee. He also served on the board of his non-\n profit running club, the Dashing Whippets Running Team.\n\n Jonathan earned his J.D. in 2013 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the school\u2019s\n Moot Court Board as the Editor of the Jessup International Law Competition Team. During law school, he\n was a Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights, received the Archibald R. Murray Public Service\n Award, and interned with a refugee law project in Cairo, Egypt. He received a B.A. in 2006 from Vassar\n College, where he majored in Africana Studies.\n\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell joined Pomerantz as an associate in August 2021 and was elevated to Of Counsel in\n August 2024. Brian focuses his practice on securities and financial services litigation.\n\n Brian leads some of the Firm\u2019s most important securities class actions, winning decisions that expand\n investor rights. Among these is a case against Ginkgo Bioworks (\u201cGinkgo\u201d), a synthetic biology company\n that merged with a special purpose acquisition company (\u201cSPAC\u201d). The case alleges that Ginkgo made\n false and misleading statements about its revenue, customers and value before the merger. Brian recently\n reached a settlement agreement with Ginkgo defendants for $17.75 million, representing favorable\n recovery for the class of investors.\n\n In March 2024, Brian survived a motion to dismiss another de-SPAC case against Grab Holdings, Inc.,\n known as the Uber of Southeast Asia, giving the oral argument that sustained Section 11 of the Securities\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 48\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 51 of 62\n\n\n\n Act and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act claims. Brian also played an integral role in the\n litigation and settlement of three Pomerantz cases that recently reached final approval of settlement:\n telecommunications giant Sprint Corporation ($3.75 million), biopharmaceutical company Orphazyme A/S\n ($2.5 million), and energy and oil company Berry Corporation ($2.5 million).\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Brian was an associate at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &\n Sprengel LLP, where he specialized in antitrust and commodity futures litigation. Brian has successfully\n litigated complex class actions involving securities, as well as manipulation of futures and options\n contracts. Brian also previously worked at the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a contractor\n focusing on options trading regulation. Following law school, Brian was a legal fellow at the chambers of\n Judge Marvin E. Aspen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\n\n Brian is passionate about finance and securities law, having previously interned for the Chicago Board\n Options Exchange and for Susquehanna International Group. Brian has served as a Vice Chair of the\n Chicago Bar Association Securities Law Committee. Brian was recently recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae\n Rising Star for 2024.\n\n Brian earned his Juris Doctor from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. During his time there,\n he had the opportunity to work at the Center on Wrongful Convictions, where he argued in court on behalf\n of a client serving a life sentence and was later exonerated. Brian also served as Executive Articles Editor\n for the Journal of International Human Rights Law and as a teaching assistant for the Northwestern Center\n on Negotiation and Mediation.\n\n A graduate of Stanford University, Brian majored in Political Science and minored in Economics. During\n his senior year, he was Editor-in-Chief of The Stanford Review, where he had previously been a Features\n Editor and a staff writer.\n\n Brian is admitted to practice in Illinois and California, the United States District Courts for the Northern\n District of Illinois, the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals\n for the Ninth Circuit.\n\n Jennifer Banner Sobers\n\n Jennifer Banner Sobers is Of Counsel to the Firm.\n\n In 2021, Jennifer was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d. She was\n also named a 2020 Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae, Law360, and the New York Law Journal, all separate\n and highly competitive awards that honor attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments transcend\n their age. After a rigorous nomination and vetting process, Jennifer was honored in 2019 and 2020 as a\n member of the National Black Lawyers Top 100, an elite network of the top 100 African American\n attorneys from each state.\n\n Jennifer played an integral role on the team litigating In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, in the Southern\n District of New York, a securities class action arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\n scheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras. The Firm, as sole Lead\n Counsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement on behalf of investors in Petrobras securities. Among\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 49\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 52 of 62\n\n\n\n Jennifer\u2019 contributions to the team\u2019s success were: managing the entire third-party discovery in the\n United States, which resulted in the discovery of key documents and witnesses; deposing several\n underwriter bank witnesses; drafting portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 amended complaints that withstood motions\n to dismiss the claims and Plaintiffs\u2019 successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 appeal in the Second Circuit,\n which resulted in precedential rulings, including the Court rejecting the heightened ascertainability\n requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts; and second\n chaired argument in the Second Circuit that successfully led to the Court upholding the award of sanctions\n against a professional objector challenging the integrity of the settlement.\n\n Jennifer played a leading role in In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, an action in the District\n of New Jersey alleging a multi-year fraud arising from underlying retail banking misconduct by one of\n Canada\u2019s largest banks that was revealed by investigative news reports. Jennifer undertook significant\n work drafting the briefing to oppose Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the claims, which the Court denied.\n She oversaw the discovery in the action, which included, among other things, heading the complicated\n process of obtaining documents in Canada and being a principal drafter of the motion to partially lift the\n PSLRA stay in order to obtain discovery. Jennifer successfully presented oral argument which led to the\n Court approval of a $13.25 million class-wide settlement.\n\n U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the Toronto-Dominion Bank settlement, stated, \u201cI\n commend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and thoughtful\n submissions during the motion practice aspect of this case. I paused on it because it was a hard case. I\n paused on it because the lawyering was so good. So, I appreciate from both sides your efforts.\u201d He added,\n \u201cIt\u2019s clear to me that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\n the settlement.\u201d Singling out Pomerantz\u2019s role as lead counsel, the judge also said, \u201cThis settlement\n appears to have been obtained through the hard work of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their\n efforts and not piggybacking on any other work that resulted in this settlement.\u201d\n\n Jennifer was a key member of the team litigating individual securities actions against BP p.l.c. in the\n Northern District of Texas on behalf of institutional investors in BP p.l.c. to recover losses in BP\u2019s common\n stock (which trades on the London Stock Exchange), arising from BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. The actions were\n resolved in 2021 in a confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients.\n\n Jennifer was a lead litigator in Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc. Jennifer was also a key member of the\n litigation teams of other nationwide securities class action cases, including: In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.\n Sec. Litig., an action in the Southern District of New York, for which Jennifer was one of the principal\n drafters of the amended complaint\u2014the strength of which led the Court to deny permission to the\n defendants to file a formal motion to dismiss it\u2014which secured a court-approved $15 million class-wide\n settlement; In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, an action in the Northern District of\n California, which successfully secured settlements from the bankrupt company and its jailed CEO worth\n over $3.25 million for the Class that were approved by the Court as well as the bankruptcy court; Perez v.\n Higher One Holdings, Inc., an action in the District of Connecticut, for which Jennifer was one of the\n principal drafters of the successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and which secured a\n court-approved $7.5 million class-wide settlement; Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc.; Chun v. Fluor Corp.;\n and Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 50\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 53 of 62\n\n\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Jennifer was an associate with a prominent law firm in New York where her\n practice focused on complex commercial litigation, including securities law and accountants\u2019 liability. An\n advocate of pro bono representation, Jennifer earned the Empire State Counsel honorary designation\n from the New York State Bar Association and received an award from New York Lawyers for the Public\n Interest for her pro bono work.\n\n Jennifer received her B.A. from Harvard University (with honors), where she was on the Dean\u2019s List, a Ron\n Brown Scholar, and a recipient of the Harvard College Scholarship. She received her J.D. from University\n of Virginia School of Law where she was a participant in the Lile Moot Court Competition and was\n recognized for her pro bono service.\n\n She is a member of the Securities Litigation and Public Service Committees of the Federal Bar Council, and\n the New York City Bar Association.\n\n Jennifer is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.\n\n Nicolas Tatin\n\n French lawyer Nicolas Tatin joined Pomerantz in April 2017 as Of Counsel. He heads the Firm\u2019s Paris office\n and serves as its Director-Business Development Consultant for France, Benelux, Monaco and Switzerland.\n Nicolas advises institutional investors in the European Union on how best to evaluate losses to their\n investment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct, and how best to maximize their potential\n recoveries in U.S. and international securities litigations.\n\n Nicolas was previously a financial lawyer at ERAFP, France\u2019s \u20ac24bn pension and retirement fund for civil\n servants, where he provided legal advice on the selection of management companies and the\n implementation of mandates entrusted to them by ERAFP.\n\n Nicolas began his career at Natixis Asset Management, before joining BNP Paribas Investment Partners,\n where he developed expertise in the legal structuring of investment funds and acquired a global and cross-\n functional approach to the asset management industry.\n\n Nicolas graduated in international law and received an MBA from IAE Paris, the Sorbonne Graduate\n Business School.\n\n Christopher Tourek\n\n Christopher Tourek is Of Counsel in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office and focuses his practice on securities\n litigation. He has a proven track record of successfully litigating cases involving securities fraud, antitrust\n violations, and consumer protection violations in both state and federal courts. His expertise has earned\n him recognition as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star in Mass Torts Litigation from 2016-2021 and in Securities\n Litigation from 2022-2026.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 51\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 54 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Christopher is a member of the team pursuing claims in In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse\n Litigation (S.D. Fla.). Christopher also represents investors in securities actions against home robotics\n manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other companies. In addition to bringing standard\n securities litigation claims before the court, Christopher has also litigated innovative securities class action\n claims, including a novel pump-and-dump scheme involving emojis and Twitter in In re Bed Bath & Beyond\n Corporation Securities Litigation (D.D.C.) that succeeded at the motion to dismiss stage before settling.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Christopher was an Associate at a prominent complex litigation firm and\n specialized in consumer protection, antitrust, and securities litigation.\n\n Christopher graduated cum laude in 2013 from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he obtained\n his pro bono notation, honors in legal research, and was a member of the Federal Civil Rights Clinic, in\n which he first chaired the case of Powers v. Coleman in the United States District Court for the Central\n District of Illinois. He earned his bachelor\u2019s degree in Government & Law, with a minor in Anthropology &\n Sociology, from Lafayette College in 2010.\n\n Christopher is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Courts for the District of\n Columbia, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan.\n\n\n\n Associates\n\n Jeremy Allen-Arney\n\n Jeremy Allen-Arney focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Jeremy is a member of the Firm\u2019s Case Originations team, identifying and investigating potential violations\n of the federal securities laws.\n\n Before joining Pomerantz, Jeremy was an associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where\n he focused his practice on securities litigation, internal investigations, and complex commercial disputes.\n\n Jeremy earned his law degree from The George Washington Law School, where he served as the first Black\n Editor-in-Chief of The George Washington Law Review. Jeremy graduated with high honors, received the\n ALI CLE Law Scholarship and Leadership Award, and was elected to membership in the Order of the\n Coif. During law school, Jeremy interned with the Special Litigation Section of the U.S. Department of\n Justice\u2019s Civil Rights Division, the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Legal Aid\n Society\u2019s Housing Help Program. Jeremy earned his Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University, where he\n majored in Philosophy.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 52\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 55 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Genc Arifi\n\n Genc Arifi focuses his practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office, Genc\n was an associate at a prominent Chicago law firm, where he represented an expansive range of businesses\n in employment law matters as well as complex commercial litigation in both state and federal courts.\n\n Genc\u2019s experience includes handling complex civil matters, such as cases arising from the Racketeer\n Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), shareholder derivative lawsuits, and employment law\n matters. He has also advised technology start-up clients, as well as established financial institutions, on\n risk assessment and litigation strategies.\n\n Genc earned his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law and his B.S. from Western Illinois\n University, summa cum laude. He demonstrated strong academic credentials throughout law school; most\n notably when he achieved the highest grade in Business Organizations, which earned him the CALI\n Excellence for the Future Award. Genc was a recipient of the Dean\u2019s Certificate of Service awarded to law\n students who provided 100 hours of community service. Genc participated in a criminal appeals clinic and\n successfully reduced an indigent client's prison sentence.\n\n Genc is co-author of \u201cValuation,\u201d Chapter 6 in \u201cDisputes Involving Closely Held Companies 2020 Edition.\u201d\n Published by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Feb. 2020, it is the essential guide for\n Illinois attorneys who represent closely held corporations, partnerships, or LLCs.\n\n Genc currently serves as the Secretary and board member of the Albanian-American Community of\n Illinois, a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to preserve and promote Albanian culture, history, and\n tradition through civic engagement and educational initiatives.\n\n Genc is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Court for the Northern District of\n Illinois.\n\n Brandon M. Cordovi\n\n Brandon M. Cordovi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Brandon was an associate at a law firm in New York that specializes in the\n defense of insurance claims. Brandon\u2019s practice focused on the defense of transportation, premises, and\n construction liability matters.\n\n Brandon earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the Moot\n Court Board and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at Fordham Law, Brandon\n participated in the Securities Litigation and Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\n arbitration of claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. During his second summer of law\n school, Brandon was a summer associate at a major plaintiff\u2019s securities firm.\n\n Brandon earned his B.S. from the University of Delaware where he double majored in Sport Management\n and Marketing.\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 53\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 56 of 62\n\n\n\n Brandon is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\n Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.\n\n Jessica N. Dell\n\n Jessica Dell focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\n She has worked on dozens of cases at Pomerantz, including the Firm\u2019s securities fraud lawsuits arising\n from BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. Jessica has expertise in managing discovery and a nose for investigating\n complex fraud across many sectors, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and data security. True\n to her roots in public interest law, she has also worked in complex pro bono class action litigation at\n Pomerantz.\n\n Jessica graduated from CUNY School of Law in 2005. She was the recipient of an Everett fellowship for her\n work at Human Rights Watch. She also interned at the Urban Justice Center and National Advocates for\n Pregnant Women. While in the CUNY clinical program, she represented survivors of domestic violence\n facing deportation and successfully petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act. She also\n successfully petitioned for the release of survivors incarcerated as drug mules in Central America.\n After Hurricane Katrina, Jessica traveled to Louisiana to aid emergency efforts to reunite families and\n restore legal process for persons lost in the prison system weeks after the flood.\n\n Jessica is a member of the New York City and State Bar Associations and the National Lawyers Guild.\n\n Dean P. Ferrogari\n\n Dean P. Ferrogari focuses his practice on securities litigation. He was recognized in the 2024, 2025 and\n 2026 editions of the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\u00ae in America publication for his work in securities\n litigation. He was also recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star (2024-2026).\n\n Dean earned his Juris Doctor in 2020 from Brooklyn Law School, where he served as an Associate\n Managing Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review. While in law school, Dean was initiated into the\n International Legal Honor Society of Phi Delta Phi and was an extern for the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers\n Project. He was recognized by the New York State Unified Court System\u2019s Office for Justice Initiatives for\n his distinguished service in assisting disadvantaged civil litigants in obtaining due process in consumer\n credit actions. Dean also authored the publication \u201cThe Dark Web: A Symbol of Freedom Not Cybercrime,\u201d\n New York County Lawyers Association CLE Institute, Security in a Cyber World: Whistle Blowers, Cyber\n Threats, Domestic Terrorism, Financial Fraud, Policy by Twitter . . . and the Evolving Role of the Attorney\n and Firm, Oct. 4, 2019, at 321.\n\n Dean earned his B.A. from the University of Maryland, where he majored in Economics and was awarded\n the President\u2019s Transfer Scholarship.\n\n He is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; and the United States\n Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 54\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 57 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Emily C. Finestone\n\n Emily C. Finestone focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Emily was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in New York where she\n successfully litigated matters pertaining to sports and entertainment law, copyright infringement, and\n employment law. Emily previously worked at a prominent complex litigation firm specializing in consumer\n protection, antitrust, whistleblower, and securities litigation. She also gained appellate experience as a\n temporary law clerk and Staff Attorney at the Supreme Court of Virginia.\n\n In 2022 \u2013 2024, Emily was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\n Emily graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2015 and was a member of the Review of Banking\n & Financial Law. She received her B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2012, where she double majored\n in English and Spanish, and minored in Government.\n\n Emily is admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the United\n States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, District of\n Connecticut, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\n Jianan (Adam) Jiang\n\n Jianan (Adam) Jiang focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Adam was a litigation associate at a full service Chicago law firm, where he\n litigated commercial and construction cases in state and federal courts.\n\n Adam earned his J.D., cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. During his time\n there, he served as a Staff Editor for the Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Adam also\n participated in the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, where he represented indigent taxpayers to resolve tax\n disputes with the Internal Revenue Service.\n\n Adam received his Bachelor of Engineering with Honors Class One (equivalent to summa cum laude) and\n the University Medal from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Adam majored in Civil\n Engineering and worked as a geotechnical engineer before law school.\n\n Adam speaks Mandarin and went to high school in Beijing, China.\n\n Adam is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Northern\n District of Illinois.\n\n James M. LoPiano\n\n James M. LoPiano focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is part of the Firm\u2019s case origination\n team, identifying and investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 55\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 58 of 62\n\n\n\n James has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2021.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, James served as a Fellow at Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., a non-profit\n law firm run by faculty of Fordham University School of Law.\n\n James earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he was awarded the\n Archibald R. Murray Public Service Award, cum laude, and merit-based scholarship. While in law school,\n James served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Stephen A. Bucaria of the Nassau County Supreme\n Court, Commercial Division, of the State of New York. He also served as Senior Notes and Articles Editor\n of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, and authored the publication\n \u201cPublic Fora Purpose: Analyzing Viewpoint Discrimination on the President\u2019s Twitter Account,\u201d Note, 28\n Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 511 (2018). In addition, James completed legal internships at the\n Authors Guild and Fordham University School of Law\u2019s Intellectual Property and Information Law Clinic,\n where he counseled clients and worked on matters related to Freedom of Information Act litigation,\n trademarks, and copyrights.\n\n James earned his B.A. from Stony Brook University, where he double majored in English and Cinema and\n Cultural Studies, completed the English Honors Program, was inducted into the Stony Brook University\n chapter of the International English Honors Society, and was awarded the university\u2019s Thomas Rogers\n Award for best analytical paper in an English course by an undergraduate.\n\n James is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and\n Eastern Districts of New York.\n\n Jaime Nolasco\n\n Jaime Nolasco focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Prior to Pomerantz, Jaime first clerked for Judge Matthew M. Scoble of the United States District Court\n for the District of Alaska. From there, Jaime was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in Chicago, where\n he defended government entities pertaining to employment law, federal discrimination, federal\n government investigations, and complex civil rights litigation. Jaime further worked at a Chicago litigation\n firm focusing on class actions, multi-district litigation, employment discrimination, and mass product\n liability claims.\n\n Additionally, Jaime interned for both Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, and then-Chief Justice Anne M. Burke of the Illinois Supreme Court. Jaime also\n interned at the Illinois Federal Defender Program, where he was awarded the Judge William J. Campbell\n Intern-At-Law Award, in recognition of Jaime\u2019s work in criminal federal litigation.\n\n Jaime graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and then Loyola University Chicago\n School of Law. During law school, Jaime served as a legal writing tutor and student clinician for a legislative\n & policy clinic.\n\n Jaime is barred in Illinois and admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Northern\n District of Illinois and the Central District of Illinois.\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 56\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 59 of 62\n\n\n\n\n Ankita Sangwan\n\n Ankita Sangwan focuses her practice on corporate governance matters.\n\n She graduated in 2022 from the LL.M. program at Columbia Law School as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.\n Prior to attending Columbia Law School, Ankita worked for four years in the Commercial Litigation Team\n of a prominent law firm in Bombay, India, at which she focused her practice on complex commercial and\n civil disputes. Ankita assisted in arguments before various courts in India, including the Supreme Court.\n\n In 2017, Ankita graduated with Honors from the B.A. LL.B. program at Jindal Global Law School, India. She\n was a member of the university\u2019s Moot Court Society, which finished as semi-finalists at the World Rounds\n of the International Investment Moot Court Competition, held in Frankfurt, Germany (2016). Ankita\u2019s\n moot court experience was recognized by her university; she was awarded the \u201cOutstanding Contribution\n to Moot Court\u201d prize upon graduation.\n\n Ankita is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\n Villi Shteyn\n\n Villi Shteyn focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Villi has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star from 2021 through 2025.\n\n Villi worked on individual securities lawsuits concerning BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which\n proceeded in In re BP p.l.c. Secs. Litig., No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.) and were resolved in 2021 in a\n confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients, including public and private pension\n funds, money management firms, partnerships, and investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K.,\n France, the Netherlands, and Australia. He also worked on a successful 2021 settlement for investors in a\n case against the Chinese company ChinaCache.\n\n Villi also pursued claims leading to successful settlements against Deutsche Bank for its lending activities\n to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, against Arconic, arising from the deadliest U.K. fire in more than a\n century, against Recro Pharma in relation to their non-opioid pain-relief product IV Meloxicam, and\n against online education company 2U. Villi also worked on a consumer class action against Apple, Inc. in\n relation to alleged slowdowns of the iPhone product.\n\n Villi is also involved in the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Royal Philips, relating to defective breathing\n devices, and against InMode, relating to aesthetic medical devices. He also represents investors in lawsuits\n against Alphabet, involving advertising technology practices and against Amazon, involving online\n marketplace practices.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Villi was employed by a boutique patent firm, where he worked on patent\n validity issues in the wake of the landmark Alice decision. During his tenure, he helped develop\n international patent maintenance tools for clients and assisted in pursuing injunctive relief for a patent-\n holding client against a large tech company.\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 57\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 60 of 62\n\n\n\n Villi graduated from The University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 2017). In 2014, he graduated summa cum\n laude from Baruch College with a Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs.\n\n Stephanie Weaver\n\n Stephanie Weaver focuses her practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Stephanie was\n an associate at a boutique securities litigation firm, focused on securities litigation, antitrust and\n bankruptcy matters.\n\n Stephanie graduated from St. John\u2019s University School of Law cum laude in 2021. While in law school, she\n served as Managing Director of the Moot Court Honor Society and won the Best Brief Award at the 2020\n Elaine Jackson Stack Moot Court Competition. She was also a member of the school\u2019s New York\n International Law Review. She was also honored as a New York State Court of Appeals Fellow in 2019. She\n earned her bachelor\u2019s degree summa cum laude from St. John\u2019s University in 2018.\n\n Stephanie is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\n Guy Yedwab\n\n Guy Yedwab focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Guy graduated from Rutgers Law School summa cum laude in 2023, while also receiving a Master\u2019s Degree\n in Public Affairs and Policy from the Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.\n While in law school, he won awards with the National Appellate Advocacy Team and was an editor at the\n Journal of Law and Public Policy, in which he published a note on constitutional law. He was honored with\n the Marsha Wenk Fellowship at the A.C.L.U. of New Jersey, and the Eagleton Institute\u2019s Henry J. Raimondo\n Legislative Fellowship.\n\n Guy serves as a board member for the League of Independent Theater, a 501(c)(6) trade association for\n small-sized cultural institutions in New York City. As such, he consults with policymakers on fostering small\n business in the city.\n\n Guy is admitted to practice in New York State's First Appellate Department.\n\n Staff Attorneys\n\n Jay Douglas Dean\n\n Jay Dean focuses on class action securities litigation. He has been a commercial litigator for more than 30\n years.\n\n Jay has been practicing with Pomerantz since 2008, including as an associate from 2009\u20132014, interrupted\n by a year of private practice in 2014\u20132015. More recently, he was part of the Pomerantz teams\n prosecuting the successful Petrobras and Yahoo actions. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he served as an\n Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, most\n recently in its Pensions Division. While at Pomerantz, in the Corporation Counsel\u2019s office and previously\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 58\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 61 of 62\n\n\n\n in large New York City firms, Jay has taken leading roles in trials, motions and appeals.\n\n Jay graduated in 1988 from Yale Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Journal of\n International Law.\n\n Jay is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Jay has also earned\n the right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.\n\n Timor Lahav\n\n Timor Lahav focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\n Timor participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras,\n arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel,\n achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings. Timor also\n participated in the firm\u2019s landmark litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., for the massive security breach that\n compromised 1.5 billion users' personal information.\n\n Timor received his LL.B. from Tel Aviv University School of Law in Israel, following which he clerked at one\n of Israel\u2019s largest law firms. He was an associate at a law firm in Jerusalem, where, among other\n responsibilities, he drafted motions and appeals, including to the Israeli Supreme Court, on various civil\n matters.\n\n He received his LL.M. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. There, Timor received the\n Uriel Caroline Bauer Scholarship, awarded to exceptional Israeli law graduates.\n\n Timor brings to Pomerantz several years\u2019 experience as an attorney in New York, including examining local\n SOX anti-corruption compliance policies in correlation with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and analysis\n of transactions in connection with DOJ litigation and SEC enforcement actions.\n\n Timor was a Captain in the Israeli Defense Forces. He is a native Hebrew speaker and is fluent in Russian.\n\n He is admitted to practice in New York and Israel.\n\n Laura M. Perrone\n\n Laura M. Perrone focuses on class action securities litigation.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Laura worked on securities class action cases at Labaton Sucharow. Preceding\n that experience, she represented plaintiffs at her own securities law firm, the Law Offices of Laura M.\n Perrone, PLLC.\n\n At Pomerantz, Laura participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil\n company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 59\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 39-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 62 of 62\n\n\n\n sole Lead Counsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal\n rulings.\n\n Laura has also represented bondholders against Citigroup for its disastrous investments in residential\n mortgage-backed securities, shareholders against Barclays PLC for misrepresentations about its dark pool\n trading system known as Barclays LX, and shareholders against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for\n misrepresentations about its recalls and its diesel emissions defeat devices.\n\n Laura graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was on the editorial staff of\n Cardozo\u2019s Arts and Entertainment Law Journal and was the recipient of the Jacob Burns Merit Scholarship.\n\n Laura is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\n Districts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n Allison Tierney\n\n Allison Tierney focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\n Allison brings 10 years of expertise in large-scale securities class action litigation to Pomerantz. She\n participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising\n from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved\n a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings.\n\n Prior to joining Pomerantz, Allison worked on securities class action cases at several top New York law\n firms, representing institutional investors. She has represented plaintiffs in disputes related to antitrust\n violations, corporate financial malfeasance, and residential mortgage-backed securities fraud.\n\n Allison earned her law degree from Hofstra University School of Law, where she served as notes and\n comments editor for the Cyberlaw Journal. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Boston University,\n where she graduated magna cum laude.\n\n Allison is conversant in Spanish and is studying to become fluent.\n\n Allison is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\n www.pomlaw.com 60\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:33.608827-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281300","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E - Pomerantz Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830656/","id":491830656,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/7/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.644889-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:54:02.162569-07:00","sha1":"83a639e3ab88d64beba84974fb7f21baac464aba","page_count":59,"file_size":5054970,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.39.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:34.415025-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281301","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit F - Miller Shah Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830657/","id":491830657,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/39/8/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.668478-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:07:53.668499-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":126868,"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":"39","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281302","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T19:07:07.873716-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:06:49.900718-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"21:19:34","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.002","pacer_sequence_number":130,"description":"MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Jordan Dario Primo by Jordan Dario Primo. Attorney Nathan C. Zipperian added to party Jordan Dario Primo(pty:mov). Responses due by 9/11/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Nathan Zipperian in Support of Motion of Movant JORDAN DARIO PRIMO for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, # 2 Exhibit A - Damages Analysis, # 3 Exhibit B - Certification and Schedule A, # 4 Exhibit C - June 29, 2026 Press Release, # 5 Exhibit D - Movant Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E - Pomerantz Firm Resume, # 7 Exhibit F - Miller Shah Firm Resume, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Zipperian, Nathan) (Entered: 08/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476253952/","id":476253952,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491811716/","id":491811716,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-28T19:07:06.740449-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T18:13:54.136387-07:00","sha1":"4ea6f805e09ebb9fc575aca7fc74fe8c7ecc3b53","page_count":13,"file_size":297833,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n CASE NO. 1:26-CV-24485-ALTMAN/Hernandez\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, Individually and On\n Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n vs.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF MOVANT\n DUC TO TO APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n APPROVE SELECTION OF COUNSEL\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1\n\n INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1\n\n ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3\n\n I. MOVANT SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF ................................ 3\n\n A. MOVANT IS WILLING TO SERVE AS CLASS\n REPRESENTATIVE .................................................................................. 4\n\n B. MOVANT HAS THE LARGEST FINANCIAL INTEREST\n IN THE ACTION ....................................................................................... 4\n\n C. MOVANT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23\n OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ........................... 5\n\n 1. Movant\u2019s Claims are Typical .................................................................. 5\n\n 2. Movant Is Adequate ................................................................................ 6\n\n D. MOVANT IS PRESUMPTIVELY THE MOST ADEQUATE\n PLAINTIFF................................................................................................. 6\n\n II. MOVANT\u2019S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED .............. 7\n\n CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 8\n\n COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)............................................................... 8\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\n Cases\n\n Edward J. Goodman Life Income Tr. v. Jabil Circuit, Inc.,\n 2007 WL 170556 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2007) ............................................................................... 4\n\n In re Bally Total Fitness, Sec. Litig.,\n 2005 WL 627960 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2005) ................................................................................ 4\n\n In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,\n 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 6\n\n In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Secs. Litig.,\n 2007 WL 680779 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2007) ................................................................................ 4\n\n In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig.,\n 247 F.R.D. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)............................................................................................. 4, 5\n\n In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig.,\n 210 F.R.D. 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)................................................................................................. 5\n\n In re Olsten Corp. Secs. Litig.,\n 3 F. Supp.2d 286 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) .............................................................................................. 4\n\n In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)................................................................................................... 5\n\n Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp.,\n 1997 WL 461036 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997) ................................................................................ 4\n\n Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.,\n No. 608-CV-388-ORL-19DAB, 2008 WL 2608111 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2008)........................... 7\n\n Sherleigh Assocs. LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings, Inc.,\n 184 F.R.D. 688 (S.D. Fla. 1999) ................................................................................................. 3\n\n Statutes\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B) ............................................................................................................. 1\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) ................................................................................................... 3, 4\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) ................................................................................................... 6\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) ........................................................................................... 7\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) ........................................................................................................ 7\n\n Rules\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .................................................................................................................... 3, 5, 6\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ....................................................................................................................... 5\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\n MOTION\n\n Movant Duc To (\u201cMovant\u201d), pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of\n\n 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of\n\n 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d), hereby moves this honorable Court on a date and at such time as may be\n\n designated by the Court, for an Order: (1) appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff; and (2) approving\n\n the Movant\u2019s selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel; and (3) granting such other\n\n and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.\n\n In support of this Motion, Movant submits herewith a Memorandum of Law, the\n\n Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen (with attachments), and a [Proposed] Order, all dated August\n\n 28, 2026.\n\n Movant is aware of the order dated August 4, 2026, staying the case and terminating all\n\n pending deadlines unrelated to the motion to transfer. However, out of an abundance of caution\n\n owing to the statutory lead plaintiff motion deadline established by the PSLRA, Movant submits\n\n this motion for lead plaintiff appointment.\n\n INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND\n\n This action was commenced on June 29, 2026, against Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d)\n\n and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d and, collectively with Citadel, \u201cDefendants\u201d) for violations\n\n under the Exchange Act. That same day, an early notice was issued pursuant to the PSLRA\n\n advising class members of, inter alia, the allegations and claims in the complaint, the Class Period,\n\n and advising class members of their option to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. See Declaration\n\n of Laurence M. Rosen (\u201cRosen Decl.\u201d), Ex. 1, filed herewith.\n\n Founded in 2002, Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d) provides AI-powered business\n\n education and development tools, and management consultancy services to entrepreneurs and\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\n business owners. In addition to its online education services, Genius also owns and operates\n\n resorts, retreats, and co-working cafes that offer resources supporting entrepreneurship and\n\n business development. Genius has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange\n\n (\u201cNYSE\u201d) since April 2022 under the ticker \u201cGNS.\u201d\n\n Defendant Citadel is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Miami,\n\n Florida. Citadel is registered with the SEC as a broker-dealer, and places and executes trades for\n\n both its customers and for its own account. According to Citadel, the company engages in market\n\n making in U.S. equities and other securities. According to Citadel, the company trades over 20%\n\n of U.S. equities volume and executes approximately 35% of all publicly listed retail volume.\n\n During the Class Period, Citadel, together with Virtu, was the largest trader of Genius securities,\n\n jointly executing 65%-85% of all over-the-counter trading.\n\n Defendant Virtu is a Delaware limited liability with its principal place of business in New\n\n York, and conducts substantial business in Florida, including through its office in Palm Beach\n\n Gardens, Florida. Virtu is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC, and places and executes trades\n\n for both its customers and for its own account. According to Virtu, the company engages in market\n\n making in U.S. equities and other securities and is responsible for approximately 25% of retail\n\n orders placed in the U.S. During the Class Period, Virtu, together with Citadel, was the largest\n\n trader of Genius securities, jointly executing 65%-85% of all over-the-counter trading.\n\n For years, Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale, placed and executed\n\n manipulative trades that were designed to, and did, artificially deflate the price of Genius stock\n\n and expand its bid-ask spread, thereby causing investors to sell their shares at artificially depressed\n\n prices while also inflating their transaction costs. This fraudulent scheme, known as \u201cspoofing,\u201d\n\n enriched Defendants while devastating Movant and other Genius investors.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\n The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly entered\n\n thousands of Baiting Orders designed to create the false impression that there was both excess\n\n supply and excess volatility in Genius stock. These manipulative orders were calculated to (and\n\n successfully did) deceive or induce other investors to sell their holdings at artificially deflated\n\n prices.\n\n As a result of Defendants\u2019 wrongful acts and omissions, Movant and other Class members\n\n have suffered significant losses and damages.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. MOVANT SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF\n\n The PSLRA set forth procedures for the selection of Lead Plaintiff in class actions brought\n\n under the Act. The PSLRA provides a \u201crebuttable presumption\u201d that the most \u201cadequate plaintiff\u201d\n\n to serve as Lead Plaintiff is the \u201cperson or group\u2026\u201d that:\n\n (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . .;\n\n (bb) in the determination of the Court, has the largest financial interest in the relief\n\n sought by the class; and\n\n (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure.\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); see also Sherleigh Assocs. LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings,\n\n Inc., 184 F.R.D. 688, 693 (S.D. Fla. 1999).\n\n As set forth below, Movant satisfies all three of these criteria and thus is entitled to the\n\n presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff of the class and, therefore, should be appointed\n\n Lead Plaintiff.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\n A. MOVANT IS WILLING TO SERVE AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE\n\n Movant has filed herewith a PSLRA certification attesting that Movant is willing to serve\n\n as representative of the class and remains willing to provide testimony at deposition and trial, if\n\n necessary. See Ex. 2 hereto. Accordingly, Movant satisfies the first requirement to serve as Lead\n\n Plaintiff for the Class.\n\n B. MOVANT HAS THE LARGEST FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE ACTION\n\n The PSLRA requires a court to adopt a rebuttable presumption that \u201cthe most adequate\n\n plaintiff \u2026 is the person \u2026 that \u2026 has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the\n\n class\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); Edward J. Goodman Life Income Tr. v. Jabil Circuit, Inc.,\n\n 2007 WL 170556, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2007). In determining the movant with the largest\n\n financial interest, Courts have employed the Olsten/Lax analysis: (1) the number of shares\n\n purchased during the class period; (2) the net number of shares purchased during the class period;\n\n (3) the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate loss suffered\n\n during the class period. In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2007 WL 680779 * 3\n\n (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2007) (citing Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036 * 5\n\n (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997)); In re Olsten Corp. Secs. Litig., 3 F. Supp.2d 286, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).\n\n Of the Lax/Olsten-styled factors in determining the largest financial interest, the financial\n\n loss is the most significant factor. See In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 247 F.R.D. 432, 437 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n 2008). Indeed, \u201cthe best yardstick by which to judge \u2018largest financial interest\u2019 is the amount of\n\n loss, period.\u201d In re Bally Total Fitness, Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 627960 * 4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2005).\n\n Movant lost approximately $152,882.23 in connection with his purchases of Genius\n\n securities. See Rosen Decl. Ex. 3. Accordingly, Movant satisfies the largest financial interest\n\n requirement to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the class.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\n C. MOVANT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL\n\n RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE\n\n Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the PSLRA further provides that, in addition to\n\n possessing the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, the Lead Plaintiff must\n\n \u201cotherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d Rule 23(a)\n\n provides that a party may serve as a class representative if the following four requirements are\n\n satisfied:\n\n (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there\n are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the\n representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the\n representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.\n\n In making its determination that the Lead Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 23,\n\n the Court need not raise its inquiry to the level required in ruling on a motion for class\n\n certification\u2014a prima facie showing that the movants satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 is\n\n sufficient. In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation, 247 F.R.D. at 439 (only a prima facie showing\n\n is required) (citations omitted). Moreover, \u201ctypicality and adequacy of representation are the only\n\n provisions relevant to a determination of lead plaintiff under the PSLRA.\u201d In re Oxford Health\n\n Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).\n\n 1. Movant\u2019s Claims are Typical\n\n The Rule 23(a) typicality requirement is satisfied when a plaintiff\u2019s claims arise from the\n\n same event, practice or course of conduct that gives rise to other class members\u2019 claims and\n\n plaintiff\u2019s claims are based on the same legal theory. See In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig.,\n\n 210 F.R.D. 512, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Rule 23 does not require the lead plaintiff to be identically\n\n situated with all class members. Id.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Here, Movant\u2019s claims are typical of the claims asserted by the Class. Movant, like all\n\n members of the Class, alleges that Defendants violated the Exchange Act by issuing false and\n\n misleading statements about Genius\u2019s business and financial condition. Movant\u2019s interests are\n\n closely aligned with the other Class members\u2019 and Movant\u2019s interests are, therefore, typical of the\n\n other members of the Class.\n\n 2. Movant Is Adequate\n\n The adequacy of representation of Rule 23 is satisfied where it is established that a\n\n representative party has the ability to represent the claims of the class vigorously, has obtained\n\n adequate counsel, and there is no conflict between a potential representative\u2019s claim and those\n\n asserted on behalf of the class. In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 265 (3d Cir. 2001).\n\n Here, Movant has communicated with competent, experienced counsel concerning this\n\n case, and made this motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff. Movant is not aware that any conflict\n\n exists between Movant\u2019s claims and those asserted on behalf of the Class. Movant also sustained\n\n substantial financial losses from investments in Genius securities and is, therefore, extremely\n\n motivated to pursue claims in this action.\n\n D. MOVANT IS PRESUMPTIVELY THE MOST ADEQUATE PLAINTIFF\n\n The presumption in favor of appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff may be rebutted only\n\n upon proof \u201cby a purported member of the Plaintiffs\u2019 class\u201d that the presumptively most adequate\n\n plaintiff:\n\n (aa) will not fairly adequately protect the interest of the class; or\n\n (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately\n\n representing the class.\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\n The presumption that Movant is the most adequate Lead Plaintiff is not, therefore, subject\n\n to rebuttal. Movant has suffered substantial financial losses and has the largest financial interest in\n\n this case of any timely lead plaintiff. The ability of Movant to represent the Class fairly and\n\n adequately is discussed above. Movant is not aware of any unique defenses Defendants could raise\n\n against it that would render Movant inadequate to represent the Class.\n\n Movant lives in Sweden, where he works as a nurse. Movant has a university degree in\n\n nursing and healthcare. Movant has been investing for 4 years. Thus, the close alignment of\n\n interests between Movant and other class members, as well as his strong desire to prosecute this\n\n action on behalf of the class, provides ample reason to grant Movant\u2019s motion to serve as Lead\n\n Plaintiff.\n\n II. MOVANT\u2019S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED\n\n The PSLRA vests authority in the Lead Plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject\n\n to the approval of the Court. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court should interfere with Lead\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s selection only when necessary \u201cto protect the interests of the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.,\n\n No. 608-CV-388-ORL-19DAB, 2008 WL 2608111, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2008) (when a law\n\n firm has prosecuted securities class actions in the past successfully, courts will generally not\n\n interfere with a lead plaintiff movant\u2019s choice of counsel.).\n\n Movant has selected Rosen Law as Lead Counsel. Rosen Law has been actively\n\n researching the class plaintiffs\u2019 claims, reviewing financial and legal documents, and gathering\n\n other information in support of the claims against the Defendants. Furthermore, Rosen Law is\n\n experienced in the area of securities litigation and class actions and has successfully prosecuted\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\n securities litigation and securities fraud class actions on behalf of investors in courts across the\n\n country. See Rosen Decl., Ex. 4.\n\n As a result of the firms\u2019 experience in litigation involving issues similar to those raised in\n\n this action, Movant\u2019s counsel has the skill and knowledge to prosecute this action effectively and\n\n expeditiously. Thus, the Court may be assured that by approving Movant\u2019s selection of Lead\n\n Counsel, the members of the class will receive the best legal representation available.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order: (1)\n\n appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff for the class; (2) approving Movant\u2019s selection of The Rosen\n\n Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel; and (3) granting such other relief as the Court may deem to be\n\n just and proper.\n\n COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)\n\n Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires a conference of counsel prior to filing motions. Due to the\n\n lead plaintiff procedure of the PSLRA, however, Movant does not yet know which other entities\n\n or persons plan to move for appointment as lead plaintiff until after all movants have filed their\n\n respective motions. Under these circumstances, Movant respectfully requests that the conferral\n\n requirement of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) be waived.\n\n Dated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n /s/Laurence M. Rosen\n Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 0182877\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n Fax: (212) 202-3827\n Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n\n [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 28, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document\n\n was served by CM/ECF to the parties registered to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n /s/Laurence M. Rosen\n Laurence M. Rosen\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:40.285355-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281323","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appoint Lead Counsel AND Appoint Lead Plaintiff","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830658/","id":491830658,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/1/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:15.992393-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:08:15.992406-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":110624,"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":"40","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281324","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830659/","id":491830659,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/2/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:16.088296-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:55:29.772779-07:00","sha1":"2a003c71529d7f2597b4106e12076376bfaafaa1","page_count":3,"file_size":125023,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n CASE NO. 1:26-CV-24485-ALTMAN/Hernandez\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, Individually and On\n Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n vs.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF\n MOVANT DUC TO TO: (1) APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFF; AND (2) APPROVE\n SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n\n\n Laurence M. Rosen, hereby declares under penalty of perjury:\n\n 1. I am the Managing Partner of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cRosen Law\u201d), Proposed\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Duc To (\u201cMovant\u201d). I make this Declaration in support\n\n of the Movant\u2019s motion to: (1) appoint Lead Plaintiff; and (2) approve the selection of Rosen Law\n\n as Lead Counsel. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of Florida and before this\n\n Court. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon, I could and\n\n would completely testify thereto.\n\n 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the PSLRA early notice.\n\n 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Movant\u2019s PSLRA\n\n Certification.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a loss chart evidencing\n\n Movant\u2019s financial interest.\n\n 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 Rosen Law\u2019s firm resume.\n\n I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n Executed: August 28, 2026\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n /s/Laurence M. Rosen\n Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 0182877\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 28, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document\n\n was served by CM/ECF to the parties registered to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n /s/Laurence M. Rosen\n Laurence M. Rosen\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:40.924875-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281325","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Decl. of Laurence Rosen","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830660/","id":491830660,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/3/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:16.104734-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:06.440598-07:00","sha1":"96396927086d2b09525d8920ab2742655597bc4e","page_count":4,"file_size":145372,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1\n\f Case\n7/1/26, 10:22 AM1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files40-3 Entered\n Class Action on FLSD\n Lawsuit Against CitadelDocket\n Securities 08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Jun 29, 2026 5:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit\n Against Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu\n Americas LLC\n Share\n\n\n\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On June 29, 2026, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a\n class action lawsuit on behalf of Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) against Citadel\n Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) (together, the\n \u201cDefendants\u201d). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by placing\n and executing manipulative trades designed to artificially deflate the price of\n Genius stock and also resulted in increased transaction costs for investors.\n\n\n The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants\n Citadel Securities and Virtu Americas engaged in a manipulative and\n illegal trading practice known as \u201cspoofing.\u201d\n Share\n\n The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired,\n or sold or otherwise disposed of, securities of Genius between April 12, 2022 and\n May 30, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). The action, brought in the United\n States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is captioned Aron Reynolds\n v. Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC, No. 1:26-cv-24485 (S.D. Fla.).\n\n Citadel and Virtu are broker-dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange\n Commission and operate as major market makers, routinely placing and executing\n securities trades for investors as well as for their own trading accounts.\n\n The complaint alleges violations of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities\n Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 1/6\n\f Case\n7/1/26, 10:22 AM1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files40-3 Entered\n Class Action on FLSD\n Lawsuit Against CitadelDocket\n Securities 08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC3 of 4\n\n Period, Defendants engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known\n as \u201cspoofing,\u201d which involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders\n without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these \u201cbaiting orders\u201d\n was to mislead other market participants about the true level of supply and\n demand for Genius securities, or about the stock\u2019s price volatility, thereby\n influencing the market price of Genius to benefit Defendants\u2019 own trading\n positions. The alleged manipulation also increased investors\u2019 transaction costs by\n inflating the bid-ask spread for Genius stock. Defendants entered thousands of\n these baiting orders on U.S. stock exchanges to create the false impression that\n Genius\u2019 stock price reflected genuine supply-and-demand and volatility dynamics,\n while simultaneously profiting by absorbing and reselling their customers\u2019 order\n flow at prices favorable to Defendants.\n\n Throughout the Class Period, sharp declines in Genius\u2019 stock price consistently\n coincided with substantial spikes in Defendants\u2019 spoofing activity. For example,\n during the week of February 10, 2025, Defendants built significant short positions in\n Genius stock and reaped substantial trading profits: Citadel traded more than 23\n million shares of Genius off-exchange, accounting for nearly half of all off-exchange\n trading in the stock, while Virtu traded nearly 11 million shares, accounting for more\n than 20% of all off-exchange trading. Together, Defendants comprised nearly 70%\n of all off-exchange trading in Genius stock that week, as short volume surged from\n a low of 53% to more than 61%. As a result, Genius\u2019 stock price decline by 22%\n despite the absence of any new material, company-specific news.\n\n\n Investors who purchased or sold Genius securities during the Class Period are\n members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead\n plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with\n the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the\n \u201cPSLRA\u201d). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).\n\n If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than\n August 28, 2026. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to\n share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to\n represent you in this action.\n\n If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or\n your rights, please contact Abe Alexander at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. at 646-722-\n 8500, or via email at aalexander@gelaw.com.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 2/6\n\f Case\n7/1/26, 10:22 AM1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files40-3 Entered\n Class Action on FLSD\n Lawsuit Against CitadelDocket\n Securities 08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC4 of 4\n\n Contacts\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n Industry: Class Action Lawsuit Professional Services Legal\n\n\n\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n\n\n\n RELEASE VERSIONS\n\n\n English\n\n\n CONTACTS\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n\n\n More News From Grant &\n Eisenhofer P.A.\n Get RSS Feed\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 3/6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:41.452147-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281326","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Early Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830661/","id":491830661,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/4/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:16.120995-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:50:24.327232-07:00","sha1":"27b7a55a2eb86d7170c873065a5602955e5888a3","page_count":4,"file_size":224355,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 4\n\n\nCertification and Authorization of Named Plaintiff Pursuant to Federal\nSecurities Laws\nThe individual or institution listed below (the \"Plaintiff\") authorizes and, upon execution of the accompanying\nretainer agreement by The Rosen Law Firm P.A., retains The Rosen Law Firm P.A. to file an action under the\nfederal securities laws to recover damages and to seek other relief against Genius Group Limited.\nThe Rosen Law Firm P.A. will prosecute the action on a contingent fee basis not to exceed one-third of the\nrecovery and will advance all costs and expenses. All payments of fees and expenses shall be made only\nafter Court review and approval. The Genius Group Limited Retention Agreement provided to the Plaintiff is\nincorporated by reference herein and is effective, upon execution and delivery by The Rosen Law Firm P.A.\n\nFirst Name: Duc\nMiddle Initial: V\nLast Name: To\nMailing Address:\n Redacted\nCity:\nState:\nZip Code:\nCountry:\nPhone:\nEmail Address:\n\nPlaintiff certifies that:\n 1. Plaintiff has reviewed a complaint and authorized its filing or the filing of an amended complaint.\n 2. Plaintiff did not acquire the security that is the subject of this action at the direction of plaintiff's counsel\n or in order to participate in this private action or any other litigation under the federal securities laws.\n 3. Plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at\n deposition and trial, if necessary.\n 4. Plaintiff represents and warrants that he/she/it is fully authorized to enter into and execute this\n certification.\n 5. Plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the class beyond\n Plaintiff's pro rata share of any recovery, except such reasonable costs and expenses (including lost\n wages) directly relating to the representation of the class as ordered or approved by the court.\n 6. Plaintiff has made no transaction(s) during the Class Period in the debt or equity securities that are the\n subject of this action except those set forth below:\n\nPurchases: See attached Schedule A\n\nSales:\n\nI have not sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class under the federal securities\nlaws during the last three years, except if set forth below.\n\n\nI declare and certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States YES\nof America, that the foregoing information is true and correct.\nBy Signing below and submitting this certification form electronically, I intend to YES\nsign and execute this certification pursuant to California Civil Code Section\n1633.1, et seq. - and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and retain the\n\n 1/2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 4\n\n\nRosen Law Firm, P.A. to proceed on Plaintiff's behalf, on a contingent fee basis.\n\nDate of signing: 08/14/2026 16:56:53 at Eastern Standard Time, USA\n\n\n\n\n 2/2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n SCHEDULE A\n\n DUC TO TRANSACTIONS\n\n PURCHASES\n\n Date Shares Price\n\n 8/3/2023 1,185 ($7.61)\n 8/3/2023 1,317 ($7.27)\n 8/3/2023 27,190 ($6.54)\n\n\n SALES\n\n Date Shares Price\n\n 8/3/2023 2,502 $7.07\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:42.072295-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281327","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - PSLRA Cert","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830662/","id":491830662,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/5/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:16.135864-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:54:56.367822-07:00","sha1":"ac22a41bfad1445c64e7eedf2058401c38c57ffa","page_count":2,"file_size":75961,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n Genius Group Limited Loss Chart\n Lookback Price\n Class Period: April 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\n Date Price per Price per Shares\n $0.95\n Name Purchased Shares Share Total Date Sold Shares Share Total Retained Value Retained Total Loss/Gain\nDuc To 8/3/2023 1,185 ($7.61) ($9,017.85) 8/3/2023 2,502 $7.07 $17,689.14\n 8/3/2023 1,317 ($7.27) ($9,574.59)\n 8/3/2023 27,190 ($6.54) ($177,822.60)\n 29,692 ($196,415.04) 2,502 $17,689.14 27,190 $25,830.50 ($152,895.40)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:42.676708-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281328","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Loss Chart","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830663/","id":491830663,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/40/6/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:08:16.153153-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:50:19.466176-07:00","sha1":"938729833d6826d2b328790d128a590c6ffe9211","page_count":26,"file_size":326284,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.40.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 26\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 26\n\n\n\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n BIOGRAPHY\n\n I. ATTORNEYS\n\n LAURENCE ROSEN \u2013 MANAGING PARTNER\n\n Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned an\n\n M.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and\n\n a B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the Honorable\n\n Stanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Rosen\n\n entered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in\n\n New York City where he participated in a number of complex securities class action and derivative\n\n litigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey\n\n where he specialized in securities and business litigation.\n\n After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with Solton\n\n Rosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors\n\n exclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted to practice\n\n law in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Rosen is also admitted to\n\n practice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the country and the United\n\n States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Rosen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers. Mr. Rosen was also named by law360 as Titan of Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar for 2020. Mr. Rosen\n\n was selected to Super Lawyers in 2017-26.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 26\n\n\n\n\n PHILLIP KIM \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a B.A.\n\n in Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to joining\n\n The Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York\n\n in the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a number of class\n\n action lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more than seven trials.\n\n Mr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr.\n\n Kim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the Southern,\n\n Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District\n\n of Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Southern District of Texas, the District of\n\n Maryland, and United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Kim as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers. In 2023-26 Mr. Kim was selected to Super Lawyers. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best\n\n Lawyers in The Best Lawyers of America 2024-26.\n\n JACOB A. GOLDBERG \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Goldberg is a 1988 graduate of Columbia University. Mr. Goldberg received his J.D.,\n\n cum laude, from the Temple University School of Law in 1992. For over 23 years, Mr. Goldberg\n\n has litigated complex cases at the highest levels, championing the rights of investors, employees\n\n and consumers. Mr. Goldberg has recovered over $200 million for investors in securities class\n\n actions. In addition to serving in leadership roles in securities class actions, Mr. Goldberg has\n\n litigated many cases under state corporations laws, against faithless boards of directors both on\n\n behalf of shareholders, in the mergers and acquisitions context, and, derivatively, on behalf of\n\n corporations, to remedy harm to the corporation itself. Mr. Goldberg is admitted to practice law\n\n in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, New York, the United States Supreme Court, the United\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 26\n\n\n\n\n States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, and various United States\n\n District Courts across the country.\n\n In 2019-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Goldberg as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers.\n\n JONATHAN A. SAIDEL \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Saidel has had a long and distinguished career in Pennsylvania politics, as well as in\n\n the roles of attorney, accountant and author. He served as Philadelphia city controller for four\n\n consecutive terms, each time earning reelection by a wide margin, and enacting financial reforms\n\n that have saved taxpayers upwards of $500 million. Later, in 2010 he went on to campaign for\n\n lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, where he was runner-up to Scott Conklin by only a few\n\n thousand votes out of almost 1 million cast. A Lifelong resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Mr.\n\n Saidel\u2019s tireless dedication to fiscal discipline reduced the city's tax burden and spurred economic\n\n development. Mr. Saidel also pushed for important business tax incentives and expanded minority\n\n and small business lending, all of which have revitalized the city, helping it prosper and come back\n\n from the brink of bankruptcy in the early 1990's to become one of the most vibrant cities on the\n\n East Coast.\n\n Mr. Saidel\u2019s book, \"Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction\", is widely considered an\n\n essential guide for effective government and corporate governance and is required reading at many\n\n colleges and universities.\n\n Mr. Saidel received his JD from the Widener University of Law and is a graduate of Temple\n\n University. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of\n\n Government, and Drexel University's MBA Program. In addition to being a Certified Public\n\n Account, Jonathan is a recipient of the National Association of Local Government Auditor's\n\n Knighton Award, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence,\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 26\n\n\n\n\n multiple special project awards from the National Association of Local Government Auditors, and\n\n the \"Controller of the Year\" award, a peer recognition presented by the Pennsylvania City\n\n Controllers Association.\n\n SARA FUKS \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February\n\n 2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political\n\n Science, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at\n\n Dewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to\n\n prosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms. Fuks\n\n is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District\n\n Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of\n\n Michigan. Ms. Fuks was selected to SuperLawyers in 2021-26 and SuperLawyers Rising Stars in\n\n 2017-19. In 2025-26 Lawdragon named Ms. Fuks as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers.\n\n JONATHAN HORNE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received\n\n the Lederman/Milbank Law, Economics, and Business fellowship, and holds a B.A. in Economics\n\n & Philosophy from the University of Toronto. Mr. Horne began his practice at Kaye Scholer LLP.\n\n Mr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New York and the\n\n United States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and Eastern Districts\n\n of New York. Mr. Horne was named a Super Lawyer \u2013 Rising Star for the New York Metro Area\n\n every year since 2015. In 2025-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Horne as one of the 500 Leading\n\n Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 26\n\n\n\n\n YU SHI \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude,\n\n from Columbia University in 2008. In 2024-26, Lawdragon recognized Mr. Shi as one of the 500\n\n Leading Plaintiffs Financial Lawyers. In 2022, Law360 named Mr. Shi as one of the nation\u2019s top\n\n securities attorneys under the age of 40. He has been selected to Super Lawyers each year since\n\n 2018. Mr. Shi began his career as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City\n\n Law Department\u2019s Economic Development Division. Mr. Shi joined The Rosen Law Firm in 2012\n\n and focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in the State of New\n\n York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, Southern Districts of\n\n New York, and the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\n\n Circuit.\n\n JONATHAN STERN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he\n\n was a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in\n\n Philosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation\n\n department of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation\n\n boutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is admitted\n\n to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and\n\n Eastern District Courts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. In\n\n 2024-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Stern as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. He\n\n has been selected to Super Lawyers in 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 26\n\n\n\n\n JING CHEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011,\n\n Juris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and\n\n B.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is\n\n admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm,\n\n Ms. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years. In\n\n 2024-26 Lawdragon named Ms. Chen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n BRIAN ALEXANDER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Alexander graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2008. He received a\n\n B.A. from Cornell University, magna cum laude, in 2003. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm,\n\n Mr. Alexander practiced complex commercial litigation at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and other\n\n prominent law firms in New York. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J.\n\n Dearie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is admitted to\n\n practice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\n New York, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Alexander was\n\n recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025. In 2025-26 Lawdragon named\n\n Mr. Alexander as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n DANIEL TYRE-KARP \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm in May 2018, Mr. Tyre-Karp was a senior associate\n\n in the securities litigation and corporate governance group at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he\n\n advised corporate and individual clients on a variety of high-stakes regulatory and litigation\n\n matters in state and federal courts. Mr. Tyre-Karp\u2019s extensive experience includes working on\n\n several of the largest recent shareholder class action litigations (In re American International\n\n Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Docket No. 08-CV-4772 (S.D.N.Y.) and related opt-out\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 26\n\n\n\n\n actions; In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. 6949 (Del. Ch.)),\n\n participating in complex business and bankruptcy litigations (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings,\n\n Inc., et al, Docket No. 1:08-bk-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), and advising numerous clients facing\n\n FINRA and SEC investigations. Mr. Tyre-Karp graduated with honors from Wesleyan University\n\n in 2003 and received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2009, where he served\n\n as Senior Notes Editor of the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. He is admitted to practice\n\n in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n\n York. Mr. Tyre-Karp was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025-\n\n 2026. In 2025-26 Lawdragon named Mr. Tyre-Karp as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\n Lawyers.\n\n ERICA STONE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received\n\n her B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of\n\n Pennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States\n\n District Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, the District of New\n\n Jersey, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2024-26, Ms.\n\n Stone was selected to Super Lawyers. Ms. Stone was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\n Ones to Watch 2025-2026. In 2026 Lawdragon named Ms. Stone as one of the 500 Leading\n\n Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.\n\n JOSHUA BAKER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Baker graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2013. He received\n\n a B.A. from the University of Maryland in 2009. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Baker\n\n practiced complex commercial litigation for a New York firm. He is admitted to practice in New\n\n York, Massachusetts, and United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 26\n\n\n\n\n New York and the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Baker was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best\n\n Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025-2026.\n\n MATTHEW P. SIBEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Siben has 25 years of experience prosecuting high-profile securities fraud class actions\n\n on behalf of individual institutional investors. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 2000,\n\n Mr. Siben joined Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach to focus on securities litigation. Mr.\n\n Siben was influential in developing the scheme liability theories necessary to hold Enron\u2019s\n\n investment bank partners liable for their role in falsifying Enron\u2019s financial statements. Mr. Siben\n\n also had primary responsibility for prosecuting the case against Citigroup, obtaining a $2 billion\n\n settlement on behalf of the class.\n\n In 2007, Mr. Siben joined litigation boutique Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP\n\n to prosecute class cases and create the firm\u2019s opt-out practice representing institutional investors\n\n in direct actions. Among other successes, Mr. Siben initiated and prosecuted the firm\u2019s first opt-\n\n out action against Tyco International. Representing several mutual funds, a public pension fund,\n\n and hedge funds including Leon Cooperman\u2019s Omega Partners, Mr. Siben settled the case against\n\n Tyco for $100 million. This settlement represented a significant multiplier over the recovery in the\n\n class case and continues to be a benchmark in opt-out litigation.\n\n Mr. Siben is admitted to the bars of California, Florida, New York, and the United States\n\n District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the United States District\n\n Courts for the Southern, Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the United States\n\n District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, and the United States District\n\n Court for the District of Colorado.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 26\n\n\n\n\n ROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Howald is a graduate of Stanford Law School where she was a member of the Stanford\n\n Law Review. Ms. Howald earned her BA from Barnard College, magna cum laude. Ms. Howald\n\n joined the firm in 2021 and focuses her practice on securities litigation. For the last 15 years, Ms.\n\n Howald has prosecuted major securities litigations. She was one of the lead attorneys in cases that\n\n achieved settlements of $250 million for injured investors, including Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d\n\n 679 (7th Cir. 2010) ($41.5 million), In re Mannkind Corp. Securities Litigation (C.D. California)\n\n ($23 million); In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation (Eastern District of Virginia) ($21.75\n\n million), In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) ($20 million), In re\n\n Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, 2001 WL 34062431 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ($13.75 million), In\n\n re Puda Coal Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($8.6 million following reconsideration of grant\n\n of summary judgment), Jenson v. Fiserv Trust Co., 256 F. App\u2019x. 924 (9th Cir. 2007) ($8.5 million\n\n recovered for victims of a Ponzi scheme). Ms. Howald is admitted to the bars of California, New\n\n York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the\n\n Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the\n\n United States Court of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\n GONEN HAKLAY \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Haklay graduated from Stanford University School of Law in 1995. He received a\n\n B.A. in Political Science from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1992. After several\n\n years as an associate at a large Philadelphia law firm, Mr. Haklay joined the Philadelphia District\n\n Attorney\u2019s office. As a prosecutor, he tried over 100 criminal jury cases and handled both capital\n\n and non-capital homicide cases. After 12 years as prosecutor, Mr. Haklay joined a prominent\n\n plaintiffs\u2019 firm where he tried over ten asbestos cases, recovering millions of dollars for his clients.\n\n As a young man, Mr. Haklay served as an infantryman in the Israel Defense Forces. Mr. Haklay\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 26\n\n\n\n\n is admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United\n\n States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Third Circuit\n\n Court of Appeals. Mr. Haklay was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\n\n 2025-2026.\n\n MICHAEL COHEN \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Cohen focuses his practice on securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Prior to\n\n joining The Rosen Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Cohen was an associate in the litigation practice of\n\n Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, where he advised corporate and individual clients on a\n\n wide variety of litigation and regulatory matters in federal and state courts. He has also served as\n\n a law clerk to the Honorable Corinne Beckwith of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr.\n\n Cohen is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Eastern\n\n and Southern Districts of New York. Mr. Cohen was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\n Ones to Watch 2023-2026. In 2025, Mr. Cohen was recognized by ALM Law.com Elite Trial\n\n Lawyers, Rising Star of the Plaintiffs Bar.\n\n LEAH HEIFETZ-LI \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Heifetz-Li is a 2009 graduate of Columbia Law School, and received a B.A. from the\n\n University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heifetz-Li served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia S.\n\n Kern, New York State Supreme Court, New York County. She has extensive experience in class\n\n action litigation, having previously practiced at a large class action firm representing shareholders\n\n in merger and acquisition litigation as well as shareholder derivative actions. Ms. Heifetz-Li has\n\n worked on case teams that secured significant financial recoveries for stockholders as well as\n\n corporate governance reforms in the Delaware Court of Chancery and other courts throughout the\n\n country. Ms. Heifetz-Li was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 26\n\n\n\n\n HENRY BLOXENHEIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bloxenheim graduated from Columbia Law School in 2023. Mr. Bloxenheim received\n\n his B.A. in Political Science, summa cum laude, from Brooklyn College. Mr. Bloxenheim is\n\n admitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Southern District\n\n and Eastern District of New York.\n\n CHRISTIE BUZZETTI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Buzzetti graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2022. She received her B.A. in\n\n Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016. Ms. Buzzetti is admitted\n\n to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern\n\n District of New York. Ms. Buzzetti was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to\n\n Watch 2026.\n\n JIAQI CHEN \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Chen joined the firm in 2024 after graduating from Harvard Law School, and clerking\n\n for the Honorable Jennifer E. Willis of the United States District Court for the Southern District\n\n of New York. Prior to practicing in the United States, Ms. Chen gained 5 years of experience at a\n\n top-tier Chinese law firm and a financial and accounting regulatory body, where she advised clients\n\n on business compliance and regulatory matters and handled investigations and enforcement actions\n\n relating to accounting misconduct and financial fraud. Ms. Chen brings a unique cross-border and\n\n financial perspective to complex litigation, securities matters, and compliance-related disputes.\n\n Ms. Chen is admitted to practice in New York, United States District Courts for the Southern\n\n Districts of New York and is also admitted in the People\u2019s Republic of China (inactive).\n\n YITZCHOK (IZZY) FISHBACH \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Fishbach received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2022, where he\n\n served as the Articles Editor of the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review. He received\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 26\n\n\n\n\n his B.A. in Political Science from Binghamton University in 2019. Mr. Fishbach is admitted to\n\n practice in New York, Tennessee, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and\n\n Southern Districts of New York.\n\n LUKE FOLEY \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Foley received his J.D. from the William and Mary Law School in 2022. He received\n\n his B.A. in History and Citizenship & Civic Engagement from Syracuse University in 2016. Prior\n\n to joining the Rosen Law Firm in September 2023, Mr. Foley was the Law Clerk to the Hon.\n\n Barbara Buono Stanton of the New Jersey Superior Court, Passaic County. Mr. Foley is admitted\n\n to practice in Maryland.\n\n RYAN HEDRICK \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Hedrick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 2019. He received his\n\n B.A. in Linguistics and Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University in\n\n 2015. Mr. Hedrick joined the Rosen Law Firm in August 2019. Mr. Hedrick is admitted to practice\n\n in New York, New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts\n\n of New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and United States Court of\n\n Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Hedrick was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\n Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n HA SUNG (SCOTT) KIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Kim received his J.D. from the Columbia Law School in 2017. He received his B.A.,\n\n magna cum laude, from Wheaton College in 2013. Mr. Kim joined the Rosen Law Firm in January\n\n 2020. Mr. Kim is admitted to practice in New York. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best Lawyers as\n\n Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 26\n\n\n\n\n IAN MCDOWELL \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. McDowell graduated cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law in\n\n 2022. He received his B.A. from James Madison University in 2016. Mr. McDowell is admitted\n\n to practice in Pennsylvania and Maryland as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern\n\n District of Pennsylvania. Mr. McDowell was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones\n\n to Watch 2026.\n\n OLIVIA SIMKINS \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Simkins is a 2024 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. She earned her B.A.\n\n in Linguistics and English cum laude from Tulane University in 2017. Ms. Simkins is admitted to\n\n practice in Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\n\n Pennsylvania.\n\n II. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n \u2022 DiDi Holdings, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $740 million.\n\n \u2022 Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $250 million.\n\n \u2022 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $110 million.\n\n \u2022 Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $48\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Silver Wheaton Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $41.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $30.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $29.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $28.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Vanguard Target Date Retirement Funds, (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $25 million.\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Just Energy Group, Inc., (Canada). Rosen USA Lead Counsel. $25 million (cdn).\n\n \u2022 Walter Investment Management, (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $24 million.\n\n \u2022 Galena Biopharma, Inc., (D. Or.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20.165 million.\n\n \u2022 Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20 million.\n\n \u2022 El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $20 million.\n\n \u2022 VEON Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $19.97 million.\n\n \u2022 Tal Education Group. (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $14.1 million, pending Court\n\n approval.\n\n \u2022 Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $14 million bankruptcy\n\n settlement. $2.075 million with auditor.\n\n \u2022 USA Technologies, Inc., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $15.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Zillow Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., (W.D. Wash.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $15 million.\n\n \u2022 Silvercorp Metals, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel. $14 million.\n\n \u2022 Sandridge Energy, Inc., (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13.945 million.\n\n \u2022 Astec Industries, Inc., (E.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $13.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Apron Holdings, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Canopy Growth Corporation, (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $13 million.\n\n \u2022 SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (Shareholder Derivative) (Del. Ch.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel. $12.5 million.\n\n \u2022 CS Disco, Inc. (W.D.Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11.5 million, pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Arrival SA, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11.275 million.\n\n \u2022 The RealReal, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11 million.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Full Truck Alliance Co. (E.D.N.Y.) and (NY. Sup.). Rosen Federal Lead Counsel. $10.25\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Quest Energy Partners LP, (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $10.1 million all classes.\n\n \u2022 Prosper Marketplace, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Class Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 PG&E Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 comScore, Inc. (Shareholder Derivative), Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $9.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Uxin Limited, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Concordia International Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.25 million.\n\n \u2022 PPDAI Group Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9 million.\n\n \u2022 Puda Coal, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.7 million.\n\n \u2022 RINO International Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8.685 million.\n\n \u2022 Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc.,(E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.5 million,\n\n pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Acer Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7.75 million.\n\n \u2022 WM Technology, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7.5 million, pending Court\n\n approval.\n\n \u2022 Montage Technology Group Limited, (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7.25 million.\n\n \u2022 AgFeed Industries, (M.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Sundial Growers, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Akazoo S.A., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $6.51 million.\n\n \u2022 Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM, Inc. Sec. Litig., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $6.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., (D. N.J.). Rosen Class Counsel. $6.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Bender v. Vertex Energy, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Sunlands Technology Group, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Covia Holdings Corp., (N.D. Ohio). Rosen Lead Counsel. $6 million.\n\n \u2022 FalconStor Software, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 Jumia Technologies AG, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 Momo, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 SOS Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $5 million.\n\n \u2022 Missfresh Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.9039 million.\n\n \u2022 Compass Minerals International, (D. Kansas). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.9 million.\n\n \u2022 State Street, (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.9 million.\n\n \u2022 Dada Nexus Limited, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.8 million.\n\n \u2022 Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.75 million and 25\n\n Bitcoins.\n\n \u2022 Altice USA Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.75 million.\n\n \u2022 KIOR, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Entropin, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sonus Networks, Inc., (D. Mass). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Uni-Pixel, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.5 million.\n\n \u2022 China Expert Technology, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.2 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 IDreamSky Technology Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4.15 million.\n\n \u2022 Universal Travel Group, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4.075 million.\n\n \u2022 Allegiant Travel Co., (D. Nev.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Zynerba Pharms., Inc., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Dapper Labs, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $4 million.\n\n \u2022 Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc., (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.9 million.\n\n \u2022 Caribou Biosciences, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3.9 million.\n\n \u2022 China Electric Motor, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3,778,333.33.\n\n \u2022 Electric Last Mile Solutions, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.599 million.\n\n \u2022 IsoRay, Inc., (E.D. Wash.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3,537,500.\n\n \u2022 Deer Consumer Products, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.55 million.\n\n \u2022 SAExploration Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). $3.55 million.\n\n \u2022 L&L Energy, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Tarena International, Inc., N (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. and Auditor, (S.D.N.Y.) & (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $3.5 million.\n\n \u2022 StockerYale, Inc., (D.N.H.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3.4\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Textura Corporation, (N.D Ill.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.3 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 19 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Roka Bioscience, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.275 million.\n\n \u2022 Intrusion, Inc., (E.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Co-Lead Counsel. $3.2 million.\n\n \u2022 New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $3.15 million.\n\n \u2022 TierOne Corporation, (D. Neb.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.1 million.\n\n \u2022 GDS Holdings Limited, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Hanmi Financial Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Cadiz, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Fat Brands, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 China Finance Online Co. Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $3 million.\n\n \u2022 Spectrum Pharms. Inc., (D. Nev.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.995 million.\n\n \u2022 MiMedx Group, Inc., (N.D. Ga.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.979 million.\n\n \u2022 Pegasus Communications Corp, (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.95 million.\n\n \u2022 Albany Molecular Research, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.868 million.\n\n \u2022 Lihua International, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.865 million.\n\n \u2022 TVIA, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.85 million.\n\n \u2022 New Source Energy Partners LP, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.85 million.\n\n \u2022 Innocoll Holdings Public Ltd., (E.D. Pa.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.755 million.\n\n \u2022 GigaCloud Technology Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Sequans Communications, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 20 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Akari Therapeutics PLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Growlife, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million (cash and stock).\n\n \u2022 Tangoe, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Twitter, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.485\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 China Education Alliance, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.425 million.\n\n \u2022 Oasmia Pharmaceuticals AB., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Sun Communities, Inc., (E.D. Mich.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Capstone Green Energy Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 BioAmber, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 DouYu International Holdings Ltd., (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 NetApp, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Akers Biosciences, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 Kanzhun Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.25 million.\n\n \u2022 SkyPeople Fruit Juice, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Fuwei Films, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.15 million.\n\n \u2022 Gulf Resources, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.125 million.\n\n \u2022 PTC Inc., (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.1 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 21 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 DS Healthcare Group, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.1 million.\n\n \u2022 Indivior PLC, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 Orient Paper, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 Mesoblast Limited, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 GTT Communications, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2 million.\n\n \u2022 EHang Holdings Limited. (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel, $1.985 million.\n\n \u2022 Latch, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.95 million.\n\n \u2022 iBio, Inc., (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.875 million.\n\n \u2022 CD Projekt SA, No. CV-20-11627 (FMO)(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.). $1.85 million.\n\n \u2022 Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.8 million.\n\n \u2022 Electronic Game Card, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.755 million.\n\n \u2022 BMW AG, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Flux Power Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Corrrevio Pharma Corp.,(S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Delstaff LLC (Merger Litigation), (Cal. Superior). $1.6425 million.\n\n \u2022 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc, (Cal. Superior). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $1.615 million.\n\n \u2022 Cummins, Inc., (S.D. Ind.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.6 million.\n\n \u2022 Alliance MMA, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Nutracea, Inc., (D. Ariz.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Kraton Corporation, (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 22 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 RMG Networks Holding Corporation (Merger Litigation), (Del. Ch.). $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 BlueNRGY Group Ltd, f/k/a CBD Energy Ltd., (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Ambow Education Holding Ltd., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Active Power, Inc., (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Northfield Laboratories, Inc., (N.D. Ill.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 PartsBase.com, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 China Natural Gas, Inc., (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 FAB Universal Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Sogou, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.45 million.\n\n \u2022 Code Rebel Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.415 million.\n\n \u2022 Empyrean Bioscience, (N.D. Ga.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Shattuck Labs, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.4 million.\n\n \u2022 Longeveron, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.395 million.\n\n \u2022 Agria, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.3 million.\n\n \u2022 Aterian, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.3 million.\n\n \u2022 CoCrystal Pharma, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.265 million.\n\n \u2022 Wins Financial Holdings, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.26 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\n\n \u2022 ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., (S.D. Fla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.215 million.\n\n \u2022 Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Himax Technologies, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 23 of 26\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 M.H. Meyerson & Co., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Izea, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n \u2022 Hywin Holdings Ltd. (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 India Globalization Capital, Inc., (D. Md.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 National Lampoon, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Lentuo International, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Katanga Mining Limited, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n \u2022 Busybox.com, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1 million.\n\n III. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. IS CURRENTLY\n LEAD COUNSEL\n\n In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-5296-RMB-JS (D.N.J.)\n\n Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\n Class Counsel.\n\n Hoang v. ContextLogic, Inc., No. 21-cv-3930-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 22-cv-2359-EP-JRA (D.N.J.).\n\n Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-45-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Patterson v. TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd., No. 22-cv-3600-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Armbruster v. Gaia, Inc., No. 22-CV-3267 (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pang v. Levitt (Core Scientific, Inc.), No. 22-CV-1191-LY (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 24 of 26\n\n\n\n\n Goodman v. Wheels Up Experience, Inc., No. 23-cv-2900 (OEM)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.).\n\n Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Enovix Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-71-SI (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Tan v. PacWest Bancorp., No. CV-23-1685 (JWH)(ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Maschhoff v. Polished.com, No. 22-cv-6605(NGG)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Pelham v. VBIT Tech. Corp., No. 23-CV-162-CFC-SRF (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., No. 23-cv-9630 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y.) Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-4565 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Taylor v. The Chemours Company, No. 24-cv-361-RGA (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc., No. 24-cv-2778-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Intel Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-2683-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., No. 24-cv-12119-LTS (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Liberato v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., No. 4:25-cv-957-JST (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Drott v. Sana Biotechnology, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-512-BJR (W.D. Wash.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Evangelista v. Late Stage Asset Management, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-5292 (KAM) (MMH)\n\n (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Alvarez v. Pacira Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-322-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 25 of 26\n\n\n\n\n Lucid Alternative Fund LP v. Elastic N.V., No. 25-cv-785 (RPK)(SDE) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\n Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Britton v. Polestar Automotive Holdings UK PLC, No. 25-CV-840-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.).\n\n Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Karas v. Newmont Corp., No. 25-cv-341-DDD-KAS (D. Colo.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Cai v. Visa, Inc., No. 24-CV-8220-NW (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Buathongsri v. Zenas Biopharma, Inc., No. 25-cv-10988-FDS-JDH (D. Mass.). Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Rocket Pharms. Sec. Litig., No. 3:25-cv-10049-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Norrman v. KBR, Inc., No. 25-cv-4464 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 25-cv-4177-EKL (N.D. Cal.). Rosen\n\n Lead Counsel.\n\n Lee v. Quantum Corp., No. 25-cv-2770-PAB-CYC (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n O\u2019Connor v. CTO Realty Growth, Inc., No. 25-cv-1516-AGM-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Rosen\n\n Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Jboor v. Replimune Group, Inc., No. 25-cv-12085-JEK (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pacella v. Hesai Group Inc., No. 24-cv-866 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Hickman v. Flywire Corp., No. 25-cv-4110 (FB) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp., No. 25-cv-6869-SVW (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Tamraz v. Reddit, Inc., No. 25-cv-5144-JD (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, No. 25-cv-326-JLH-\n\n LDH (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 24\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 40-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 26 of 26\n\n\n\n\n Thomas v. Telix Pharms., No. 25-CV-2299-JRO-MG (S.D. Ind.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Duong v. Gauzy Ltd., No. 25-cv-10179 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Reed v. Freeport- McMoran, No. 2-25-cv-04243 (D. Ariz.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Linkedto Partners LLC v. DeFi Techs. Inc., No. 25-cv-6637 (NRM)(SDE) (E.D.N.Y).\n\n Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Nayak v. Klarna Group plc, No. 25-cv-7033 (EK)(TAM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Roberti v. PomDoctor, Ltd., No. 26-cv-1013 (RA)(SDA) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Vandersuis v. Agilon Health, Inc., No. 25-cv-7167 (HG) (E.D.N.Y). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Chin v. Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., No. 26-cv-3083-KK-MAR (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Annonio v. New Era Energy & Digital, Inc., No. 26-cv-120-DC (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n Wilkerson v. Vital Farms, Inc., No. 26-cv-738-RP (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Tripathi v. Enphase Energy, Inc., No. 26-cv-1380-JST (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Douglas v. ImmunityBio, Inc., No. 26-cv-3261-MCS-AYP (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\n Counsel.\n\n In re: Lufax Holding Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 1:26-cv-04122-MMG, (S.D.N.Y.).\n\n Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n TCP Diversified Technology Fund v. Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX Techedu Inc., No.\n\n 1:22-cv-07966-PKC-PCG, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co- Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\n ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 25\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:08:43.313276-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281329","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4 - RLF Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T19:07:06.715860-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:06:49.925448-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"21:44:11","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.003","pacer_sequence_number":134,"description":"MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Duc To ( Responses due by 9/11/2026.), MOTION to Appoint Lead Counsel The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. by Duc To. Attorney Laurence Matthew Rosen added to party Duc To(pty:mov). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Decl. of Laurence Rosen, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Early Notice, # 4 Exhibit 2 - PSLRA Cert, # 5 Exhibit 3 - Loss Chart, # 6 Exhibit 4 - RLF Firm Resume)(Rosen, Laurence) (Entered: 08/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476243234/","id":476243234,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491800684/","id":491800684,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-28T16:02:27.798230-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:32.333083-07:00","sha1":"55e4e53a6bfe34d363a0aa2f8645a341be3e4335","page_count":12,"file_size":257203,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on Case No. 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW\n IN SUPPORT OF APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF\n AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 12\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities\n\n Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation\n\n Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B), respectfully moves this Court\n\n for entry of an Order: (i) appointing Plaintiff as Lead Plaintiff in the above-captioned securities\n\n class action (the \u201cAction\u201d); (ii) approving Plaintiff\u2019s selection of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n\n (\u201cG&E\u201d) and Freedman Normand Friedland LLP (\u201cFNF,\u201d together with G&E, \u201cLead Counsel\u201d)\n\n as Lead Counsel for the Class; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court may\n\n deem just and proper.\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n This Action asserts claims under Sections 9 and 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 78i, 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5, against\n\n Defendants Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu,\u201d together with\n\n Citadel, the \u201cDefendants\u201d). \u00b6\u00b6 89\u2013105. 1 Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of himself and all\n\n other persons and entities that purchased or sold securities of Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d or\n\n the \u201cCompany\u201d) between April 12, 2022 and May 30, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and\n\n were damaged thereby (the \u201cClass\u201d). \u00b6 82. The Action arises from Defendants\u2019 years-long\n\n manipulative and illegal trading of Genius securities. \u00b6\u00b6 28\u201356. Throughout the Class Period,\n\n Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale, engaged in an illegal trading practice known as\n\n \u201cspoofing,\u201d placing manipulative orders designed to create a false impression of supply and\n\n demand and thereby artificially deflate the price of Genius stock and inflate the bid-ask spread.\n\n Id. Specifically, Defendants submitted and then immediately canceled thousands of orders to trade\n\n Genius common stock without any genuine intent to execute those trades. \u00b6 39; Ex. 2. These\n\n\n 1\n References to \u201c\u00b6 __\u201d are to the Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 1) (\u201cComplaint\u201d).\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 12\n\n\n\n\n \u201cbaiting\u201d orders served no legitimate economic purpose. Instead, they were designed to mislead\n\n market participants regarding the supply of, demand for, and volatility of Genius securities,\n\n thereby artificially depressing Genius\u2019s stock price and increasing investors\u2019 transaction costs. \u00b6\u00b6\n\n 33\u201366. Defendants profited massively from their spoofing scheme, while Class members were\n\n damaged by transacting in Genius securities at manipulated prices and artificially inflated bid-ask\n\n spreads. See, e.g., \u00b6\u00b6 42\u201355.\n\n The PSLRA provides that the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d shall serve as Lead Plaintiff. 15\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d is the movant with the \u201clargest financial\n\n interest\u201d in the relief sought by the Class who also makes a prima facie showing of typicality and\n\n adequacy under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\u201cRule 23\u201d). 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). As set forth below, Plaintiff is the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff,\u201d including because\n\n he has the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d of any movant. During the Class Period, Plaintiff transacted\n\n in 1,745,501 shares of Genius stock, consisting of 1,590,501 purchases and 155,000 sales, and,\n\n with respect to those sales, suffered $106,385 in first-in, first-out (\u201cFIFO\u201d) losses and $22,596 in\n\n last-in, first-out (\u201cLIFO\u201d) losses. See Ex. B (loss chart). 2 All of Plaintiff\u2019s transactions were\n\n placed and executed on the open market. See Exs. B, C.\n\n In addition to asserting the largest financial interest, Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of\n\n Rule 23 because his claims are typical of those of the Class and he will fairly and adequately\n\n represent the Class\u2019s interests. Plaintiff understands and is prepared to fulfill his responsibilities\n\n as Lead Plaintiff, including overseeing counsel, participating in significant litigation decisions,\n\n\n\n 2\n Plaintiff\u2019s PSLRA-mandated Certification is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint (ECF No. 1-\n 1) and, for the Court\u2019s convenience, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, Plaintiff\u2019s FIFO\n and LIFO loss calculations, including charts identifying the volume and price of Plaintiff\u2019s stock\n transactions during the Class Period, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Exhibits C through F are\n referenced herein where applicable.\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 12\n\n\n\n\n and acting in the best interests of the Class as a whole. See Ex. C (Plaintiff\u2019s Declaration in Support\n\n of his Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel\n\n (\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Decl.\u201d)) \u00b6\u00b6 3\u20134.\n\n Plaintiff has further demonstrated his adequacy through his selection of G&E and FNF as\n\n Lead Counsel for the Class. As discussed below, G&E and FNF are nationally recognized for their\n\n skill and experience in complex securities class action litigation. See \u00a7 III, infra. Accordingly,\n\n Lead Counsel are eminently qualified to prosecute the Action.\n\n For these reasons, and as set forth more fully below, Plaintiff respectfully submits that he\n\n should be appointed Lead Plaintiff and that his selection of Lead Counsel should be approved.\n\n STATEMENT OF FACTS\n\n Genius provides AI-powered business education and development tools as well as\n\n management consultancy services to entrepreneurs and business owners. \u00b6 15. Genius also owns\n\n and operates resorts, retreats, and co-working cafes that offer resources supporting\n\n entrepreneurship and business development located across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North\n\n Asia, the Asia Pacific, Australia, North America and South America. Id. Genius securities have\n\n been publicly traded on the NYSE since April 2022 under the ticker \u201cGNS.\u201d \u00b6 16. Defendants\n\n are Delaware limited liability companies registered with the SEC as broker-dealers. Defendants\n\n place and execute trades for their own accounts as well as for their customers. Collectively,\n\n Defendants were responsible for 65%-85% of all over-the-counter trading of Genius securities\n\n throughout the Class Period. \u00b6\u00b6 9\u201310.\n\n As alleged in the Complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants placed at least 1,395,792\n\n manipulative and deceptive \u201cspoofing\u201d orders to buy and sell Genius stock\u2014totaling at least\n\n 139,579,200 shares\u2014that artificially depressed the price of Genius stock and inflated transaction\n\n costs, enriching Defendants at the Class\u2019s expense. \u00b6 39; Ex. 2. Specifically, acting either for their\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 12\n\n\n\n\n own account or executing customer trades, Defendants inundated exchange Limit Order Books\n\n with a large volume of Baiting Orders and then cancelled those Baiting Orders from the Limit\n\n Order Books within milliseconds after achieving the desired directional price movement. \u00b6\u00b6 33\u2013\n\n 56. Defendants orchestrated these \u201cspoofing episodes\u201d nearly every trading day during the Class\n\n Period, sometimes placing thousands of Baiting Orders in the market on a given day. \u00b6 39; Ex. 2.\n\n Defendants\u2019 continuous placement and cancellation of thousands of fictitious Baiting\n\n Orders served no legitimate market function. Instead, Defendants\u2019 trading was intended to\n\n transmit false and misleading price signals designed, among other things, to \u201ctrick\u201d or \u201cbait\u201d other\n\n market participants into placing their own sell orders. \u00b6\u00b6 33\u201366. Through this scheme, Defendants\n\n perpetrated a fraud on the market and created a \u201cpile-on\u201d effect that depressed the price of Genius\u2019s\n\n shares over time. Id. This manipulation benefitted Defendants in multiple ways, including (1)\n\n enhancing the value of their pre-existing short positions, allowing them to cover those significant\n\n positions at advantageous prices; and (2) facilitating what a Virtu senior officer called the \u201cThree\n\n Tick Boogie,\u201d whereby Defendants absorbed and resold customer order flow at prices that were\n\n favorable to them, but unfavorable to their customers (fraudulent conduct for which the SEC fined\n\n Citadel in 2017). See, e.g., \u00b6\u00b6 42\u201355. Meanwhile, Plaintiff and other Class members were forced\n\n to transact in Genius stock at artificially depressed prices and artificially inflated bid-ask spreads\n\n as a result of Defendants\u2019 misconduct. \u00b6\u00b6 67\u201379.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n The Court should appoint Plaintiff as Lead Plaintiff because he is the movant \u201cmost capable\n\n of adequately representing the interests of class members.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The\n\n PSLRA governs the lead plaintiff selection process in class actions arising under the federal\n\n securities laws. Under the PSLRA, the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d is presumed to be the movant\n\n with the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief sought by the class\u201d who can make a prima facie\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 12\n\n\n\n\n showing of the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).\n\n As set forth below, Plaintiff respectfully submits that he is the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d and should\n\n be appointed Lead Plaintiff.\n\n I. PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IS TIMELY\n\n Under the PSLRA, any Class member may move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff within\n\n 60 days of the publication of notice that the first action asserting substantially the same claims has\n\n been filed. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Complaint\n\n initiating the Action. See ECF No. 1. That same day, G&E, as counsel for Plaintiff, published a\n\n notice on Business Wire alerting investors to the pendency of the Action, and informing them of\n\n the 60-day deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff, which is August 28, 2026. See Ex. D.\n\n As such, Plaintiff\u2019s motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is timely.\n\n II. PLAINTIFF IS THE MOST ADEQUATE PLAINTIFF\n\n Plaintiff should be appointed Lead Plaintiff because he is the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d to\n\n represent the Class. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Pursuant to the PSLRA, there is a rebuttable\n\n presumption that the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d is the \u201cperson or group of persons\u201d with the \u201clargest\n\n financial interest in the relief sought by the class\u201d and \u201cotherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule\n\n 23.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); see also Miller v. Dyadic Int\u2019l, Inc., 2008 WL 2465286, at\n\n *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008) (quoting statute). Plaintiff has the largest financial interest of any\n\n qualified movant. In addition, Plaintiff satisfies Rule 23\u2019s typicality and adequacy requirements\n\n and is prepared to fulfill his responsibilities as Lead Plaintiff, including overseeing Lead Counsel,\n\n remaining informed regarding the Action\u2019s progress, participating in significant litigation\n\n decisions, and acting in the best interests of the Class as a whole. See Plaintiff\u2019s Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3\u20134.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 12\n\n\n\n\n A. Plaintiff Has the Largest Financial Interest of Any Movant\n\n Plaintiff is the movant with the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief sought by the class\u201d\n\n and, accordingly, should be appointed Lead Plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Under the\n\n PSLRA, the size of a movant\u2019s financial stake in the litigation is by far the most significant factor\n\n in determining whether it is \u201cmost adequate.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); see also In re\n\n January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig., 2021 WL 4840857, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2021)\n\n (\u201cGiven the PSLRA\u2019s framework, the person(s) or entity with the greatest financial interest\n\n generally enjoys the rebuttable presumption that he, she, or it is the most adequate plaintiff to serve\n\n as lead plaintiff.\u201d) (citation omitted). In determining a movant\u2019s financial stake, \u201ccourts in the\n\n Eleventh Circuit consider: (1) the number of shares purchased during the class period, (2) the\n\n amount of the investment or net funds expended during the class period, and (3) the estimated\n\n losses suffered.\u201d Steppacher v. Alfi, Inc., 2022 WL 1115049, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2022)\n\n (citation omitted).\n\n These factors are a particularly appropriate proxy for determining a movant\u2019s financial\n\n stake in the Action because, given the character of the alleged harm caused by Defendants\u2019\n\n misconduct, a Class member\u2019s damages will depend significantly on the volume of their stock\n\n sales during the Class Period. Here, Plaintiff transacted in 1,745,501 shares of Genius stock during\n\n the Class Period, purchasing 1,590,501 shares and selling 155,000 shares. As a result of those\n\n sales, Plaintiff suffered approximately $106,385 in FIFO losses and $22,596 in LIFO losses. See\n\n Ex. B. All of Plaintiff\u2019s transactions were placed and executed on the open market. See Exs. B,\n\n C. To the best of Plaintiff\u2019s knowledge, there is no other movant seeking Lead Plaintiff\n\n appointment that has a larger interest in this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff has the largest\n\n financial interest of any qualified movant seeking Lead Plaintiff status and is presumptively the\n\n \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii).\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 12\n\n\n\n\n B. Plaintiff Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Requirements\n\n In addition to possessing the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation,\n\n Plaintiff otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). On a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff, a movant need only make a\n\n \u201cpreliminary showing\u201d of typicality and adequacy pursuant to Rule 23. See Luczak v. Nat\u2019l\n\n Beverage Corp., 2018 WL 9847842, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2018). As detailed below, Plaintiff\n\n satisfies these requirements.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claims are typical of the claims of the other purchasers and sellers of Genius\n\n securities comprising the Class. \u201cTypicality is established where the proposed lead plaintiff has\n\n sustained the same injuries as the proposed class members resulting from the same course of\n\n conduct by the defendants.\u201d McIlvaine v. ArthroCare Corp., 2008 WL 11331999, at *4 (S.D. Fla.\n\n July 16, 2008). Here, Plaintiff\u2019s claims and the claims of all other Class members arise \u201cfrom the\n\n same course of conduct by the defendants\u201d and all turn on the same disputed issues of law or fact\u2014\n\n principally, whether Defendants engaged in the trading scheme alleged in the Complaint, whether\n\n that scheme violated the federal securities law, and whether Defendants\u2019 conduct artificially\n\n depressed the price of Genius stock and inflated transaction costs during the Class Period. Like\n\n all Class members, Plaintiff (1) transacted in the Company\u2019s stock during the Class Period; (2) in\n\n a market allegedly distorted by Defendants\u2019 spoofing scheme, including through artificially\n\n depressed stock prices and inflated bid-ask spreads; and (3) suffered damages as a result.\n\n Accordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s claims are typical of those of the Class.\n\n Plaintiff similarly satisfies Rule 23\u2019s adequacy requirement. Under Rule 23(a)(4), the\n\n representative party must \u201cfairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n 23(a)(4). In determining whether a movant is adequate, courts consider whether \u201c(1) class counsel\n\n is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; (2) the class members\u2019\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 12\n\n\n\n\n interests are not antagonistic to one another; and (3) the class has sufficient interest in the outcome\n\n of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy.\u201d Miller, 2008 WL 2465286, at *6 (citation and quotations\n\n omitted). Plaintiff easily satisfies these requirements. His substantial financial stake in the\n\n litigation provides ample incentive to vigorously prosecute the Action on behalf of the Class, and\n\n his interests are aligned with those of other Class members who were damaged by the same alleged\n\n manipulative trading scheme. There is no evidence of any conflict or antagonism between Plaintiff\n\n and the Class. See Plaintiff\u2019s Decl. \u00b6 5. Plaintiff has also selected highly qualified and experienced\n\n counsel to represent the Class. See \u00a7 III, infra.\n\n Further, Plaintiff understands his obligation under the PSLRA to oversee and supervise the\n\n litigation separate and apart from counsel, including by remaining informed regarding the progress\n\n of the Action, reviewing significant filings, providing input regarding litigation strategy, and\n\n participating in important litigation decisions, including any decision regarding settlement. See\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3\u20134.\n\n Accordingly, Plaintiff has made the requisite prima facie showing that he satisfies the\n\n relevant Rule 23 requirements.\n\n III. PLAINTIFF\u2019S SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED\n\n Pursuant to the PSLRA, a movant shall, subject to Court approval, select and retain counsel\n\n to represent the class it seeks to represent, and the court should not disturb that selection unless it\n\n is necessary to \u201cprotect the interests of the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); see also\n\n In re January 2021, 2021 WL 4840857, at *6 (\u201cThe district court should generally employ a\n\n deferential standard in reviewing the lead plaintiff\u2019s choice\u2026 The Court should not interfere with\n\n the lead plaintiff\u2019s selection of counsel unless necessary to protect the interests of the class.\u201d)\n\n (citation and quotations omitted).\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 12\n\n\n\n\n G&E is among the preeminent securities class action law firms in the country. G&E has\n\n served as lead or co-lead counsel in several of the largest securities class actions in history,\n\n including: In re Tyco Int\u2019l Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1335 (D.N.H.) ($3.2 billion recovery); In re\n\n Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:04-cv-9866 (S.D.N.Y.) ($486 million recovery); In re Global\n\n Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-910 (S.D.N.Y.) ($448 million recovery); In re Refco, Inc.,\n\n Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-8626 (S.D.N.Y.) ($367 million recovery); In re Marsh & McLennan Cos.\n\n Sec. Litig., MDL No. 1744 (S.D.N.Y.) ($400 million recovery); and In re Oxford Health Plans,\n\n Inc., Sec. Litig., MDL No. 1222 (S.D.N.Y.) ($300 million recovery). See Ex. E (G&E Firm\n\n Resum\u00e9).\n\n FNF was appointed, and is serving, as lead counsel in Peter D Arcy v. Sequential Brands\n\n Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y.) and In re Qutoutiao, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:20-\n\n cv-06707 (S.D.N.Y.), and numerous other securities fraud and shareholder class actions across the\n\n country. See Ex. F. In addition, FNF was appointed and served, or is serving, as co-lead counsel\n\n in Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01939 (N.D. Ill.), In re Cormedix Inc.\n\n Sec. Litig., No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J.), Hartel v. Geo Grp., Inc. et. al., No. 9:20-cv-81063 (S.D.\n\n Fla.), and Pasquinelli et al. v. HUMBL, LLC et al., (Del.). Id. In both Sequential Brands and RTI\n\n Surgical, FNF recovered over 30% of plaintiffs\u2019 estimated damages\u2013more than three times the\n\n typical recovery in a securities fraud class action. And as class counsel in an antitrust class action\n\n styled Henry et al. v. Brown University et al., No. 1:22-cv-00125 (N.D. Ill.), FNF has recovered\n\n $319 million to-date for putative class members and most recently, defeated defendants\u2019 motion\n\n for summary judgment in its entirety. See Ex. F (FNF Firm Resum\u00e9).\n\n Thus, the Court may be assured that by granting this Motion, the Class will receive the\n\n legal representation of the highest caliber.\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 12\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court appoint Plaintiff as\n\n Lead Plaintiff; approve his selection of G&E and FNF as Lead Counsel for the Class; and grant\n\n any such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\n COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1\n\n This Motion is filed pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of\n\n 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), 15 U.S.C.\n\n \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The PSLRA provides that, not later than 60 days after publication of the required\n\n notice, any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, including\n\n a class member who is not individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II), (B)(i). Here, notice was published on June 29, 2026, and the deadline for class\n\n members to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff is August 28, 2026. Consequently, counsel for\n\n Plaintiff Aron Reynolds cannot know with certainty before expiration of the statutory deadline\n\n who, if anyone, will file a competing motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and therefore cannot\n\n identify or confer with all persons who may seek or be affected by the relief requested herein. To\n\n the extent Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)\u2019s pre-filing conference requirement applies to this Motion, Plaintiff\n\n respectfully requests that the Court waive that requirement. Plaintiff will confer with any\n\n competing movants following expiration of the lead-plaintiff deadline, as appropriate. Further,\n\n under the PSLRA, the statutory presumption concerning the most adequate plaintiff \u201cmay be\n\n rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n\n DATED: August 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Devin (Velvel) Freedman\n FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP\n Devin (Velvel) Freedman\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 12\n\n\n\n\n 1815 Purdy Avenue\n Miami, FL 33139\n Telephone: (786) 924-2900\n vel@fnf.law\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n Abe Alexander (pro hac vice)\n Vincent J. Pontrello (pro hac vice)\n 485 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Telephone: (646) 722-8500\n Facsimile: (610) 722-8501\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n vpontrello@gelaw.com\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Aron Reynolds and\n Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:46.147217-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281001","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appoint Lead Plaintiff","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830643/","id":491830643,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/1/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.584826-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:33.675113-07:00","sha1":"be958313f3d061e9e2b23d8de77a559b644a37b5","page_count":10,"file_size":512714,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 08/09/23 700 $0.7695\nBuy 08/14/23 3,400 $1.5198\nBuy 08/15/23 1,350 $1.3700\nBuy 09/08/23 1 $1.1100\nBuy 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0100\nBuy 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0300\nBuy 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9633\nBuy 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9881\nBuy 09/28/23 4,000 $0.9300\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9152\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9000\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9097\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200\nBuy 09/28/23 5,000 $0.8600\nBuy 10/18/23 800 $0.8651\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8178\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8179\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8577\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8502\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8556\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8649\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8650\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8635\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 12/15/23 26,000 $0.6870\nBuy 12/15/23 23,000 $0.7027\nBuy 12/19/23 2,000 $0.7800\nBuy 12/19/23 300 $0.7493\nBuy 07/08/24 1,600 $0.2539\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2482\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2478\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2524\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2532\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2516\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2503\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2512\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2487\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2483\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2520\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2460\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2550\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500\nBuy 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7361\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7389\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nSell 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 750 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800\nBuy 09/17/24 1,900 $0.9780\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9465\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9494\nBuy 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9499\nBuy 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499\nBuy 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nSell 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050\nBuy 09/24/24 4,000 $0.8791\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8589\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8843\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8711\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8734\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8667\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8555\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8527\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8498\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8477\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8434\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8586\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8669\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8528\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8511\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8600\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500\nBuy 09/24/24 10,000 $0.8807\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8200\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8175\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8100\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8078\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8015\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7900\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721\nBuy 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7697\nBuy 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7498\nBuy 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278\nBuy 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278\nBuy 11/01/24 2,000 $0.6078\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5995\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5796\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5984\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5788\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5777\nBuy 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5791\nBuy 11/04/24 10,000 $0.5830\nBuy 11/13/24 1,000 $1.1592\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1500\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1496\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2900\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2498\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nBuy 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6587\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6511\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6610\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6596\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6516\nBuy 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6473\nBuy 02/12/25 1,500 $0.4610\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4398\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4326\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4352\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4315\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4360\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4600\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4599\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4508\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478\nBuy 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400\nBuy 03/24/25 100 $0.2994\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 10\n\n\nGenius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\nReynolds\n\nTransaction Trade\nType Date Quantity Price\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2210\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2243\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2299\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2248\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2254\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399\nSell 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399\nBuy 04/25/25 2,100 $0.3698\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3770\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3739\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3996\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3950\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3949\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3974\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3809\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3801\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3851\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3792\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3799\nBuy 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3730\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n Genius Group Ltd. -- Schedule A\n Reynolds\n\n Transaction Trade\n Type Date Quantity Price\n Buy 04/30/25 5,000 $0.3690\n Buy 05/23/25 3,000 $0.3449\n Buy 05/23/25 5,000 $0.3449\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3624\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3664\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3651\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3629\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3626\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3630\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3636\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3603\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3594\n Buy 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3598\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:46.706981-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281002","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. A PSLRA Certification","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830644/","id":491830644,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/2/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.681283-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:36.581909-07:00","sha1":"fd026a01b6ce04179011d931a277e2f19d1c129c","page_count":22,"file_size":502561,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 22\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited All transactions identified herein were executed on the open market\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 08/09/23 700 $0.7695 $539 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 08/14/23 3,400 $1.5198 $5,167 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7361 $736\n 08/15/23 1,350 $1.3700 $1,850 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/08/23 1 $1.1100 $1 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0100 $25,250 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0300 $25,750 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9633 $24,082 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9881 $24,703 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7389 $739\n 09/28/23 4,000 $0.9300 $3,720 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200 $4,600 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9152 $4,576 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 09/28/23 549 $0.9153 $502 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200 $1,100\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200 $1,100\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2210 $1,105\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251 $1,126\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2243 $1,122\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2299 $1,150\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2248 $1,124\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2254 $1,127\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n\nFIFO Total 155,000 $152,910 155,000 $46,525 ($106,385)\n\n\nClass Period purchases that have not been sold:\n 09/28/23 4,451 $0.9153 $4,074\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050 $4,525\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050 $4,525\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9000 $4,500\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9097 $4,549\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200 $4,600\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.8600 $4,300\n 10/18/23 800 $0.8651 $692\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8178 $4,089\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8179 $4,090\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8577 $4,289\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8502 $4,251\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598 $4,299\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598 $4,299\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8556 $4,278\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8649 $4,325\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8650 $4,325\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8635 $4,317\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 12/15/23 26,000 $0.6870 $17,862\n 12/15/23 23,000 $0.7027 $16,162\n 12/19/23 2,000 $0.7800 $1,560\n 12/19/23 300 $0.7493 $225\n 07/08/24 1,600 $0.2539 $406\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2482 $1,241\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2478 $1,239\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2524 $1,262\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534 $1,267\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2532 $1,266\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534 $1,267\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2516 $1,258\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2503 $1,252\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2512 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2487 $1,244\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2483 $1,242\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2520 $1,260\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2460 $1,230\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2550 $1,275\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 750 $0.9800 $735\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 1,900 $0.9780 $1,858\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9465 $1,893\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9494 $1,899\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9499 $1,900\n 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499 $950\n 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499 $950\n 09/24/24 4,000 $0.8791 $3,516\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8589 $4,295\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8843 $4,421\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8711 $4,356\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8734 $4,367\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8667 $4,334\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8555 $4,277\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8527 $4,264\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8477 $4,239\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433 $4,216\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8434 $4,217\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433 $4,216\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8586 $4,293\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8669 $4,335\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8528 $4,264\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8511 $4,256\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8600 $4,300\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 10,000 $0.8807 $8,807\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350 $4,175\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350 $4,175\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285 $4,142\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8200 $4,100\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285 $4,143\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8175 $4,087\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8100 $4,050\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8078 $4,039\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8015 $4,008\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7900 $3,950\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7697 $3,849\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7498 $750\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278 $728\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278 $728\n 11/01/24 2,000 $0.6078 $1,216\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949 $2,974\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949 $2,974\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5995 $2,998\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5796 $2,898\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5984 $2,992\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5788 $2,894\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5777 $2,888\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5791 $2,896\n 11/04/24 10,000 $0.5830 $5,830\n 11/13/24 1,000 $1.1592 $1,159\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1500 $5,750\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1496 $5,748\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2900 $6,450\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2498 $6,249\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6587 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6511 $3,256\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6610 $3,305\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600 $3,300\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600 $3,300\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6596 $3,298\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6516 $3,258\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6473 $3,237\n 02/12/25 1,500 $0.4610 $692\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4398 $2,199\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4326 $2,163\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4352 $2,176\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380 $2,190\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380 $2,190\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4315 $2,158\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4360 $2,180\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500 $2,250\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500 $2,250\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4600 $2,300\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4599 $2,300\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590 $2,295\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590 $2,295\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4508 $2,254\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200\n 03/24/25 100 $0.2994 $30\n 04/25/25 2,100 $0.3698 $777\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3770 $1,885\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3739 $1,870\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000 $2,000\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3996 $1,998\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000 $2,000\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3950 $1,975\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3949 $1,975\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3974 $1,987\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3809 $1,904\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3801 $1,901\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3851 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3792 $1,896\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3799 $1,899\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3730 $1,865\n 04/30/25 5,000 $0.3690 $1,845\n 05/23/25 3,000 $0.3449 $1,035\n 05/23/25 5,000 $0.3449 $1,725\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3624 $3,624\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3664 $3,664\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3651 $3,651\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3629 $3,629\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds FIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3626 $3,626\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3630 $3,630\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3636 $3,636\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3603 $3,603\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3594 $3,594\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3598 $3,598\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited All transactions identified herein were executed on the open market\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 07/09/24 4,000 $0.2550 $1,020 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7361 $736\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9494 $1,899 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9499 $1,900 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499 $950 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 09/17/24 1,000 $0.9499 $950 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7360 $736\n 02/20/25 4,900 $0.4400 $2,156 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7389 $739\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4398 $2,199 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4326 $2,163 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4352 $2,176 09/06/24 1,000 $0.7350 $735\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380 $2,190 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4380 $2,190 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4315 $2,158 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 09/18/24 1,000 $0.9050 $905\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4360 $2,180 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2320 $1,160\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500 $2,250 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200 $1,100\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4500 $2,250 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2200 $1,100\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4600 $2,300 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2210 $1,105\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4599 $2,300 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590 $2,295 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4590 $2,295 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4508 $2,254 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4478 $2,239 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 02/20/25 5,000 $0.4400 $2,200 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251 $1,126\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 03/24/25 100 $0.2994 $30 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2243 $1,122\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2299 $1,150\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2251 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2250 $1,125\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2248 $1,124\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2245 $1,123\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2254 $1,127\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n 04/03/25 5,000 $0.2399 $1,200\n\nLIFO Total 155,000 $69,120 155,000 $46,525 ($22,596)\n\n\nClass Period purchases that have not been sold:\n 08/09/23 700 $0.7695 $539\n 08/14/23 3,400 $1.5198 $5,167\n 08/15/23 1,350 $1.3700 $1,850\n 09/08/23 1 $1.1100 $1\n 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0100 $25,250\n 09/20/23 25,000 $1.0300 $25,750\n 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9633 $24,082\n 09/20/23 25,000 $0.9881 $24,703\n 09/28/23 4,000 $0.9300 $3,720\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9220 $4,610\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200 $4,600\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9152 $4,576\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9153 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9154 $4,577\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050 $4,525\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9050 $4,525\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9000 $4,500\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9097 $4,549\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.9200 $4,600\n 09/28/23 5,000 $0.8600 $4,300\n 10/18/23 800 $0.8651 $692\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8178 $4,089\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8179 $4,090\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8577 $4,289\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8502 $4,251\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598 $4,299\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8598 $4,299\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8599 $4,300\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8556 $4,278\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8649 $4,325\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8650 $4,325\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8635 $4,317\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 10/19/23 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 12/15/23 26,000 $0.6870 $17,862\n 12/15/23 23,000 $0.7027 $16,162\n 12/19/23 2,000 $0.7800 $1,560\n 12/19/23 300 $0.7493 $225\n 07/08/24 1,600 $0.2539 $406\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2494 $1,247\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2490 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2482 $1,241\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,246\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2491 $1,245\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2480 $1,240\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2478 $1,239\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2471 $1,236\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2524 $1,262\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534 $1,267\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2532 $1,266\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2534 $1,267\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2513 $1,257\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2516 $1,258\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2518 $1,259\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2503 $1,252\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2512 $1,256\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2487 $1,244\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2483 $1,242\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2520 $1,260\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2460 $1,230\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499 $1,250\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2499 $1,250\n 07/09/24 5,000 $0.2500 $1,250\n 07/09/24 1,000 $0.2550 $255\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 750 $0.9800 $735\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9800 $1,960\n 09/17/24 1,900 $0.9780 $1,858\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9465 $1,893\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/17/24 2,000 $0.9500 $1,900\n 09/24/24 4,000 $0.8791 $3,516\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8589 $4,295\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8843 $4,421\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 19 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8711 $4,356\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8734 $4,367\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8700 $4,350\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8667 $4,334\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8555 $4,277\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8527 $4,264\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8498 $4,249\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8477 $4,239\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433 $4,216\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8434 $4,217\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8433 $4,216\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8586 $4,293\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8669 $4,335\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8528 $4,264\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8499 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8511 $4,256\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8600 $4,300\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8500 $4,250\n 09/24/24 10,000 $0.8807 $8,807\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350 $4,175\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8350 $4,175\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285 $4,142\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8200 $4,100\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8285 $4,143\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8175 $4,087\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 20 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8100 $4,050\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8078 $4,039\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.8015 $4,008\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7900 $3,950\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7721 $3,861\n 09/24/24 5,000 $0.7697 $3,849\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7498 $750\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278 $728\n 09/24/24 1,000 $0.7278 $728\n 11/01/24 2,000 $0.6078 $1,216\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949 $2,974\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5949 $2,974\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5995 $2,998\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5796 $2,898\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5950 $2,975\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5984 $2,992\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5788 $2,894\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5777 $2,888\n 11/01/24 5,000 $0.5791 $2,896\n 11/04/24 10,000 $0.5830 $5,830\n 11/13/24 1,000 $1.1592 $1,159\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1500 $5,750\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.1496 $5,748\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2900 $6,450\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2498 $6,249\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n 11/13/24 5,000 $1.2400 $6,200\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 21 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6587 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6511 $3,256\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6588 $3,294\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6608 $3,304\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6610 $3,305\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600 $3,300\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6600 $3,300\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6596 $3,298\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6516 $3,258\n 01/02/25 5,000 $0.6473 $3,237\n 02/12/25 1,500 $0.4610 $692\n 02/20/25 100 $0.4400 $44\n 04/25/25 2,100 $0.3698 $777\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3770 $1,885\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3739 $1,870\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3724 $1,862\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000 $2,000\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3996 $1,998\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.4000 $2,000\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3950 $1,975\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3949 $1,975\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3974 $1,987\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3809 $1,904\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3850 $1,925\n\f Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 22 of 22\n\n\nGenius Group Limited\nApril 12, 2022 through May 30, 2025\nReynolds LIFO Analysis\n\n Shares Total Shares Total Total\n Date Acquired Price Cost Date Disposed Price Proceeds Gain / (Loss)\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3801 $1,901\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3851 $1,925\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3800 $1,900\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3792 $1,896\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3799 $1,899\n 04/28/25 5,000 $0.3730 $1,865\n 04/30/25 5,000 $0.3690 $1,845\n 05/23/25 3,000 $0.3449 $1,035\n 05/23/25 5,000 $0.3449 $1,725\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3624 $3,624\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3679 $3,679\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3664 $3,664\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3651 $3,651\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3629 $3,629\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3626 $3,626\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3630 $3,630\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3636 $3,636\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3603 $3,603\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3594 $3,594\n 05/23/25 10,000 $0.3598 $3,598\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:47.185783-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281003","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. B Loss Charts","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830645/","id":491830645,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/3/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.711177-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:31.877996-07:00","sha1":"642c6f8d78edbf2da4229f2d54126f8b947c7f56","page_count":4,"file_size":184495,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS\n LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n I, Aron Reynolds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of my motion for appointment as\n\n Lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. (\u201cG&E\u201d) and Freedman\n\n Normand Friedland LLP (\u201cFNF\u201d) as Lead Counsel for the proposed Class (the \u201cMotion\u201d) in the\n\n securities class action pending against Defendants Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas\n\n LLC. I am informed of and understand the requirements and duties imposed by the Private\n\n Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth\n\n in this Declaration.\n\n 2. I am an investor in Genius securities. I am 55 years old and am a resident of Collier\n\n County, Florida. I have been investing in securities markets for 10 years and work in real estate.\n\n As reflected in my Certification (ECF No. 1-1), filed with the Class Action Complaint (ECF No.\n\n 1), I conducted significant open-market transactions in Genius securities during the Class Period\n\n alleged in Reynolds v. Citadel Securities LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-24485-RKA (S.D. Fla.) (the\n\n \u201cAction\u201d), and suffered substantial losses that I allege resulted from violations of the federal\n\n securities laws. I personally made the decision to invest in Genius.\n\n 3. I am aware of and prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of serving as lead plaintiff\n\n in a securities class action. I understand that, as Lead Plaintiff, I will owe a fiduciary duty to the\n\n entire Class and must fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of all Class members.\n\n I further understand that I will be responsible for overseeing Lead Counsel, ensuring the efficient\n\n and vigorous prosecution of the Action, and seeking to maximize the Class\u2019s recovery. By virtue\n\n of my significant financial interest in the resolution of the Action, I am motivated and committed\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n to vigorously prosecuting the Action on behalf of the Class and seeking the best possible recovery\n\n for the Class.\n\n 4. I am committed to remaining fully informed regarding the status and progress of this\n\n Action and the prospects for its resolution. I understand that, as Lead Plaintiff, I will be responsible\n\n for making important litigation decisions and overseeing and directing counsel, with the benefit of\n\n counsel\u2019s advice. To fulfill these responsibilities, I will, among other things, review pleadings and\n\n motion papers provided by counsel, receive periodic reports regarding the progress of the litigation,\n\n and, as necessary, respond to discovery requests and sit for a deposition. I will provide input\n\n regarding litigation strategy and participate in all significant litigation decisions, including whether\n\n to settle the Action and, if so, on what terms. I am willing and able to devote the time necessary to\n\n fulfill these responsibilities.\n\n 5. I am not aware of any interests that conflict with or are antagonistic to the interests\n\n of the Class. If appointed Lead Plaintiff, I will act in the best interests of the Class as a whole and\n\n will not place my own interests above those of other Class members.\n\n 6. I believe that G&E and FNF should be approved by the Court to serve as Lead\n\n Counsel for the Class. G&E and FNF are nationally recognized for their skill and experience in\n\n complex securities class action litigation. I believe that their experience and proven track records\n\n demonstrate that they are well qualified to vigorously prosecute the Action and seek the best\n\n possible recovery for the Class. I also understand that G&E vigorously investigated the allegations\n\n asserted in the Complaint, including by retaining appropriate experts, which further supports my\n\n belief that they are well qualified to represent the Class. I also understand that Lead Counsel owe\n\n a fiduciary duty to all members of the proposed Class to provide fair and adequate representation.\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:47.604548-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281004","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. C Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830646/","id":491830646,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/4/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.733438-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:25.319105-07:00","sha1":"9d20589823f31125adecd896ce7dffc1b2029d85","page_count":7,"file_size":334771,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT D\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n Jun 29, 2026 5:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit\n Against Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu\n Americas LLC\n Share\n\n\n\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On June 29, 2026, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a\n class action lawsuit on behalf of Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) against Citadel\n Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) (together, the\n \u201cDefendants\u201d). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by placing\n and executing manipulative trades designed to artificially deflate the price of\n Genius stock and also resulted in increased transaction costs for investors.\n\n\n The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants\n Citadel Securities and Virtu Americas engaged in a manipulative and\n illegal trading practice known as \u201cspoofing.\u201d\n Share\n\n The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired,\n or sold or otherwise disposed of, securities of Genius between April 12, 2022 and\n May 30, 2025, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). The action, brought in the United\n States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is captioned Aron Reynolds\n v. Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC, No. 1:26-cv-24485 (S.D. Fla.).\n\n Citadel and Virtu are broker-dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange\n Commission and operate as major market makers, routinely placing and executing\n securities trades for investors as well as for their own trading accounts.\n\n The complaint alleges violations of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities\n Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 1/6\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC3 of 7\n\n Period, Defendants engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known\n as \u201cspoofing,\u201d which involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders\n without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these \u201cbaiting orders\u201d\n was to mislead other market participants about the true level of supply and\n demand for Genius securities, or about the stock\u2019s price volatility, thereby\n influencing the market price of Genius to benefit Defendants\u2019 own trading\n positions. The alleged manipulation also increased investors\u2019 transaction costs by\n inflating the bid-ask spread for Genius stock. Defendants entered thousands of\n these baiting orders on U.S. stock exchanges to create the false impression that\n Genius\u2019 stock price reflected genuine supply-and-demand and volatility dynamics,\n while simultaneously profiting by absorbing and reselling their customers\u2019 order\n flow at prices favorable to Defendants.\n\n Throughout the Class Period, sharp declines in Genius\u2019 stock price consistently\n coincided with substantial spikes in Defendants\u2019 spoofing activity. For example,\n during the week of February 10, 2025, Defendants built significant short positions in\n Genius stock and reaped substantial trading profits: Citadel traded more than 23\n million shares of Genius off-exchange, accounting for nearly half of all off-exchange\n trading in the stock, while Virtu traded nearly 11 million shares, accounting for more\n than 20% of all off-exchange trading. Together, Defendants comprised nearly 70%\n of all off-exchange trading in Genius stock that week, as short volume surged from\n a low of 53% to more than 61%. As a result, Genius\u2019 stock price decline by 22%\n despite the absence of any new material, company-specific news.\n\n\n Investors who purchased or sold Genius securities during the Class Period are\n members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead\n plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with\n the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the\n \u201cPSLRA\u201d). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).\n\n If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than\n August 28, 2026. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to\n share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to\n represent you in this action.\n\n If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or\n your rights, please contact Abe Alexander at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. at 646-722-\n 8500, or via email at aalexander@gelaw.com.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 2/6\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC4 of 7\n\n Contacts\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n Industry: Class Action Lawsuit Professional Services Legal\n\n\n\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n\n\n\n RELEASE VERSIONS\n\n\n English\n\n\n CONTACTS\n Abe Alexander\n Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.\n Tel.: (646) 722-8500\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n\n\n\n\n More News From Grant &\n Eisenhofer P.A.\n Get RSS Feed\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 3/6\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC5 of 7\n\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against\n Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Royal Bank of Canada on\n behalf of investors in Quantum Biopharma Ltd. Securities\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On December 19, 2025, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class\n action lawsuit on behalf of Paul Durkacz against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce\n (\u201cCIBC\u201d) and Royal Bank of Canada (\u201cRBC\u201d), and their broker-dealer subsidiaries (together, the\u2026\n\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Citadel Securities\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On November 14, 2025, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class\n action lawsuit on behalf of Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d) against Citadel Securities LLC\n (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC (\u201cVirtu\u201d) (together, the \u201cDefendants\u201d). The action alleges tha\u2026\n\n\n\n Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Primo Brands Corp.\n NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on\n behalf of Stuart Rosenblum against Primo Brands Corporation (\u201cPrimo Brands\u201d or the\n \u201cCompany\u201d) and three of the Company\u2019s senior executives and directors, including CFO David\u2026\n\n\n\n Back to Newsroom\n\n\n\n\n Wish your news had this kind of\n reach?\n Sign Up\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 4/6\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC6 of 7\n\n\n Learn About Business Wire\n\n\n\n\n Company\n\n About Business Wire\n Careers\n Media Center\n Help Center\n\n Services\n\n Press Release Distribution\n Visibility & Engagement\n Complimentary Features\n Investor Communications\n Reporting & Analytics\n\n Solutions\n\n PR Professionals\n IR Professionals\n Agencies\n Public Companies\n Explore by Industry\n\n Newsroom\n\n Industries\n Subjects\n Languages\n\n Resources\n\n Blog\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 5/6\n\f6/30/26,Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n 10:27 AM Grant &Document\n Eisenhofer Files38-4 Entered\n Class Action Lawsuiton FLSD\n Against Docket\n Citadel Securities08/28/2026 Page\n LLC and Virtu Americas LLC7 of 7\n\n For Journalists\n\n Sign Up\n\n\n\n\n \u00a9 2026 Business Wire, Inc.\n\n Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Accessibility Statement Terms of Use Legal\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260629282533/en/Grant-Eisenhofer-Files-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Against-Citadel-Securities-LLC-and-Virtu\u2026 6/6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:48.105703-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281005","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. D PSLRA Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830647/","id":491830647,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/5/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.754743-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:28.346617-07:00","sha1":"1f0d5d8ba614fb18229a473e1a7eb136670a5094","page_count":61,"file_size":668043,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:48.696847-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281006","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. E G&E Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830648/","id":491830648,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/6/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.775798-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:53:50.867030-07:00","sha1":"0986b770665278cd015ef06f5d36d57491e4e0f2","page_count":36,"file_size":946931,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.38.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 1 of 36\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT F\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 2 of 36\n\n\n\n\n www.fnf.law\n\n\n\n\n FIRM RESUM\u00c9\n\n\n\n\n NEW YORK MIAMI BOSTON\n\n 10 Grand Central 1815 Purdy Avenue 225 Franklin Street\n 155 E. 44th Street Miami Beach, FL 33139 26th Floor\n Suite 915 Boston, MA 02110\n New York, NY 10017\n\n T: 646-350-0527 T: 786-924-2900 T: 617-374-3700\n F: 646-392-8842 F: 646-392-8842 F: 646-392-8842\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 3 of 36\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n CLASS ACTION EXPERTISE ....................................................................................................1\n\n SECURITIES EXPERTISE..........................................................................................................2\n\n CRYPTOCURRENCY EXPERTISE ..........................................................................................2\n\n REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS ....................................................................................2\n\n OUR TEAM .............................................................................................................................3\n\n DEVIN \u201cVELVEL\u201d FREEDMAN ..................................................................................................4\n\n EDWARD NORMAND...................................................................................................................7\n\n AMOS FRIEDLAND.......................................................................................................................8\n\n KYLE ROCHE.................................................................................................................................9\n\n RICHARD CIPOLLA ....................................................................................................................10\n\n JOSEPH DELICH ..........................................................................................................................11\n\n JORDANA HAVIV .......................................................................................................................12\n\n STEPHEN LAGOS ........................................................................................................................13\n\n COLLEEN SMERYAGE...............................................................................................................14\n\n LAWRENCE M. KAYE ................................................................................................................15\n\n KATE AUFSES .............................................................................................................................16\n\n RICHARD LAFONT .....................................................................................................................17\n\n IVY T. NGO ...................................................................................................................................18\n\n YAEL WEITZ ................................................................................................................................19\n\n ROARKE MAXWELL ..................................................................................................................20\n\n PETER BACH-Y-RITA.................................................................................................................21\n\n RILEY CLAFTON.........................................................................................................................22\n\n MATTHEW DUFFY .....................................................................................................................23\n\n ROBERT T. DUNLAP ..................................................................................................................24\n\n KATHARINE \u201cKATIE\u201d FRIEL ....................................................................................................25\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 4 of 36\n\n\n MENDEL KONIKOV ...................................................................................................................26\n\n JOSEPH LEMOINE ......................................................................................................................27\n\n PEKHAM PAL ..............................................................................................................................28\n\n JOHN SUPER ................................................................................................................................29\n\n NIRAJ THAKKER ........................................................................................................................30\n\n PATRICK WOODS .......................................................................................................................31\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 5 of 36\n\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE FIRM\n Founded in 2019, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP is a national litigation boutique known\n for its innovation, agility, and results-driven advocacy. The firm\u2019s attorneys bring experience from\n some of the nation\u2019s most prestigious litigation practices, combining elite training with a\n modern, technology-forward approach to complex disputes. FNF\u2019s legal team has a decades-long\n record of success in achieving exceptional outcomes in high-stakes, high-profile matters for a\n sophisticated and diverse client base.\n\n The firm\u2019s reputation is built on strategic insight, courtroom excellence, and an unwavering\n commitment to delivering results. FNF has extensive experience litigating complex commercial,\n securities, antitrust, class action, and defamation matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and\n defendants across a wide range of industries. FNF handles every phase of the dispute process\u2014\n from early strategic counseling and pre-litigation negotiations to mediations, arbitrations, and\n full-scale trials. The firm\u2019s attorneys regularly try cases to verdict, and that proven trial\n experience translates into stronger advocacy, greater leverage, and consistently superior\n results for clients.\n\n PUBLIC SERVICE\n The firm\u2019s attorneys have served as judicial clerks for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for\n the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits; and District Courts in the Northern and Southern Districts\n of Florida, Southern District of New York, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania. FNF\u2019s attorneys\n employ the same passion, dedication, and proficiency when litigating on behalf of their clients.\n\n CLASS ACTION AND MDL EXPERTISE\n FNF has extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex class actions\n in federal and state courts across the country. The firm\u2019s work spans securities, commodities,\n antitrust, fraud-based, and consumer protection claims across a wide range of industries.\n FNF\u2019s attorneys have represented publicly traded corporations, private companies, and\n institutional investors in class proceedings of every scale, bringing both strategic insight and\n practical expertise to the procedural and substantive complexities unique to this area of law.\n FNF currently serves as class counsel in Henry et al v. Brown University et al. (N.D. ill.) where it\n has already obtained settlements from 12 of the 17 defendants totaling nearly $320 million for the\n class. FNF has defeated summary judgment motions filed by the remaining five defendants and\n the matter is currently set for trial in 2027.\n Most recently, Freedman Normand Friedland was appointed co-lead counsel in In re Coinbase\n Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3153 (S.D.N.Y.), a multidistrict litigation\n against Coinbase and TaskUs pending before Judge Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of\n New York.\n FNF serves as lead or co-lead counsel in more than 20 class actions nationwide, providing\n clients with the highest caliber of advocacy and the experience necessary to navigate and win high-\n stakes, multi-party litigation. FNF has successfully represented, or is representing, plaintiffs or\n defendants in class action cases nationwide, e.g., Davitashvili et al. v. GrubHub Inc. et al., 1:20-\n cv-03000 (S.D.N.Y.), Masterson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al., No. 1:24-cv-\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 6 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 00754 (W.D.N.Y.), Haymount Urgent Care PC v. GoFund Advance, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01245\n (S.D.N.Y.), and Proch v. King et al, 2:22-cv-12141 (E.D. Mich.).\n SECURITIES EXPERTISE\n FNF\u2019s legal team possesses the experience, judgment, and sophistication to navigate securities\n litigation of any size, scope, or complexity. The firm\u2019s attorneys have defended publicly traded\n international corporations in high-exposure securities class actions and prosecuted major\n securities claims on behalf of institutional and sophisticated investors. Whether representing\n plaintiffs or defendants, FNF brings a deep understanding of the procedural and substantive\n dynamics that determine the viability and success of securities law claims. FNF\u2019s results speak for\n themselves \u2014 the firm\u2019s settlements in securities class actions consistently rank among the\n highest recovery-to-damages ratios in the industry, reflecting its ability to combine rigorous\n advocacy with strategic precision to deliver exceptional outcomes.\n Courts have appointed FNF as lead or co-lead counsel in the following securities fraud class\n actions: D\u2019Arcy v. Sequential Brands Grp., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), In re Qutoutiao Inc. Sec. Litig.\n (S.D.N.Y.), In re Renewable Energy Grp. Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.), Carl D. Cachia v. Bellus Health\n Inc. et. al., (S.D.N.Y.), In re Qiwi Plc Sec. Litig. (E.D.N.Y.), Pasquinelli et al. v. HUMBL, LLC et\n al., (D. DE), In re Cormedix Inc. Sec. Litig. (D.N.J.), Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. et. al.,\n (N.D. Ill.), Garcia v. J2 Global, Inc. et. al., (C.D. Cal.), In re Sona Nanotech, Inc. Sec. Litig. (C.D.\n Cal.), , Valenti v. Dfinity USA Research LLC, et. al., (N.D. Cal.), Chapman v. Fennec Pharma Inc.\n et. al., (M.D.N.C.), and Hartel v. Geo Grp., Inc. et. al., (S.D. Fla.).\n Notably, in Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. and in D\u2019Arcy v. Sequential Brands Grp., Inc.,\n FNF recovered over 30% of plaintiffs\u2019 estimated damages \u2013 more than three times the typical\n recovery in securities fraud class actions.\n CRYPTOCURRENCY EXPERTISE\n FNF is a nationally recognized leader in the cryptocurrency arena. Founding Partner Devin\n \u201cVelvel\u201d Freedman, who has spoken and lectured on the intersection of law and cryptocurrency,\n is currently representing the estate of Dave Kleiman in a suit against his former business partner\n Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed inventor of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Mr. Freedman and other\n attorneys at FNF bring a unique level of expertise and experience with cryptocurrency issues.\n The firm\u2019s attorneys are currently litigating numerous cryptocurrency cases against multi-national\n defendants. Courts have appointed FNF as lead counsel in many of our country\u2019s seminal\n cryptocurrency class actions. Most recently, FNF was appointed and is serving as interim co-lead\n counsel in In re: Coinbase Customer Data Security Breach Litig. (S.D.N.Y.).\n REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS\n \u25ca FNF went to trial against CNN in January 2025 in a televised defamation case where the jury\n awarded millions in damages, and for the first time in history, held a major news network\n liable for punitive damages. While CNN settled before the jury issued a verdict on the amount\n of punitive damages, the jury said it would have awarded $100 million.\n \u25ca FNF represented the plaintiff in a high-profile cryptocurrency dispute in federal court. We led\n a four-week jury trial and obtained a $143M judgment against the Defendant. The verdict was\n covered by Bloomberg and Law360, among other news outlets.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 7 of 36\n\n\n\n\n \u25ca FNF was counsel to a major reinsurer in a federal bench trial, which led to an over $14 million\n verdict for one of our clients. The victory was covered by Law360 and Insurance Business\n Magazine.\n \u25ca FNF stepped in as trial counsel to obtain a multi-million dollar verdict in business dispute\n against the world\u2019s largest freight forwarded.\n \u25ca FNF was co-lead trial counsel with Irell and Manella in a six-week trade secret and breach of\n contract claim against Google, in ReactX, LLC v. Google, LLC, Case Number:\n 18STCV09674.\n \u25ca FNF is defending a group of companies in Delaware Chancery Court litigation against\n allegations that they were involved in a RICO enterprise to improperly invest over $600\n million in assets.\n \u25ca FNF obtained partial summary judgment for the defendant in a case where the Plaintiff sought\n entitlement to a $60 million asset. The summary judgment order led to an extremely favorable\n settlement.\n \u25ca Representing plaintiff in a multimillion-dollar antitrust litigation accusing national\n corporations of Sherman Act violations.\n \u25ca Defending publicly-traded international corporation accused of securities fraud in a\n multimillion-dollar putative class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\n \u25ca Defending publicly-traded corporation in a multimillion-dollar breach of contract litigation\n arising from complex securities share exchange agreement.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 8 of 36\n\n\n\n\n OUR TEAM\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 9 of 36\n\n\n\n\n DEVIN \u201cVELVEL\u201d FREEDMAN\n Founding Partner\n Vel is an experienced litigator known for finding creative solutions to complex problems. His\n practice focuses on high-risk litigation that includes securities class actions, defamation lawsuits,\n consumer class actions, international disputes, and cryptocurrency/blockchain lawsuits. Vel\u2019s\n clients value his responsiveness, creative solutions, and ability to achieve successful outcomes\n while balancing the needs of running a business.\n Vel\u2019s practice spans a diverse array of disputes across state, federal, and international trial and\n appellate courts.\n Vel is an accomplished trial attorney with a proven track record of high-stakes victories. As lead\n trial counsel in a nationally televised defamation lawsuit against CNN, Vel secured a\n groundbreaking win. The jury awarded millions in damages and, for the first time in history, held\n a major news network liable for punitive damages. In 2021, Vel led a month-long federal\n cryptocurrency jury trial, securing a $140M judgment. In 2023, he achieved a multimillion-dollar\n jury verdict in an e-commerce dispute, recovering 100% of the contract damages sought. In 2025,\n Vel obtained a record-breaking $10M verdict for an eye loss case after a week-long jury trial.\n Beyond the courtroom, Vel\u2019s impact is profound. He successfully sued and settled litigation with\n the State of Florida in return for his client being awarded an $80M medical marijuana treatment\n center license. He helps the firm\u2019s antitrust litigation against top U.S. universities, yielding over\n $300M in settlements. Additionally, Vel represented the heirs of a Holocaust survivor in a rare\n trial to recover a Camille Pissarro masterpiece from a Spanish museum, advancing justice in one\n of the few Holocaust-era art restitution cases to reach trial.\n At the appellate level, Vel has successfully pursued numerous appeals in state and federal appellate\n courts. This includes his handling of multiple oral arguments to, e.g., win a punitive damages\n appeal against CNN in Florida\u2019s First District Court of Appeal, a matter of first impression before\n the Eleventh Circuit, and reversal before the Ninth Circuit. He recently filed a petition for certiorari\n to the Supreme Court of the United States.\n On the international side, Vel has successfully represented sovereigns and investors in global\n disputes involving national court litigation, international arbitration, and strategic negotiations,\n while managing public relations. Vel has acted as strategic global counsel to successfully prevent\n a foreign sovereign from illegally expropriating his client\u2019s assets. Most recently, Vel convinced\n the Secretariat of ICSID to disqualify the United States' party appointed arbitrator in a bilateral\n investment treaty arbitration, and then argued before the panel to successfully resist the United\n States\u2019 motion to dismiss the case.\n Vel is also active in the local legal community, where he serves on the Southern District of Florida's\n Local Rules Committee. Before attending law school, Velvel was ordained as a rabbi.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Lead Counsel to Zachary Young in a defamation case against CNN. The jury found CNN\n liable for defamation per se, defamation by implication, and for punitive damages. The\n case settled after the jury rendered a multimillion-dollar verdict in phase one and before\n they could render their punitive damages award. This case represents the first time in\n history that a mainstream media defendant was found liable for punitive damages.\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 10 of 36\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Obtained a $10.5M recovery in Lowry et al. v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. et al., a case\n arising out of manipulative accounting practices. The recovery represented approximately\n 30% of plaintiffs\u2019 estimated damages, which is over 3x the typical amount recovered in\n securities fraud class actions.\n \u2022 Lead Counsel to the Estate of David Kleiman in a month-long federal jury trial. The\n cryptocurrency claim resulted in a $100,000,000.00 jury verdict, increased to $145,000,000\n with prejudgment interest\n \u2022 Lead trial counsel to OJ Commerce in a breach of contract and tortious interference claim\n that resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict.\n \u2022 Defending a charitable foundation against a campaign of complex probate and civil\n litigation\n \u2022 Successfully defended clients against various State Attorney General and CFPB\n investigations\n \u2022 Representing Phillip Morris USA in numerous actions around the State of Florida against\n claims for injuries allegedly caused by smoking cigarettes\n \u2022 Leading the team that successfully defended a major e-commerce firm from a potentially\n detrimental government investigation\n \u2022 Coordinating the protection of sovereign assets from execution efforts in multiple\n international jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and Turkey\n \u2022 Defending sovereign from a $2B ICSID arbitration claim relating to the alleged\n expropriation of a telecommunications company\n \u2022 Successfully representing plaintiffs in a shareholder dispute involving complex claims for\n breaches of fiduciary duties and related breaches of trust\n \u2022 Litigating the constitutionality of Florida statutes limiting the amount and type of medical\n marijuana licenses available\n \u2022 Litigating the Florida Department of Health\u2019s failure to timely issue medical marijuana\n licenses\n \u2022 Litigating and negotiating various issues raised among 3rd party e-commerce marketplace\n sellers, suppliers, and competitors\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Columbia Law School, J.D.; James Kent Scholar; Staff Editor, Journal of Tax Law\n \u2022 Yeshivah Gedolah Rabbinical College, B.A., Hebrew Letters (Rabbinical); Rabbinical\n Ordination (Smicha)\n AWARDS & ASSOCIATIONS\n \u2022 Mr. Freedman has been named Band 1 for Miami Elite in Commercial Disputes for 2026\n by Legal 500, recognized in \"The Best Lawyers in America\" for Commercial Litigation\n since 2022, named a \"Rising Star\" for 2025 by Super Lawyers and a \"Legal Elite Up &\n Comer\" for 2021 by Florida Trend, and is a recipient of the Daily Business Review's\n \"Florida Trailblazers\" award, the National Law Journal's 2020 \"Trailblazers\" award in\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 11 of 36\n\n\n\n\n Cannabis Law, and the Daily Business Review's 2019 \"Professional Excellence\" award as\n an attorney \"On the Rise.\"\n \u2022 Achieved highest score on Florida Bar examination, 3rd DCA, July 2012\n \u2022 Southern District of Florida\u2019s Local Rules Committee\n PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS\n \u2022 Speaker, Inside \u2018The Largest Bubble in Human History\u2019: The Alleged $1.4T\n Bitfinex/Tether Cryptocurrency Scam, OffshoreAlert Conference Europe (2019)\n \u2022 Speaker, American Inns of Court (Spellman-Hoeveler Chapter), Bench & Bar Conference,\n Legal Technology: How Automation is Changing the Practice of Law (smart contracts)\n (March 2019)\n \u2022 Speaker, Heightened Enforcement on Cryptocurrencies and Money Laundering: A 2018\n Perspective, The Knowledge Group (2018)\n \u2022 Speaker, French Masterpiece, German Extortion, Spanish Adverse Possession, and the 9th\n Circuit, Harvard Law School (2017), Touro University (2018)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: Florida, New York, District of Columbia\n \u2022 U.S. Supreme Court\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit\n\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern, Middle District, and Northern Districts of Florida; Northern\n District of Illinois; Southern District of New York\n GOVERNMENT SERVICE\n \u2022 Judicial Intern for the Hon. Nicholas Garaufis, Eastern District of New York\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 12 of 36\n\n\n\n\n EDWARD NORMAND\n Founding Partner\n Ted has successfully and effectively litigated complex and high-profile commercial disputes for\n both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts, at both the trial and appellate levels and\n in several arbitrations. The clients for whom Ted has provided such valuable counsel and\n representation include Napster, Lloyd\u2019s of London, Swiss Re, The SCO Group, IDT, CRP/Extell,\n AIG, HSBC, Vanguard, ValueAct, Quadrant Capital Advisors, and Partner Reinsurance. Ted has\n also represented many executives in disputes regarding severance and compensation.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Lead counsel for Quadrant Capital Advisors in litigation re: management and operations\n of WhistlePig, America\u2019s premium rye whiskey company\n \u2022 Co-lead counsel for ValueAct in the federal government\u2019s prosecution of claims under the\n Hart-Scott-Rodino Act re: its acquisition of shares of Halliburton and Baker Hughes\n \u2022 Co-lead counsel for AIG in a pending litigation against the federal government re: the\n propriety of foreign tax credits connected to foreign borrowing transactions\n \u2022 Co-lead counsel for the SCO Group in litigation against IBM and Novell regarding the\n copyright ownership over and use of technology from the UNIX operating system in\n connection with the development of Linux\n \u2022 Firm\u2019s second trial counsel for Lloyd\u2019s of London and other London insurers in litigation\n concerning insurance coverage of the destruction of the World Trade Center\n \u2022 Representing Napster in its landmark copyright dispute against the Recording Industry\n Association of America\n EDUCATION & CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D.; Editor-in-Chief, Law Review; Assistant\n to Special Master in U.S. Supreme Court case re: state sovereignty over Ellis Island\n \u2022 College of William & Mary, A.B., English; Phi Beta Kappa\n \u2022 Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit\n \u2022 Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS\n \u2022 The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act\u2019s First Amendment Problem, Cornell Law Review (with Scott\n Gant and Andrew Michaelson) (2017)\n \u2022 Damages of Deceit: A Case Study in the Making of American Common Law, Annual\n Survey of American Law, 71, 3 (2017)\n \u2022 The Supreme Court, EPA and Chevron: The Uncertain Status of Deference to Agency\n Interpretations of Statutes, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,127\n (March 1995) (co-authored)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Tenth Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern and Northern Districts of New York, District of Colorado,\n District of Utah, Northern District of California, Northern District of Illinois, District of\n Massachusetts\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 13 of 36\n\n\n\n\n AMOS FRIEDLAND\n Founding Partner\n Amos\u2019s practice focuses on complex litigation, including antitrust, class action, insurance disputes,\n transnational, copyright and trademark, art, and fashion. For over a decade, he has litigated high-\n stakes actions for plaintiffs and defendants throughout the U.S. and internationally.\n Amos regularly provides counsel to clients to assist them in assessing litigation risk and\n implications of sensitive business decisions, often under urgent time constraints. Amos has been\n named a New York Metro Area Super Lawyers \u201cRising Star\u201d from 2015-2018.\n Amos was previously associated with Boies Schiller Flexner, Quinn Emanuel, and Wiggin and\n Dana. Before law school, Amos completed a doctorate in philosophy and spent two years teaching\n at McGill University. After law school, he helped design and teach two-week intensive summer\n seminars for law students on the Holocaust and contemporary ethical issues for lawyers.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Leading the representation of global reinsurance company PartnerRe in numerous legal\n and claims disputes (with a special focus on reps and warranties insurance disputes) in\n venues across the U.S., as well as providing regular general legal and business counsel\n \u2022 Representing investors in craft whiskey company WhistlePig LLC in a company control\n dispute in Delaware Chancery Court\n \u2022 Defending Yves Saint Laurent and Kering in a trademark dispute re: YSL\u2019s rebranding\n \u2022 Defending Barclays in numerous LIBOR-related cases and investigations\n \u2022 Representing Fox Paine in protracted actions in DE, CA, TX, IL, and NY, in which one\n court noted the firm\u2019s \u201cshark-like persistence and tenacity in litigation\u201d\n \u2022 Representing Women\u2019s World Cup soccer players in a gender discrimination case against\n FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association re: decision to hold 2015 Cup on artificial turf\n \u2022 Representing appropriation artist Richard Prince in a seminal Fair Use copyright appeal to\n the Second Circuit Court of Appeals\n \u2022 Obtained class certification for commercial shippers in price-fixing action against major\n railroads (reversed on appeal), egg purchasers in price-fixing action against egg producers,\n and direct purchasers of flexible polyurethane foam in price-fixing action\n \u2022 Defending Yale University in a transnational dispute over ownership of van Gogh\u2019s \u201cNight\n Caf\u00e9\u201d painting, and against the Republic of Peru over ownership of Machu Picchu artifacts\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Yale Law School, J.D.; Editor, Yale Law and Policy Review; T.A. for Torts\n \u2022 McGill University, Post-Doctoral, Philosophy; Social Sciences and Humanities Research\n Council of Canada Post-Doctoral Research Fellow; Adjunct Professor of Philosophy\n \u2022 New School for Social Research, Ph.D., Philosophy; Hans Jonas Award for Best\n Philosophy Dissertation of the Year\n \u2022 McGill University, B.A., Honors, Philosophy; First Class Honors\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, Connecticut\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second Circuit, Ninth Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Connecticut, Southern District of New York\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 14 of 36\n\n\n\n\n KYLE ROCHE\n Founding Partner\n Kyle is a dynamic strategist with a strong record of representing plaintiffs and defendants in state\n and federal courts. His unique ability to infuse his technological and economic knowledge into\n legal strategies has led to $50M+ pre-suit settlements and $100M+ trial victories. On the defense\n side, Kyle focuses on representing emerging tech companies, CEOs, and venture capitalists. On\n the plaintiff side, Kyle has architected and led complex class actions and mass arbitrations.\n Currently, Kyle is leading a mass arbitration on behalf of parents and their minor children against\n TikTok for its alleged deceptive use of its platform to cause, in part, what the U.S. Surgeon General\n has called a mental health crisis. Kyle is also leading an antitrust class action against Wall Street\n firms Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC arising from their use of non-competes and forfeitures to harm\n competition. Shortly after he filed this suit, the FTC adopted a nation-wide ban on non-competes.\n Kyle has advanced novel legal theories in antitrust and securities litigation that have set precedent\n in emerging industries. He also has extensive experience at the intersection of cryptocurrency,\n blockchain and law; he has written extensively and lectured on it at Northwestern and Harvard.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Trial counsel for David Kleiman estate against Craig Wright. Obtained $143M judgment.\n \u2022 Lead counsel for hundreds of former Cantor Fitzgerald partners in dispute arising from\n hundreds of millions in unpaid compensation.\n \u2022 Lead defense counsel for technology startup in arbitration dispute alleging $25M+ in\n damages. Obtained final order that resulted in 95% reduction in claimed damages.\n \u2022 Lead counsel for tens of thousands of parents against TikTok in mass arbitration arising\n from its deceptive use of its social media platform.\n \u2022 Member of trial team that successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in a patent\n dispute concerning the market-leading diabetes drug.\n \u2022 Lead attorney for co-founder of social-networking company in partnership dispute, resulting\n in resolution acceptable to all parties.\n \u2022 Represented venture capitalist in dispute over development and growth of a decentralized\n blockchain. Developed novel legal theory resulting in a $50M+ pre-suit settlement.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Northwestern University School of Law, J.D.; Associate Editor, Northwestern University\n Law Review; Arlyn Miner Book Award for Excellence in Legal Writing\n \u2022 Purdue University, B.S., Chemical Engineering\n AWARDS & PUBLICATIONS\n \u2022 Named a New York Metro Area Super Lawyers \u201cRising Star\u201d from 2020 through 2024\n \u2022 Chick Evans Scholarship Recipient\n \u2022 Why Bitcoin is Booming, WSJ, July 10, 2017 (Kyle Roche, John O. McGinnis)\n \u2022 Bitcoin: Order without Law in the Digital Age, 94 Indiana L.J. 1497 (2019) (Kyle Roche,\n John O. McGinnis)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State of New York; U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n York\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 15 of 36\n\n\n\n\n RICHARD CIPOLLA\n Partner\n Richard has represented numerous institutional and individual clients on a wide range of complex\n civil litigation, regulatory enforcement, and white-collar defense matters. Leveraging a\n background in technology and big data analytics, he seeks efficient and effective solutions when\n representing his clients.\n Richard was previously an attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented foreign financial institutions in defending multi-billion-dollar clawback\n actions related to the bankruptcy of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities before federal\n bankruptcy, district, and appellate courts.\n \u2022 Represented financial institutions in connection with domestic and foreign government\n investigations and related civil litigation involving financial benchmarks, including LIBOR\n and ISDAFIX.\n \u2022 Achieved a favorable settlement for a fashion label in a licensing dispute with a supplier.\n \u2022 Argued before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as part of Northwestern Pritzker\n School of Law\u2019s Federal Appellate Clinic.\n \u2022 Drafter of amicus brief to Supreme Court in Kokesh v SEC on behalf of an organization\n representing the private investment industry.\n \u2022 Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of a technology company facing an SEC\n inquiry, favorably resolving the matter without government action.\n \u2022 Advised one of Canada\u2019s largest software companies in connection with a data breach.\n \u2022 Represented multi-national supplier in large multidistrict litigation and other proceedings\n arising from the \u201cDieselgate\u201d scandal\n \u2022 Defended freight forwarding company in antitrust class action suit.\n \u2022 Advised a registered investment advisor regarding remediation following SEC OCIE\n examination.\n \u2022 Drafted brief for pro bono client\u2019s criminal appeal in state court.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Northwestern University School of Law, J.D. magna cum laude; Order of the Coif;\n Articles Editor, Northwestern Law Review 2016\n \u2022 Boston University, B.A. in Economics; B.A. in Philosophy 2011\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, Massachusetts\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York\n CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 Hon. Victor Marrero, U.S. District Court: Southern District of New York\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 16 of 36\n\n\n\n\n JOSEPH DELICH\n Partner\n Joe has extensive experience handling complex matters that require innovative solutions and is\n always exploring how to integrate new technologies into his practice in order to achieve better\n outcomes for his clients. He practices on a wide range of subject matter, in both state and federal\n courts throughout the country, including class actions (both plaintiff and defense), commercial\n contract disputes and securities litigation. In January 2025, Joe helped lead the trial team that\n successfully obtained a defamation and punitive damages verdict against CNN. That verdict\n appears to be the first time in history a plaintiff has obtained punitive damages in a defamation\n case against a national media outlet by satisfying the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard.\n He is also lead trial counsel in a multi-million-dollar promissory estoppel action against NASCAR\n on behalf of a race team\u2019s cryptocurrency sponsor. He is an active part of the firm\u2019s antitrust\n practice, and a core member of the team pursuing antitrust claims against the nation\u2019s top\n universities which has recovered over $300,000,000 in preliminary settlements. In 2021, Joe was\n part of the trial team that obtained a $140,000,000 judgment from a federal jury after a month-long\n trial. He was previously an attorney at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Trial counsel for Zachary Young in his defamation suit against CNN, where the jury\n awarded punitive damages against a national news organization for the first time in history.\n \u2022 Lead trial counsel in a multi-million-dollar promissory estoppel action against NASCAR\n on behalf of a race team's cryptocurrency sponsor.\n \u2022 Representing hemp research company in billion-dollar lawsuit against state and local\n governments over unlawful destruction of 17 million hemp plants.\n \u2022 Represented the Estate of David Kleiman in a cryptocurrency and partnership claim and\n obtained a $140 million verdict after a month-long jury trial.\n \u2022 Represented venture capital fund advisor in connection with SEC subpoenas and\n successfully negotiated resolution making presentation to Enforcement Staff.\n \u2022 Successfully represented individual plaintiff in federal securities litigation.\n \u2022 Obtained court-approved settlement for a public company in federal securities class action.\n \u2022 Conducted internal investigations on behalf of (1) a financial institution in relation to an\n ongoing consent order (2) a professional sports team in relation to a public controversy.\n \u2022 Represented REIT management company in New York state court contract dispute.\n EDUCATION & CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 Northwestern Univ. School of Law, J.D. magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Law\n Review - Associate Editor; Senior Research Honors; Clinical Legal Education Ass\u2019n\n Award for Outstanding Clinical Student\n \u2022 University of Nebraska - Lincoln, B.A., English, Minor in Mathematics\n \u2022 Hon. Leslie H. Southwick, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit\n PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS\n \u2022 Ensuring Insurance: Adequate and Appropriate Coverage for Brady Claims in Illinois, 110\n Northwestern University Law Review 223\n \u2022 2018 Legal Aid Society Pro Bono Publico Award\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern District of New York, Western and Southern Districts of Texas\n 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 17 of 36\n\n\n\n\n JORDANA HAVIV\n Partner\n Jordana is an experienced litigator with expertise in complex commercial, white-collar,\n employment, and securities litigation; internal investigations; and international arbitration. She has\n counseled and represented clients, on both the plaintiff and defense side, in sectors ranging from\n financial services to media and entertainment to education in a wide variety of matters in both\n federal and state court.\n Prior to joining the Firm, Jordana was a litigator at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison\n LLP.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing insurers responding to claims under representations and warranties policies\n issued in connection with merger and acquisition transactions.\n \u2022 Represented Columbia University in a variety of Title IX matters, including obtaining\n dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a student alleging violation of Title IX and other claims\n arising out of alleged defamation and harassment of plaintiff by another student.\n \u2022 Counsel for the NFL in its landmark concussion litigation class action settlement and\n related cases.\n \u2022 Counsel for global corporation in arbitration of contract dispute before the International\n Chamber of Commerce.\n \u2022 Designed sexual harassment prevention training for senior corporate executives.\n \u2022 Counsel and advise corporate clients regarding the enforcement of non-compete, non-\n solicitation and non-disclosure agreements.\n \u2022 Pro bono representation of death penalty client in habeas proceedings in Texas District\n Court and before the Fifth Circuit.\n \u2022 Pro bono representation of transgender asylum client in appeals to the Board of\n Immigration Appeals and the Second Circuit.\n \u2022 Successfully obtained asylum for pro bono client and her two minor children who had\n experienced gang-related violence in Honduras.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 New York University School of Law, J.D., cum laude\n \u2022 Amherst College, B.A., cum laude in Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second Circuit, Fifth Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Eastern and Southern Districts of New York\n CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 Hon. Victor Marrero, U.S. District Court: Southern District of New York\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 18 of 36\n\n\n\n\n STEPHEN LAGOS\n Partner\n Stephen focuses on complex commercial litigation. He represents plaintiffs and defendants in\n connection with a range of significant matters, including antitrust and qui tam actions, contract\n disputes, and corporate governance disputes. Before becoming an attorney, Stephen was an analyst\n at the Brattle Group, where he developed economic, financial, and mathematical models used to\n support expert testimony in litigation and regulatory matters.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing junior creditors alleging that a Chapter 11 debtor engaged in a fraudulent\n transfer while restructuring its senior debt\n \u2022 Representing a putative class of consumers and insurers alleging, among other things, that a\n major drug company violated antitrust laws while settling a patent dispute with a generic drug\n manufacturer\n \u2022 Representing the estate of David Kleiman in an action to recover stolen bitcoins and\n blockchain-related intellectual property rights from the self-described creator of Bitcoin\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Cornell Law School, J.D., magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Cornell\n Law Review; Harry G. Henn Prize in Corporations; CALI Awards in Contracts, Business\n Organizations, and Litigation Drafting; Myron Taylor Scholar\n \u2022 Colorado College, B.A., Economics\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 19 of 36\n\n\n\n\n COLLEEN SMERYAGE\n Partner\n Colleen is an experienced trial and appellate attorney whose practice focuses on complex\n commercial litigation and arbitration. Colleen regularly obtains favorable outcomes for clients in\n high-stakes litigation involving commercial transactions, securities, international terrorism, trade\n secrets, and insurance law. Her journalism background and written advocacy skills have enabled\n her to successfully mount and defend appeals in state and federal courts across the U.S.\n Colleen has extensive courtroom experience, having served as trial counsel in bench and jury trials.\n Most recently, she served as trial counsel in a high-profile four-week trial where she examined\n numerous fact and expert witnesses and presented extensive oral argument. Previously, she served\n as trial counsel in a two-week federal jury trial culminating in a complete defense verdict for her\n client. She has also achieved favorable jury verdicts as plaintiff\u2019s counsel, including in a federal\n court action arising from a coordinated cyberattack and a state court action premised on civil theft.\n Prior to law school, Colleen worked in the oil and gas industry in Texas and the Middle East.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented victims of international terrorism in collection efforts to satisfy $2.9B\n judgment, including extensive litigation over funds blocked pursuant to OFAC\n regulations\n \u2022 Represented victims of U.S.S. Cole bombing against Republic of Sudan in federal and\n appellate courts, ending in a historic settlement under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act\n \u2022 Represented high-profile client in complex probate and guardianship proceedings,\n including role as trial counsel in 19-day bench trial\n \u2022 Represented Florida\u2019s largest physician group against numerous insurers in a complex\n dispute regarding reimbursement rates\n \u2022 Represented credit card processor in cyberattack litigation, culminating in a successful jury\n verdict in federal court\n \u2022 Represented bankruptcy trustees in pursuing significant insurance proceeds in action\n related to the collapse of prominent Ponzi scheme\n \u2022 Represented broker in fraud and unfair trade practices act case, including as trial counsel\n in a two-week federal jury trial\n \u2022 Represented security and automation company in defending Lanham Act claims premised\n on alleged false advertising and unfair competition\n \u2022 Represented Brendan Dassey, subject of Making a Murderer documentary, as member of\n Northwestern Pritzker School of Law\u2019s wrongful convictions clinic\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Northwestern Univ. School of Law, J.D. cum laude; Journal of Int\u2019l Law and Business\n \u2022 Northwestern Univ, Medill School of Journalism, B.A. magna cum laude; Mortar Board\n Senior Honor Society; Kappa Tau Alpha Journalism Honor Society\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: Florida, Illinois\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Eleventh Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: Southern District of Florida\n\n 14\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 20 of 36\n\n\n\n\n LAWRENCE M. KAYE\n Senior Counsel\n Larry represents a wide range of domestic and international clients in complex litigations and\n commercial transactions. Among Larry\u2019s accomplishments, he notably represented foreign\n governments, victims of the Holocaust, families of renowned artists and other claimants in the\n recovery of art and antiquities.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Lead attorney in the landmark case of Federal Republic of Germany v. Elicofon,\n recovering two early masterpieces by Albrecht Durer, stolen at the end of WWII, and\n returning them to the Weimar Art Museum.\n \u2022 Represented financial institutions in connection with domestic and foreign government\n investigations and related civil litigation involving financial benchmarks, including LIBOR\n and ISDAFIX.\n \u2022 Represented the Republic of Turkey in its efforts to recover the fabled Lydian Hoard\n antiquities, long held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and some 1,800 ancient Greek\n and Lycian coins which Connoisseur Magazine called \"The Hoard of the Century\u201d and\n many other repatriations\n \u2022 Represented Marei von Saher, the sole heir of the noted Dutch dealer and collector, Jacques\n Goudstikker, in connection with the restitution of Nazi looted art works from the Dutch\n Government and numerous museums and collections throughout the world.\n \u2022 Represented the estate of art collector Frances Lasker Brody in the historic sale of its\n collection at Christie\u2019s, including the $106.5M sale of Pablo Picasso\u2019s Nude, Green Leaves\n and Bust, a then-record price for a work of art at auction.\n \u2022 Represented Leon D. Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, in an international\n dispute over the ownership of Pablo Picasso\u2019s \"Bust of a Woman\u201d plaster sculpture\n \u2022 Represented Neue Galerie New York in its historic acquisition of Gustav Klimt's painting\n Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, also known as The Woman in Gold, at the time reported\n to be the most valuable painting ever sold.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 St. John\u2019s University School of Law, J.D.; Editor, Journal of Int\u2019l Business Law\n \u2022 University of North Carolina\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; District of Columbia\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit, D.C. Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. Supreme Court\n AWARDS\n \u2022 The Best Lawyers in America \u2013 Art Law (2022, 2024)\n \u2022 The Best Lawyers in America \u2013 Lawyer of the Year, Art Law, New York City (2022)\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 21 of 36\n\n\n\n\n KATE AUFSES\n Counsel\n Kate\u2019s practice focuses on art law, particularly representing claimants seeking restitution of art\n misappropriated during the Holocaust.\n Prior to joining the firm, Kate served as Associate General Counsel to the New York City\n Department of Cultural Affairs. In this role, Kate represented the City in contract negotiations with\n arts and culture organizations regarding funding for programming, capital projects, public art, and\n a wide variety of other transactions. Kate counseled organizations on the legal requirements\n associated with obtaining City funding, and she advised agency staff on ethics, conflicts of interest,\n non-profit governance, labor and employment, and compliance issues. Kate conducted internal\n investigations and coordinated with the New York City Law Department concerning litigation\n involving the Department of Cultural Affairs.\n Prior to joining the city government, Kate was a litigator at two New York law firms, Hughes\n Hubbard & Reed LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. During law school, Kate\n served as a judicial intern in the chambers of the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein in the U.S. District\n Court for the Eastern District of New York.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing plaintiffs in federal and state litigations to recover artwork lost because of\n Nazi persecution.\n \u2022 Representing clients in multi-million-dollar commercial transactions involving art.\n \u2022 Represented individual and family foundation in connection with the acquisition of 1,400\n Dutch Mannerist prints by the Art Institute of Chicago.\n \u2022 Representing the sole heir of the Dutch dealer and collector, Jacques Goudstikker, in\n connection with the restitution of Nazi looted artworks from museums and private\n collections throughout the world.\n \u2022 Represented private collector in loan of artwork to Fondation Louis Vuitton retrospective\n dedicated to Mark Rothko.\n \u2022 Represented artist estate in sale and loan of artwork to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.\n \u2022 Represented private collector in consignment and sale of rare historical document.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 University of Michigan Law School, J.D.\n \u2022 University of Cambridge, M.Phil., History of Art; M.Phil. American Literature\n \u2022 Kenyon College, B.A.\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 22 of 36\n\n\n\n\n RICHARD LAFONT\n Counsel\n Richard\u2019s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, focusing on banking, fintech, real\n estate, securities fraud, bankruptcy, and business torts.\n Richard has litigated for over a decade in federal and state courts, both at the trial and appellate is\n particularly adept at navigating and identifying the nuances of litigating in New York\u2019s federal\n and state courts. He is currently representing a fund manager defending against allegations of gross\n negligence and misconduct in a JAMS arbitration and is representing a major apparel company\n against a competitor\u2019s allegations of unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets.\n levels. He has also represented clients in all major alternative dispute resolution forums. Richard\n Clients seek Richard\u2019s advice to resolve disputes pre-litigation and for creative, outside-the-box\n thinking when litigation is necessary.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented major commercial banks in adversary proceedings and plan disputes in the\n Adelphia, AHERF and Loewen Group bankruptcies.\n \u2022 Achieved a directed verdict at trial in the N.Y. Commercial Division on behalf of an elite\n health and fitness company over a claim for a real estate broker\u2019s fee in connection with\n obtaining a lease for the famed \u201cVertical Club\u201d site.\n \u2022 Principal drafter of briefs before the N.Y. Court of Appeals on behalf of a company seeking\n the turnover of its files from a major international law firm establishing the \u201centire file\u201d\n rule in New York.\n \u2022 Achieved summary judgment in U.S. District Court for a group of funds against a Swiss\n gaming company that reneged on purchasing \u201cjunk bonds\u201d issued by its U.S. subsidiary.\n \u2022 Defended merchant cash advance company in criminal forfeiture action in U.S. District\n Court resulting in client receiving payment in full.\n \u2022 Member of two-person bench trial team in U.S. District Court resulting in a multi-million-\n dollar award to manufacturer of power generators against its liability insurer based upon\n the catastrophic failure of one its generators at the World Financial Center complex.\n \u2022 Achieved dismissal of tort claims alleged in a N.Y. state court action against the principals\n of a steel importer by a foreign steel manufacturer seeking to enforce a judgment against\n the principals.\n \u2022 Achieved dismissal of the bulk of claims made in U.S. District Court by a finder against a\n commercial finance company resulting in an advantageous settlement.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D.; Editor, Journal of Int\u2019l Business Law\n \u2022 Harvard University, A.B., American History\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, New Jersey\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: Southern, Eastern, Western, and Northern Districts of New York;\n District of New Jersey\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit\n\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 23 of 36\n\n\n\n\n IVY T. NGO\n Counsel\n Ivy is an experienced complex civil litigator whose practice focuses on securities fraud, privacy,\n data breach, and antitrust class actions. She is a creative and collaborative problem-solver with a\n proven track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of clients.\n At FNF, she served as lead counsel in D\u2019Arcy v. Sequential Brands Group, Inc. et al., recovering\n $9.75M, and as co-lead counsel in Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc., recovering $10.5M. Both\n recoveries represented over 30% of plaintiffs\u2019 estimated damages \u2013 over 3x the typical recovery\n in securities fraud class actions.\n Before joining FNF, Ivy successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud class actions at a\n national complex litigation firm. Those cases include In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig.\n ($600M); Jones v. Pfizer Inc. ($400M); Fort Worth Employees\u2019 Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan\n Chase & Co. ($388M); In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig. ($209M); Silverman v. Motorola, Inc.\n ($200M); In re MGM Mirage Sec. Litig. ($75M); Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust\n Funds v. Deutsche Alt-A Sec. Inc. ($32.5M); City of Ann Arbor Employees\u2019 Retirement System v.\n Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. ($25M); In re Genworth Fin., Inc. Sec. Litig. ($20M); and\n Shankar v. Imperva, Inc. ($19M). Ivy was also a member of the team which obtained certification\n in: Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., No. 07 C 4507, 259 F.R.D. 163 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Mary K. Jones v.\n Pfizer Inc., No. 1:10-cv-03864-AKH, (S.D.N.Y. 2012); In re Genworth Fin., Inc. Sec. Litig., No.\n 1:14-cv-02392-AKH, Doc. 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); and Fort Worth Employees\u2019 Retirement Fund v.\n J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 1:09-cv-0371-JPO, 301 F.R.D. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).\n In recognition of her work in securities and class action litigation, Super Lawyers Magazine named\n Ivy a Rising Star for 2015-2018 and a Super Lawyer for 2019.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Lead counsel in the following ongoing securities fraud or shareholder class actions: In re\n Qutoutiao Inc. Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) and Michael W. Fitzgibbons v. Kali P. Chaudhuri, et\n al. (Riverside Sup. Ct.).\n \u2022 Co-Lead Counsel in the following ongoing securities fraud class actions: In re CorMedix\n Inc. Sec. Litig. (D. N.J.) and Pasquinelli et al. v. HUMBL, LLC (D. DE).\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Rutgers University School of Law - Camden, J.D. (2006)\n \u2022 University of California, Los Angeles, B.A. (2003)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: California, Colorado, District of Columbia\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second Circuit, Ninth Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California;\n District of Colorado; District of Maryland; Northern District of Illinois\n \u2022 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 24 of 36\n\n\n\n\n YAEL WEITZ\n Counsel\n Ya\u00e9l advises clients in a wide range of art and cultural property matters. She has broad experience\n with complex commercial art transactions, including auction and private sales, purchases,\n consignments and loans. Ya\u00e9l counsels clients on a variety of art matters relating to title,\n authenticity, provenance, and others. She has represented claimants in actions seeking restitution\n of art misappropriated during the Holocaust and in the recovery of looted or stolen cultural\n patrimony.\n Ya\u00e9l was named a Super Lawyers \u201cRising Star\u201d in 2024 and has been ranked by Chambers High\n Net Worth in Art and Cultural Property Law since 2023.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing plaintiffs in federal and state litigations to recover artwork lost because of\n Nazi persecution.\n \u2022 Representing clients in multi-million-dollar commercial transactions involving art.\n \u2022 Represented individual and family foundation in connection with the acquisition of 1,400\n Dutch Mannerist prints by the Art Institute of Chicago.\n \u2022 Representing the sole heir of the Dutch dealer and collector, Jacques Goudstikker, in\n connection with the restitution of Nazi looted artworks from museums and private\n collections throughout the world.\n \u2022 Represented private collector in loan of artwork to Fondation Louis Vuitton retrospective\n dedicated to Mark Rothko.\n \u2022 Represented artist estate in sale and loan of artwork to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.\n \u2022 Represented private collector in consignment and sale of rare historical document.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, J.D.\n \u2022 Binghampton University, B.A.\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, New Jersey\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; District of Columbia\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 25 of 36\n\n\n\n\n ROARKE MAXWELL\n Counsel\n Roarke\u2019s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, international litigation, and appeals.\n In the area of state sponsored terrorism litigation, he has prosecuted claims that have resulted in\n judgments totaling in excess of billions of dollars against foreign states, such as Cuba, Iran and the\n Republic of Sudan.\n As an appellate advocate, Roarke has drafted briefs in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court at both\n the certiorari and merits levels, in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Eleventh\n Circuits, and Florida\u2019s District Courts of Appeal. Roarke has presented oral argument in numerous\n appeals before Florida\u2019s District Courts of Appeal and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the\n Eleventh and Second Circuits.\n Roarke was nominated in the international litigation category of the South Florida Daily Business\n Review\u2019s Most Effective Lawyers awards in 2016 and 2020, winning in 2020\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented victims of the U.S.S. Cole bombing against the Republic of Sudan before the\n U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, recovering a $70 million settlement.\n \u2022 Represented victims of state sponsored terrorism against the Republic of Cuba, assisting in\n obtaining a $2.7 billion dollar judgment.\n \u2022 Represented victims of state sponsored terrorism against foreign states in two separate\n appeals before the United States Supreme Court and in numerous appeals before various\n U.S. Courts of Appeals.\n \u2022 Recovered assets of foreign sovereigns blocked under OFAC regulations totaling in the\n tens of millions of dollars, in judgment collection actions.\n \u2022 Represented business entities and high net worth individuals in high stakes commercial\n litigation and appeals in state and federal courts.\n \u2022 Represented a record company and individuals in intellectual property disputes and related\n commercial litigation in federal and state courts.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 University of Florida Levin College of Law, J.D., cum laude; Frank E. Bryant Memorial\n Academic Scholarship\n \u2022 University of Florida, Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, Political Science and Classical\n Studies; Phi Beta Kappa\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State court: Florida\n \u2022 U.S. Supreme Court\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Second, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: Southern and Middle District of Florida, Colorado\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 26 of 36\n\n\n\n PETER BACH-Y-RITA\n Associate\n Peter is an experienced and creative lawyer whose practice focuses on representing clients in\n complex commercial disputes, including crypto-asset, contract, shareholder, and insolvency\n matters.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing a crypto-asset investment company seeking to enforce its profit-sharing\n agreement with a large online lending platform.\n \u2022 Counsel for individual crypto-asset investor in criminal and civil proceedings stemming\n from software bug on the blockchain.\n \u2022 Representing a private investor in a securities fraud arbitration against a blockchain identity\n verification startup.\n \u2022 Representing a bondholder in fraudulent transfer and unlawful distribution actions against\n the owners of a Spanish-language media company.\n \u2022 Defending a large national retailer in a sex discrimination class action involving over one\n million alleged class members.\n \u2022 Representing law firms in cases filed by the bankruptcy estates of other defunct law firms\n seeking to claw back fees from unfinished business of their former partners.\n \u2022 Member of the plaintiff\u2019s trial team in the historic 2008 lawsuit successfully challenging\n the Constitutionality of California\u2019s ban on same-sex marriage.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Stanford Law School, J.D.\n \u2022 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Philosophy\n \u2022 Princeton University, A.B., Philosophy\n PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS\n \u2022 The Causal Mechanism Theory of Legal Causation, Ratio Juris 34 (1):57-73 (2021)\n \u2022 Why the Assignability of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Might Not be Settled\n After All, ABI Law Review, 25:315-326 (2017)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: California\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second and Ninth Circuit\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Northern and Central Districts of California; Northern District of\n Illinois\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 27 of 36\n\n\n\n\n RILEY CLAFTON\n Associate\n Riley is a litigator with experience representing individuals, professional firms, and corporations\n in a broad array of matters at both the trial and appellate levels in federal and state courts, as well\n as arbitration proceedings.\n Prior to joining FNF, Riley was a litigator at Williams & Connolly and clerked for the Honorable\n Richard C. Tallman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n Riley\u2019s experiences include representations of plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust actions, the\n defense of a Big Four accounting firm in an accounting malpractice action, the defense and\n prosecution of complex commercial matters, appellate advocacy, and pro bono representations.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D.; magna cum laude, Order of the\n Coif, Lowden Wigmore Prize, Legal Profession Graduation Award, Senior Research\n Honors in Constitutional Criminal Procedure (2020)\n \u2022 University of Miami, Bachelor of Arts in English, Political Science, and Spanish, summa\n cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa, da Vinci Scholar (2017)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, District of Columbia, Illinois, Idaho\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: District of Columbia\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit\n PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS\n \u2022 Riley E. Clafton, A Material Change to Brady: Rethinking Brady v. Maryland, Materiality,\n and Criminal Discovery, 110.2 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2020)\n \u2022 Tonja Jacobi & Riley E. Clafton, The Law of Disposable Children: Searches in Schools,\n 13 U.C Irvine L. Rev. 205 (2022)\n \u2022 Tonja Jacobi & Riley E. Clafton, The Law of Disposable Children: Discipline in Schools,\n 2023 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1123 (2023)\n \u2022 Tonja Jacobi & Riley E. Clafton, The Law of Disposable Children: Interrogation in\n Schools, 75 Ala. L. Rev. 291 (2023)\n CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 Hon. Richard C. Tallman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 28 of 36\n\n\n\n\n MATTHEW DUFFY\n Associate\n Matthew is an associate in FNF\u2019s Boston office, where he focuses on complex commercial\n litigation. He has experience litigating insurance coverage disputes and class actions, as well as\n matters involving emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. Matthew regularly\n represents both plaintiffs and defendants, including institutional and individual clients, in state and\n federal courts.\n Prior to joining FNF, Matthew handled significant matters involving commercial litigation,\n technology, and regulatory compliance. He previously served as redistricting counsel at the New\n Jersey Institute for Social Justice and as a staff attorney with the Voting Rights and Democracy\n Campaign at the Center for Popular Democracy. Matthew also had the privilege of clerking for the\n Honorable Hector Gonzalez at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing an AI company in multi-billion-dollar copyright and class action disputes\n involving novel intellectual property and data ownership issues.\n \u2022 Securing favorable settlements for healthcare and event-planning companies in complex\n insurance disputes at arbitration.\n \u2022 Successfully defending a technology startup in an employment contract dispute,\n obtaining dismissal through favorable interpretation of contested contract provisions.\n \u2022 Representing pro bono clients in a class action challenging systemic special education\n compliance issues against the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary\n Education\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Columbia Law School, J.D.; Ruth Bader Ginsburg Prize Winner; Kent Scholar; Public\n Interest Fellow; Articles Editor, Columbia Law Review; Teaching Assistant for Property\n \u2022 Georgetown University, Walsh School of Foreign Service, B.S.F.S.; International\n Political Economics, with honors\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, Massachusetts\n \u2022 U.S. District Court: Massachusetts\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 29 of 36\n\n\n\n\n ROBERT T. DUNLAP\n Associate\n Robert is an experienced litigator whose practice focuses on complex, high-stakes disputes,\n including cross-border international investigations, litigation, and arbitration. He has extensive\n experience managing cases in pre-suit investigations, litigation, and arbitration.\n Clients value Robert for his absolute dedication to remaining focused on the creative solutions\n they need to succeed. He offers proven abilities in case analysis, management, and resolution \u2013\n including the quick identification of the optimal path to success with creative arguments, often\n under pressure, to offer the strongest potential to win or further the client\u2019s objectives.\n Prior to joining the Firm, Robert was a litigator at the law firm of Black Srebnick.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Defending a Czech software technology company and a Finnish entrepreneur in a trade-\n secrets litigation brought by a U.S. software provider. Successfully asserted antitrust\n counterclaim and obtained settlement.\n \u2022 Representing a South African technology services company in an international arbitration\n under ICDR Rules arising out of the purchase of defective products and fraudulent\n representations.\n \u2022 Representing a Taiwanese manufacturer in claims against a U.S. distributor for breach of\n contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.\n \u2022 Successfully defending a stockholder in a dispute regarding ownership of shares in a\n closely held spacecraft manufacturer. Obtained dismissal of the case and settlement.\n \u2022 Representing an inventor in a trade secrets misappropriation case against a global\n entertainment company.\n \u2022 Successfully representing leading U.S. manufacturer of aftermarket wheels in false\n advertising and unfair competition actions.\n \u2022 Assisted in defending the chair and former CEO of Marvel Entertainment in defamation\n action. Obtained summary judgment and dismissal of all of plaintiff\u2019s claims.\n \u2022 Representing a celebrity chef in the enforcement of foreign judgment actions.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Boston College Law School, J.D.; Clough Center Public Interest Law Scholar\n \u2022 Duke University, B.A., English\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: Florida, Massachusetts\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern District of Florida; District of Massachusetts\n CLERKSHIP\n \u2022 James Lawrence King, U.S. District Court: Southern District of Florida\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 30 of 36\n\n\n\n\n KATHARINE \u201cKATIE\u201d FRIEL\n Associate\n Katie represents numerous institutional and individual clients on a wide range of complex litigation\n matters involving commercial contracts, government investigations, consumer class actions,\n antitrust, and white-collar defense matters. Prior to joining the firm, Katie served as a Fellow in\n the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on voting rights and elections.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing a putative class of consumers in an antitrust lawsuit\n \u2022 Counseling clients in connection with SEC and DOJ investigations\n \u2022 Representing beverage company executives in a post-acquisition contractual dispute\n \u2022 Representing insurer responding to claims under representations and warranties policy\n issued in connection with a merger and acquisition transaction\n \u2022 Representing a pro bono client asserting violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth\n Amendment rights by a police officer\u2019s unlawful arrest and use of excessive force in\n connection with the ACLU\u2019s Justice Lab initiative\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Columbia Law School, J.D.; Hamilton Fellow\n \u2022 University of Virginia, B.A., Philosophy Distinguished Majors Program with highest\n honors; B.J. Diggs Award for Best Undergraduate Philosophy Thesis\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State court: New York\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 31 of 36\n\n\n\n\n MENDEL KONIKOV\n Associate\n Mendel is a litigator representing both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes commercial\n disputes in state and federal courts throughout the country. As a generalist, Mendel\u2019s practice\n encompasses a broad range of matters, including class actions, antitrust suits, consumer claims,\n and defamation, fraud and breach of contract litigation. Mendel has experience handling cases at\n every stage of the litigation process, from pleadings and motion practice through discovery,\n depositions, and trial preparation.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing putative class in Henry v. Brown University, an antitrust suit pending in the\n Northern District of Illinois in which the Court has approved a nine-figure settlement.\n \u2022 Representing cryptocurrency sponsor of a race team in a multi-million dollar\n defamation suit against NASCAR.\n \u2022 Representing Shark Tank alumni in a fraud and breach of contract action against acquirer.\n \u2022 Representing e-commerce retailer in a fraudulent inducement and breach of contract\n action against a 3PL.\n \u2022 Representing a putative class of consumers in a deceptive trade practices action against a\n leading mobile gaming platform.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, J.D., cum laude; Alexander Fellow\n \u2022 Rabbinical College of America, B.A., Talmudic Studies; Rabbinical Ordination\n ADMISSIONS:\n \u2022 States: New York; New Jersey\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 32 of 36\n\n\n\n\n JOSEPH LEMOINE\n Associate\n Joseph is a litigator focused on complex commercial litigation and arbitration. Trained in both the\n U.S. and France, Joseph offers clients a distinctive perspective shaped by a decade of international\n experience at the intersection of law, policy, and diplomacy.\n He has represented emerging technology companies, entrepreneurs, and investors navigating\n complex regulatory and litigation challenges, including disputes and issues involving antitrust,\n ownership and compensation, contract, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate governance. On\n the plaintiff side, Joseph focuses on antitrust class actions across various industries.\n Before joining FNF, Joseph served as senior director of the Atlantic Council\u2019s Freedom and\n Prosperity Center and was a private sector specialist at the World Bank, where he advised\n governments, development finance institutions, and global investors on business climate reform,\n regulatory governance, and rule of law initiatives across Africa and the Middle East. This\n experience informs his approach to representing clients facing complex regulatory environments\n and institutional challenges.\n Recognized for his expertise on legal and economic reform, Joseph has authored reports, academic\n works, and op-eds\u2014including in The Washington Post, Devex, and The National Interest\u2014and\n frequently speaks on issues of democracy and governance. He currently serves as vice-chair for\n programs of the International Investment and Development Committee of the American Bar\n Association and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Representing a putative class of consumers in an antitrust lawsuit.\n \u2022 Counseling clients in connection with ownership control and breach of fiduciary duties.\n \u2022 Representing insurer responding to claims under representations and warranties policy\n issued in connection with a merger and acquisition transaction.\n \u2022 Pro bono work with the Strategic Litigation Project, a not-for-profit organization that\n focuses preventing human rights violations, terrorism, atrocities, and corruption.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Georgetown Law, LL.M\n \u2022 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne University, Master 2\n \u2022 Sciences Po Grenoble, Master 2\n PUBLICATIONS\n \u2022 Why democracy is backsliding, faster and faster, The Washington Post, 9/9/25\n \u2022 Why the rule of law is the key to prosperity: Lessons from thirty years of data, Atlantic\n Council, 8/20/25\n \u2022 Attracting foreign direct investments: How economic freedom, strong institutions, and the\n rule of law make a difference, Atlantic Council, 315/24\n \u2022 Stifling the press is stifling progress. Here\u2019s how policymakers can intervene., New\n Atlanticist, 10/17/22\n \u2022 Complementary regulations to improve public procurement, in \u201cProcurement in Focus:\n Rules, Discretion, and Emergencies\u201d, CEPR Press, 2021\n \u2022 Worldwide Practices of Regulatory Impact Assessments, World Bank, 3/3/18\n \u2022 2025 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World, 2/6/25\n \u2022 2024 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World, 2/4/24\n 27\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 33 of 36\n\n\n\n\n PEKHAM PAL\n Associate\n Pekham is an experienced litigator whose practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and\n trial work in federal and state courts. She represents plaintiffs and defendants across a wide range\n of high stakes matters, including in commercial, insurance, intellectual property, employment,\n business tort, class action, and transnational disputes and internal investigations.\n Prior to joining FNF, Pekham served as an investigative analyst at the Manhattan District\n Attorney\u2019s Office where she assisted in grand jury proceedings, evidentiary hearings, and felony\n trials. For litigation, she is a \u201cBest Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America 2026.\u201d\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Secured $34M+ trade dress and patent infringement verdict for home furnishing company.\n \u2022 Achieved multimillion dollar settlement on eve of trial against int\u2019l sporting company for\n trademark and copyright infringement.\n \u2022 Brought claims against counterfeiter for false advertising, trademark infringement, and\n unfair competition on behalf of int\u2019l luxury furniture company.\n \u2022 Defended and prosecuted trade secrets, breach of fiduciary, and breach of contract claims.\n \u2022 Obtained dismissal breach of fiduciary duty claims, affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court,\n on behalf foreign company in going private transaction.\n \u2022 Mediated settlement in multimillion dollar dispute over controlling stake in food business.\n \u2022 Defended controlling shareholder of a TV network in vote dilution dispute.\n \u2022 Conducted an internal investigation and evaluated potential claims to support bankruptcy\n plan negotiations on behalf of the BOD of an int\u2019l investment and construction company.\n \u2022 Conducted internal investigations for leading int\u2019l banks and companies.\n \u2022 Defended nat\u2019l grocery distributor in multimillion dollar state tax enforcement action.\n \u2022 Represented foreign sovereign entities in breach of contract disputes in federal court.\n \u2022 Principal drafter of U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief re: extraterritorial application of\n federal securities law on behalf of nat\u2019l broker-dealer trade association.\n \u2022 Defended company in putative consumer class action of purchasers of beauty products.\n \u2022 Defended companies in employment discrimination claims.\n \u2022 Successful pro bono representation of Syrian refugees in UNHCR resettlement petition.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Fordham University School of Law, J.D., cum laude; Dean\u2019s List; Articles & Notes\n Editor, Fordham Law Review\n \u2022 Vassar College, B.A. in International Studies and Hispanic Studies\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, New Jersey\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; Eastern District of\n Texas\n \u2022 U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit\n PUBLICATIONS\n \u2022 History, Governmental Structure, and Politics: Defining the Scope of Local Board of\n Health Power, 84 Fordham Law Review 769 (2015)\n CLERKSHIPS\n \u2022 Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti U.S. District Court: Southern District of New York\n 28\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 34 of 36\n\n\n\n\n JOHN SUPER\n Associate\n John is a trial and appellate litigator with experience representing individuals and business entities\n in federal and state courts in high-stakes commercial disputes. He has represented plaintiffs and\n defendants in a broad range of matters, including contract disputes, joint venture disputes, post-\n arbitration actions, bankruptcy cases, and multi-jurisdictional disputes involving complex issues\n of foreign law.\n Before joining Freedman Normand Friedland, John clerked for the Honorable William J. Nardini,\n U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Honorable Michael P. Shea, U.S. District\n Court for the District of Connecticut. During law school, John represented individual and classes\n of military veterans in proceedings related to veterans\u2019 benefits and discharge upgrades. Before\n law school, John served in the U.S. Army as a military intelligence officer and worked as a\n contractor for the U.S. Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented a defendant bond insurer in a civil RICO and fraud action arising out of public-\n private partnerships for multi-hundred-million-dollar family housing development\n projects.\n \u2022 Represented a business entity in post-arbitration proceedings and related\n multijurisdictional actions arising out of an international dispute regarding the control of a\n joint venture.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 Yale Law School, J.D.; Editor, Yale Law and Policy Review\n \u2022 Yale University, M.A., International Relations\n \u2022 University of Connecticut, B.A. International Relations\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State courts: New York, Connecticut; Massachusetts\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: Connecticut; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York\n CLERKSHIP\n \u2022 Hon. William J. Nardini, U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit\n \u2022 Hon. Michael P. Shea, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 35 of 36\n\n\n\n\n NIRAJ THAKKER\n Associate\n Niraj is an experienced litigator whose practice focuses on complex commercial litigation. He\n represents plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts in connection with a wide range of subject\n matters.\n Prior to joining the firm, Niraj clerked in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida\n and practiced patent litigation and patent prosecution at another leading law firm.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Defending various class action claims pending before both federal courts and arbitration\n panels\n \u2022 Prosecuting securities class actions against publicly traded companies and cryptocurrency\n issuers\n \u2022 Representing major companies in enforcing their patent rights at the International Trade\n Commission\n \u2022 Pro bono representation of a minor immigrant seeking asylum\n \u2022 Pro bono representation of a defendant in a criminal case\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 University of Florida Levin College of Law, J.D., magna cum laude; Order of Coif;\n Executive Notes and Comments Editor, Florida Law Review; Book Awards in Patent Law,\n Intellectual Property Litigation, and Patent Prosecution\n\n \u2022 Florida State University, B.S., Mechanical Engineering\n PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS\n \u2022 Niraj H. Thakker, Undue Burden With a Bite: Shielding Reproductive Rights From the\n Jaws of Politics, 28 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol\u2019y 431 (2017)\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State court: Florida\n CLERKSHIP\n \u2022 Hon. Mark E. Walker, U.S. District Court: Northern District of Florida\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 38-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2026 Page 36 of 36\n\n\n\n\n PATRICK WOODS\n Associate\n Patrick is an associate in FNF\u2019s New York office, where he focuses on complex commercial,\n antitrust, appellate, bankruptcy, and transnational litigation.\n His work has involved disputes in federal and state courts across the country, including high-stakes\n restructuring disputes, merits briefing in a case before the Supreme Court, and substantial\n advocacy in the federal courts of appeals. He has successfully represented both plaintiffs and\n defendants and contributed to major victories across multiple jurisdictions.\n Prior to joining FNF, Patrick worked at other leading law firms and had the privilege of clerking\n for the Honorable Amalya Lyle Kearse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n RECENT EXPERIENCE\n \u2022 Represented lenders excluded from a novel refinancing transaction in the corporate debt\n market, securing reversal of bankruptcy court\u2019s judgment on core contract issue before the\n Fifth Circuit.\n \u2022 Represented putative class of individuals in antitrust action against one of the largest\n healthcare systems in the country arising from restrictive contracts with commercial\n insurers.\n \u2022 Represented clean-energy entrepreneur in litigation and arbitration arising from dispute\n with foreign sovereign and major energy company concerning termination of contracts and\n seizure of property.\n \u2022 Represented investment fund as plaintiff in various litigations and out-of-court foreclosures\n under the Uniform Commercial Code resulting from defaults under loan agreements\n secured by equity interests, real estate, and fine art, among other collateral.\n EDUCATION\n \u2022 University of Chicago Law School, J.D., with honors; Managing Editor, University of\n Chicago Law Review\n \u2022 Columbia University, B.A., magna cum laude, East Asian Languages and Cultures; Phi\n Beta Kappa\n ADMISSIONS\n \u2022 State court: New York\n \u2022 U.S. District Courts: District of Columbia, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York,\n Eastern District of Wisconsin\n \u2022 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-29T06:07:49.286635-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281007","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. F FNF Firm Resume","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491830649/","id":491830649,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/38/7/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.799154-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:07:15.799170-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":110153,"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":"38","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"051030281008","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T16:02:27.770446-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-29T06:06:49.861958-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"18:38:29","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":127,"description":"MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Aron Reynolds And Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel and Memorandum of Law in Support by Aron Reynolds. Attorney Devin Freedman added to party Aron Reynolds(pty:pla). Responses due by 9/11/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A PSLRA Certification, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B Loss Charts, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D PSLRA Notice, # 5 Exhibit Ex. E G&E Firm Resume, # 6 Exhibit Ex. F FNF Firm Resume, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Freedman, Devin) (Entered: 08/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473948609/","id":473948609,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489433631/","id":489433631,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/37/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-10T18:49:22.874832-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T10:51:59.691653-07:00","sha1":"e4a47218843283e9cf313e70696a93b75af7c201","page_count":16,"file_size":340268,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of\n all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n vs. Case No. 1:26-CV-24485-RKA\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n MOTION TO TRANSFER\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1\n\n ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2\n I. THE \u201cFIRST-TO-FILE\u201d RULE FAVORS TRANSFER ....................................................2\n\n A. All Three Factors Under the First-to-File Rule Are Satisfied..................................2\n 1. There Is No Categorical Temporal Overlap Requirement ...........................3\n\n 2. In Any Event, the Genius Action Remains Pending ....................................6\n\n 3. The Two Actions Are Almost Identical .......................................................7\n\n B. No Compelling Circumstances Weigh Against Transfer.........................................7\n II. TRANSFER IS FURTHER APPROPRIATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) .....................8\n\n A. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Southern District of New\n York .........................................................................................................................8\n\n B. Balancing Factors Also Supports Transfer ..............................................................8\n 1. Factors 1\u20134 and 9 Weigh in Favor of Transfer ............................................9\n\n 2. Factors 5\u20138 Do Not Weigh Against Transfer ............................................10\n\n CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................11\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\n Cases\n\n Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc.,\n 2022 WL 2355541 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022) ..................................................................... 4, 10\n\n Ambient Healthcare, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co.,\n 2012 WL 12864330 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2012) ......................................................................... 5\n\n Century Sur. Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp.,\n 2018 WL 4804656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) ......................................................................... 6\n\n Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.,\n 713 F.3d 71 (11th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 3\n\n Elliott v. Williams,\n 549 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ..................................................................................... 3\n\n Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc.,\n 253 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ..................................................................................... 9\n\n Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG,\n 358 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (N.D. Ala. 2018) .................................................................................... 7\n\n Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cynamid Co.,\n 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1953)...................................................................................................... 6\n\n IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co.,\n 2026 WL 860531 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026) ..................................................................... 1, 3, 4\n\n ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin.\n AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 6\n\n Johnson Chem. Co. v. Home Care Prods., Inc.,\n 823 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1987)........................................................................................................ 6\n\n Kelly v. Philip Morris Int\u2019l Inc.,\n 2024 WL 5057622 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2024) ........................................................................... 5\n\n Lexington Ins. Co. v. Proformance Plastering of Pensacola, Inc.,\n 2013 WL 12155502 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2013) .......................................................................... 9\n\n Manuel v. Convergys Corp.,\n 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 3, 8\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Lab\u2019ys,\n 146 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ................................................................................... 10\n\n Palm v. Taurus Int\u2019l Mfg., Inc.,\n 2022 WL 18776091 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2022) ....................................................................... 10\n\n Poparic v. Jugo Shop,\n 2010 WL 1260598 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010) .......................................................................... 6\n\n Rojas v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,\n 2019 WL 6324616 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2019)....................................................................... 4, 5\n\n SEC v. Walker,\n 2021 WL 5088853 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021)........................................................................... 9\n\n Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia,\n 2025 WL 475972 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2025) .............................................................................. 9\n\n Swaso v. Noem,\n 2026 WL 788146 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026) ............................................................................ 5\n\n Tuuci Worldwide, LLC v. S. Frankford & Sons, Inc.,\n 2023 WL 5275187 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023)..................................................................... 9, 10\n\n Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc.,\n 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................... 6\n\n Warner v. Tinder, Inc.,\n 675 F. App\u2019x 945 (11th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 3\n\n Zampa v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,\n 2019 WL 1777730 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) ........................................................................... 7\n\n Statutes\n\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) .................................................................................................................... 2, 8\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Defendants\u2019 motion asks that this action be transferred to the Southern District of New\n\n York, which already ruled that Plaintiff\u2019s counsel could not be lead counsel and could not reopen\n\n the lead plaintiff process in a nearly identical putative class action. That court warned against\n\n \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s counsel picking exactly who gets to sue, via iterative Lead Plaintiff processes\u201d and that\n\n it would set a \u201cdangerous precedent\u201d if Plaintiff\u2019s counsel could \u201cproceed fresh with its second\n\n favorite candidate\u201d after the court rejected its first lead plaintiff applicant. Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1\n\n (Order by J. Caproni) (ECF 9-1). Yet this is precisely what Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has done here.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s opposition does not discuss counsel\u2019s conduct or acknowledge these aspects of Judge\n\n Caproni\u2019s Order. Instead, Plaintiff\u2019s principal argument is that this case cannot be transferred\n\n because the Genius Action was purportedly dismissed hours before Plaintiff commenced this\n\n action. This is wrong as a matter of law and fact. Indeed, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s conduct is the type\n\n of forum shopping the first-to-file rule exists to prevent. None of Plaintiff\u2019s arguments to the\n\n contrary have merit.\n\n First, the first-to-file rule does not impose rigid requirements\u2014it is a court-made doctrine\n\n to guide courts\u2019 discretion in adjudicating transfer motions. Courts have repeatedly held that \u201cthe\n\n dismissal of the first-filed action does not preclude a court from using its discretion to apply the\n\n first-filed rule.\u201d IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co., 2026 WL 860531, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar.\n\n 30, 2026) (emphasis added) (collecting cases). Plaintiff\u2019s distinction is entirely arbitrary. It makes\n\n no difference whether this case was filed just before or just after the purported dismissal of the\n\n first-filed case. Second, the Genius Action remains pending in any event. Plaintiff ignores that\n\n Judge Caproni directed the clerk \u201cnot to close [the] case until further notice.\u201d Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex.\n\n 22 (ECF 9-22). Plaintiff cannot unilaterally overrule this order. Third, Plaintiff does not\n\n meaningfully attempt to otherwise differentiate this action from Genius, nor can he. All three\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\n factors of the first-to-file rule are satisfied here\u2014this action was filed after Genius, the putative\n\n classes are sufficiently similar, and the nearly identical complaint, filed by the same lawyers,\n\n asserts the exact same claims.\n\n To resist transfer, Plaintiff repeatedly casts Judge Caproni\u2019s lead plaintiff decision as a\n\n \u201cnarrow\u201d and \u201cplaintiff-specific\u201d order. But in denying Genius\u2019s lead plaintiff motion, Judge\n\n Caproni also ruled that Plaintiff\u2019s counsel could not serve as lead counsel\u2014something Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n opposition brief omits\u2014and warned that permitting counsel to \u201cproceed fresh with its second\n\n favorite candidate\u201d would set a \u201cdangerous precedent.\u201d Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1 (the Court could not\n\n \u201cjustify needlessly providing Genius\u2019s three law firms with multiple bites at th[e] apple\u201d).\n\n Moreover, Judge Caproni decided that no other putative class members, including Plaintiff, could\n\n seek lead plaintiff status because the deadline had expired and all putative class members had been\n\n given adequate notice in accordance with the PSLRA. Id. Judge Caproni\u2019s Order also analyzed\n\n statute of limitations and reliance defenses that will be central to any motion to dismiss. Id. Both\n\n judicial economy and comity support transfer to the Southern District of New York.\n\n Transfer is further warranted under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a). In his opposition brief, Plaintiff\n\n incorrectly balances the relevant factors and ignores that a named plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum is\n\n entitled to considerably less deference in a putative class action. Meanwhile, Defendants have\n\n provided ample support for why the Southern District of New York is a more convenient forum.\n\n Importantly, the interests of justice support transfer to prevent Plaintiff and his counsel from\n\n circumventing Judge Caproni\u2019s order through forum shopping and gamesmanship.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. THE \u201cFIRST-TO-FILE\u201d RULE FAVORS TRANSFER\n\n A. All Three Factors Under the First-to-File Rule Are Satisfied\n\n All three factors considered under the first-to-file rule support transfer of this action to the\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Southern District of New York: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the\n\n parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues. Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 9-10. The opposition offers no\n\n meaningful response to Defendants\u2019 arguments as to factors (2) and (3). Instead, Plaintiff\n\n introduces a manufactured temporal overlap requirement for factor (1) to argue that the chronology\n\n of the two actions at issue here categorically precludes transfer. Plaintiff\u2019s argument is wrong.\n\n 1. There Is No Categorical Temporal Overlap Requirement\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s principal argument is that the first-to-file rule applies only when the two actions\n\n were, at some point in time, no matter how fleeting, \u201csimultaneously pending in different federal\n\n courts.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition (\u201cPl.\u2019s Opp.\u201d) at 3 (ECF 35). That is not the law. As this Court\n\n has explained, the first-to-file rule \u201cis grounded in principles of comity and sound judicial\n\n administration\u201d and serves \u201cto prevent the needless expenditure of judicial resources and to avoid\n\n conflicting rulings.\u201d Elliott v. Williams, 549 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (Altman, J.)\n\n (citation and quotation omitted). The application of the rule is a \u201cmatter [] of discretion for the\n\n trial court.\u201d Id. at 1340 (citation and quotation omitted). Courts have therefore routinely held that\n\n \u201cthe dismissal of the first-filed action does not preclude a court from using its discretion to apply\n\n the first-filed rule.\u201d IoT, 2026 WL 860531, at *3; see also Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 11.\n\n To argue the contrary, Plaintiff relies on cases that reference \u201cpending\u201d actions in passing\n\n or in dicta. None held that the two actions must be pending at the same time. Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 3-4.\n\n In Manuel v. Convergys Corp.\n\n , the court did not address transfer under the first-to-file rule but instead considered whether the\n\n district court was required to dismiss a declaratory judgment action due to its anticipatory nature.\n\n 430 F.3d 1132, 1135-38 (11th Cir. 2005); see Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of\n\n Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir. 2013)\n\n (not involving transfer and deciding whether court could enjoin appellant\u2019s intervention in\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\n another court). In Warner v. Tinder, Inc.\n\n , the court, in a footnote, expressed skepticism about whether the district court was right to dismiss\n\n (not transfer) the case under the first-to-file rule where the first action was voluntarily dismissed,\n\n but explicitly noted that \u201cwe do not decide the issue\u201d of the rule\u2019s applicability and remanded on\n\n other grounds. 675 F. App\u2019x 945, 947 n.2 (11th Cir. 2017). Subsequent courts have rejected\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s argument because \u201cno binding authority hold[s] that dismissal of the earlier filed action\n\n precludes a finding that any of the three factors necessary for the application of the first-filed rule\n\n exist.\u201d Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc., 2022 WL 2355541, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022), report and rec.\n\n adopted, 2022 WL 3370932 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2022).\n\n Plaintiff attempts to reconcile his categorical rule with precedent transferring cases\n\n notwithstanding that the first-filed case was already dismissed by singling out the fact that in the\n\n cases Defendants cite, the dismissal of the first action happened after the second action had been\n\n filed. Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 5-6. But it makes no difference whether the second action was filed just before\n\n or, as here, just a few hours after Plaintiff\u2019s counsel sought dismissal of the first-filed\n\n case. Defendants\u2019 cases did not discuss the timing of dismissal in their reasoning. Abreu, 2022\n\n WL 2355541, at *23 (\u201cDespite the fact that both earlier-filed Southern District of New York cases\n\n have been dismissed, Defendant has still established the three elements necessary to invoke the\n\n first-filed rule\u2019s application.\u201d); IoT, 2026 WL 860531, at *4 (same). Plaintiff\u2019s distinction is\n\n entirely arbitrary and, if adopted, would amount to the exact kind of \u201crigid or inflexible\n\n application\u201d of the first-to-file rule courts have rejected as not serving the interests of justice. IoT,\n\n 2026 WL 860531, at *3. Indeed, courts both in and out of this District have transferred cases when\n\n the first-filed case was dismissed before the second action was filed. See, e.g., Rojas v. Am. Honda\n\n Motor Co., 2019 WL 6324616, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2019)\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\n (ordering transfer where \u201cPlaintiff and his attorneys [] filed this very similar action in this district\n\n after [another] district court dismissed a virtually identical [] claim\u201d) (emphasis added); Swaso v.\n\n Noem, 2026 WL 788146, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026) (applying first-to-file rule because\n\n \u201cjudicial economy would clearly not be served if this Court duplicated [] efforts\u201d and transfer\n\n would \u201ccompletely eliminate[] the risk of any inconsistent rulings or reasoning between the two\n\n courts\u201d).\n\n The opposition also cites cases where the court denied transfer to the forum where the first-\n\n filed action had been dismissed before the second action was filed. In those cases, however, the\n\n parties never litigated any issues before the first-filed court, nor did the court issue any\n\n decisions. See Ambient Healthcare, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 2012 WL 12864330, at *4 (S.D.\n\n Fla. Dec. 12, 2012) (\u201cthe [first-filed] case was [n]ever served [and] was never litigated\u201d); Kelly v.\n\n Philip Morris Int\u2019l Inc., 2024 WL 5057622, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2024) (plaintiff dismissed the\n\n first action \u201cless than two months after it was filed\u201d and only motion filed was unopposed motion\n\n for extension to respond to the complaint). Here, by contrast, the parties submitted extensive\n\n briefing on lead plaintiff appointment and reopening the lead plaintiff process, and Judge Caproni\n\n issued a detailed opinion explaining why Genius could not serve as lead plaintiff, why Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n counsel could not serve as lead counsel, and why other putative class members, including Plaintiff,\n\n could not seek lead plaintiff status. Unlike Plaintiff\u2019s cases, the transfer motion here seeks to\n\n prevent Plaintiff from circumventing an adverse order in the first-filed forum.\n\n Moreover, unlike in Kelly, where the court \u201clack[ed] sufficient evidence\u201d of \u201cforum\n\n shopping,\u201d 2024 WL 5057622, at *2, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s conduct here leaves no doubt of their\n\n gamesmanship. Instead of adhering to Judge Caproni\u2019s order that the case proceed as an individual\n\n action, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel attempted to dismiss the Genius Action on June 29, 2026\u2014two days\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\n before its amended complaint was due\u2014only to file this action on the very same day. See Defs.\u2019\n\n Mot. at Ex. 15 (ECF 9-15). Not applying the first-to-file rule here would \u201creward Plaintiff for the\n\n very type of forum shopping\u201d the rule is intended to prevent. Rojas, 2019 WL 6324616, at *3.\n\n 2. In Any Event, the Genius Action Remains Pending\n\n Even if a temporal overlap were required (which it is not), that requirement is satisfied here\n\n because the Genius Action remains pending. The day after Plaintiff\u2019s counsel sought to dismiss\n\n the Genius Action, Judge Caproni issued an order stating that \u201c[t]he Clerk of Court is respectfully\n\n directed not to close this case until further notice.\u201d See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 22 (ECF 9-22). In his\n\n opposition, Plaintiff argues the dismissal was \u201cself-executing\u201d under Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n 41(a)(1)(A)(i)\u2014implying that Judge Caproni\u2019s order is void\u2014and cites Eleventh Circuit precedent\n\n that disagrees with Second Circuit precedent. Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 4-6. But Second Circuit law controls\n\n the purported dismissal of the Genius Action and provides that voluntary dismissal is subject to\n\n judicial discretion. See Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cynamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir.\n\n 1953). Plaintiff notes that Harvey Aluminum is old, but does not dispute that modern courts\n\n continue to apply it to deny attempted dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1).1 Plaintiff quarrels with the\n\n application of that rule here, but this is not the appropriate forum to litigate the validity of Judge\n\n Caproni\u2019s Order. None of the authorities Plaintiff cites suggests that he may unilaterally overrule\n\n a federal judge.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Plaintiff suggests in a footnote that the Second Circuit overruled Harvey. See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 6\n n.1. But courts have been clear that \u201c[t]he Second Circuit did not overrule Harvey\u201d and continue\n to apply it today. Poparic v. Jugo Shop, 2010 WL 1260598, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010); see\n also Century Sur. Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp., 2018 WL 4804656, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)\n (\u201c[T]here may be a point in legal proceedings where the purpose of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) would be\n better served by abandoning a literal interpretation.\u201d) (citation omitted). The cases Plaintiff cites\n either did not reach the issue or distinguished Harvey. ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG,\n 688 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2012) (declining to \u201creach[] the question whether Harvey Aluminum\n remains good law\u201d); Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc., 769 F.2d 109, 114 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985) (same);\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 3. The Two Actions Are Almost Identical\n\n The opposition offers no meaningful argument as to the other two factors\u2014similarity of\n\n the parties and the issues. Rather than engage with Defendants\u2019 cases, Plaintiff relies on a single\n\n district court decision that concerned very different circumstances. In Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG\n\n , only two defendants overlapped, as the first-filed class action sued \u201csix other defendants\u201d and the\n\n second-filed action was an individual action. 358 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1285 (N.D. Ala. 2018). The\n\n second-filed action also \u201cassert[ed] seven claims under Alabama law that are distinct from the\n\n New York action.\u201d Id. at 1289. The court thus held that \u201cthe parties and issues do not sufficiently\n\n overlap to justify [] application [of the first-to-file rule].\u201d Id.\n\n Here, by contrast, both the Genius Action and the instant action are litigated by the same\n\n three law firms as putative class actions on behalf of substantively similar classes of Genius\n\n investors, both of which include Plaintiff Reynolds. The complaints are nearly identical and assert\n\n the exact same claims against the exact same Defendants arising out of the exact same 1,395,712\n\n supposed \u201cspoofing events.\u201d See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 8. Plaintiff cites no authority to suggest that this\n\n Court should compare the instant action with the Genius Action as narrowed by Judge Caproni\u2019s\n\n order, instead of the action initially filed. Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 8. The fact that the first action was\n\n modified after adverse rulings to Genius and Plaintiff\u2019s counsel only further supports transfer. See\n\n Zampa v. JUUL Labs, Inc., 2019 WL 1777730, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) (\u201c[T]he advanced\n\n procedural posture of the [first-filed] action as compared to this case\u201d justified transfer).\n\n B. No Compelling Circumstances Weigh Against Transfer\n\n Because all three factors of the first-to-file rule are satisfied, Plaintiff must prove\n\n\n\n\n Johnson Chem. Co. v. Home Care Prods., Inc., 823 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 1987) (distinguishing\n Harvey).\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\n \u201ccompelling circumstances\u201d to warrant an exception. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 14. The opposition\n\n conjures nonexistent circumstances by mischaracterizing Judge Caproni\u2019s Order and Defendants\u2019\n\n motion. Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 8-9. Plaintiff asserts repeatedly that \u201cthe SDNY Order concluded only that\n\n Genius could not serve as lead plaintiff\u201d and \u201cdid not adjudicate the merits of the putative class\n\n claims or the rights of absent class members.\u201d Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 8. But Judge Caproni squarely\n\n adjudicated the \u201crights of absent class members\u201d when she held that absent class members,\n\n including Plaintiff here, could not seek appointment as lead plaintiff after they were given adequate\n\n notice under the PSLRA. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1. Judge Caproni also denied Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s\n\n request to reopen the lead plaintiff process because permitting Plaintiff\u2019s counsel to \u201cproceed fresh\n\n with its second favorite candidate\u201d would set a \u201cdangerous precedent\u201d contravening the purpose\n\n of the PSLRA. Id. Plaintiff chose to ignore these aspects of Judge Caproni\u2019s Order\u2014in fact, the\n\n opposition does not quote the Order once. Defendants do not seek a \u201cglobal injunction.\u201d They\n\n seek only to transfer this nearly identical case back to the Southern District of New York. If\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel disagrees with Judge Caproni\u2019s Order, the place to challenge that ruling was in\n\n that proceeding, not through a new action in another forum.\n\n II. TRANSFER IS FURTHER APPROPRIATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a)\n\n A. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Southern District of New York\n\n Plaintiff does not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Southern District\n\n of New York. The first step of the Section 1404(a) analysis is satisfied. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 15.\n\n B. Balancing Factors Also Supports Transfer\n\n The nine-factor balancing analysis under Section 1404(a) also supports transfer: \u201c(1) the\n\n convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access\n\n to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the\n\n availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n the parties; (7) a forum\u2019s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff\u2019s\n\n choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice.\u201d See Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135\n\n n.1. None of Plaintiff\u2019s arguments to the contrary have merit.\n\n 1. Factors 1\u20134 and 9 Weigh in Favor of Transfer\n\n Plaintiff does not dispute that both Defendants maintain a significant presence in New\n\n York. Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 4. Moreover, while Citadel Securities is headquartered in this District, Virtu\n\n is headquartered in New York, and all relevant parties\u2014Plaintiff, other members of the putative\n\n class, and Defendants\u2014transacted in shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Genius\n\n itself, likely the most relevant third party, maintains offices in the Southern District of New York.\n\n See Genius Compl. \u00b6 12. Plaintiff\u2019s attempt to forum shop by shifting the locus of operative facts\n\n away from New York simply fails. Plaintiff speculates that the activities relevant to his claims\n\n \u201cwere not confined to New York\u201d but does not identify any activities that occurred anywhere else,\n\n much less here. 2 And while Plaintiff accuses Defendants of making \u201cconclusory\u201d arguments\n\n regarding the convenience of witnesses, Plaintiff identifies no witnesses located in Florida other\n\n than Plaintiff himself, who has not been appointed lead plaintiff and is thus no differently situated\n\n than any other putative class member spread across the country.3\n\n Trial efficiency and the interests of justice similarly favor transfer. Plaintiff\u2019s assertion\n\n\n 2\n Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on trademark infringement and defamation cases fares no better. See Tuuci\n Worldwide, LLC v. S. Frankford & Sons, Inc., 2023 WL 5275187, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023)\n (\u201cIn trademark infringement cases, the locus of operative facts is often the headquarters of the\n allegedly infringing activity, where design and development took place.\u201d); SEC v. Walker, 2021\n WL 5088853, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021) (same); Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d\n 1149, 1165-66 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (\u201cno single locus\u201d in defamation case where article was published\n in New York but accessed in Florida).\n 3\n Plaintiff points out that all parties are represented by Florida counsel, but \u201cthe convenience to\n counsel is a non-factor.\u201d Lexington Ins. Co. v. Proformance Plastering of Pensacola, Inc., 2013\n WL 12155502, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2013); see also Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of\n Colombia, 2025 WL 475972, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2025) (\u201c[T]he convenience of counsel is not\n relevant to the issue of transferring venue.\u201d).\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\n that \u201cno prior judicial investment in the merits would be lost\u201d if transfer were not granted is false.\n\n Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 11. Judge Caproni\u2019s Order delved into the claims and identified weaknesses in the\n\n Genius plaintiff\u2019s allegations that Plaintiff and his counsel reasserted in this cut-and-paste lawsuit.\n\n It does not make sense for this Court to retread that ground. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that transfer\n\n would deprive investors of a \u201cmeaningful opportunity to seek redress through securities class\n\n actions.\u201d Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 12. But all putative class members in the Genius Action, including Plaintiff,\n\n were afforded that opportunity in accordance with the PSLRA. Plaintiff\u2019s purported justification\n\n for maintaining this case in this forum demonstrates exactly how he and his counsel have engaged\n\n in forum shopping to obtain \u201cmultiple bites at th[e] apple.\u201d See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1.\n\n 2. Factors 5\u20138 Do Not Weigh Against Transfer\n\n The remaining factors are at most neutral. Plaintiff does not dispute that there are no\n\n unwilling non-party witnesses who could be compelled to testify in Florida but not in New York.\n\n See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 16-17. Nor does Plaintiff dispute that the \u201crelative means of the parties\u201d is\n\n irrelevant. Id. at 17. Moreover, while the Court\u2019s familiarity with the governing law does not\n\n weigh strongly in favor of either forum, Judge Caproni has already addressed key issues that will\n\n be relevant at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 16.\n\n Finally, while Plaintiff contends that his choice of forum is entitled to \u201cdeference,\u201d he\n\n alleges merely that he is a \u201cFlorida resident,\u201d Compl. \u00b6 8, and omits that he resides in Collier\n\n County\u2014outside of this district. Civil Cover Sheet (ECF 1-3). \u201c[W]here a plaintiff has chosen a\n\n forum that is not its home forum, only minimal deference is required.\u201d Palm v. Taurus Int\u2019l Mfg.,\n\n Inc., 2022 WL 18776091, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2022)\n\n . Moreover, little deference is afforded plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum in a putative class action, and\n\n even less where, as here, the forum \u201cis the result of forum shopping.\u201d Abreu, 2022 WL 2355541,\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\n at *12 (citation and quotation omitted).4\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in Defendants\u2019 motion, the Court should\n\n transfer this action to the Southern District of New York.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n Tellingly, Plaintiff\u2019s cases involved individual actions. See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 9-10; Tuuci, 2023 WL\n 5275187, at *1; Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Lab\u2019ys, 146 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1360 (S.D.\n Fla. 2001).\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Dated: August 10, 2026\n\n MARCUS RASHBAUM PINIERO & MEYERS LLP\n\n /s/ Daniel Rashbaum\n Daniel Rashbaum\n One Biscayne Tower\n 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2530\n Miami, FL 33131\n Tel: (305) 400-4260\n drashbaum@mrpfirm.com\n\n Attorney for Citadel Securities LLC and\n Virtu Americas LLC\n\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n\n Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice)\n Meredith Karp (pro hac vice)\n Jacob Lundqvist (pro hac vice)\n 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Tel: (212) 455-2000\n jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n meredith.karp@stblaw.com\n jacob.lundqvist@stblaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n GARRISON LLP\n\n Andrew G. Gordon (pro hac vice)\n Audra J. Soloway (pro hac vice)\n Alison R. Benedon (pro hac vice)\n Daniel S. Sinnreich (pro hac vice)\n Daniel Negless (pro hac vice)\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: (212) 373-3000\n agordon@paulweiss.com\n asoloway@paulweiss.com\n abenedon@paulweiss.com\n dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n dnegless@paulweiss.com\n\n Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-11T04:53:12.833096-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030195283","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T18:49:22.855630-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T18:49:22.860727-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"21:02:07","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":124,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473279494/","id":473279494,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488741182/","id":488741182,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/36/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.540762-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.540789-07:00","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":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.510983-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.521717-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"PAPERLESS ORDER granting 34 Unopposed Motion to Stay (the \u201cMotion\u201d). The Defendants ask that we stay their \u201cdeadline to respond to the Complaint until the motion to transfer is resolved.\u201d Motion at 2. The Plaintiff \u201cdoes not oppose the request and [ ] would similarly benefit from knowing where the case will be litigated and which jurisdiction\u2019s law will apply before briefing a motion to dismiss.\u201d Ibid. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER that this case is administratively CLOSED and STAYED without prejudice to the parties to brief the pending Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 9]. All pending deadlines unrelated to the Motion to Transfer are TERMINATED. We\u2019ll order the parties to file a joint scheduling report after we resolve the Motion to Transfer, if we don\u2019t transfer the case. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 8/4/2026. (pbe) (Entered: 08/04/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473149501/","id":473149501,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488607762/","id":488607762,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-04T06:27:11.110047-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T06:27:11.110061-07:00","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":"Order on Motion to Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-04T06:27:11.100173-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T06:27:11.100185-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-04","time_filed":"09:12:31","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473128474/","id":473128474,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488585431/","id":488585431,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/35/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-03T19:19:04.553191-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T14:31:40.573034-07:00","sha1":"d6a3f98a8d7368b7bd5ab16e862a2a7746db112e","page_count":17,"file_size":252741,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.35.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.35.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individual and on Case No. 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO TRANSFER\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1\n\n ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3\n\n I. THE FIRST-FILED RULE DOES NOT SUPPORT TRANSFER .................................... 3\n\n A. The First-Filed Rule Does Not Apply Because There Were Never Two\n Simultaneously Pending Actions ............................................................................ 3\n\n B. Even If the First-Filed Rule Applied, the Actions Are Not Sufficiently Similar to\n Warrant Transfer ..................................................................................................... 7\n\n II. TRANSFER IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404 .................................... 9\n\n CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 12\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\n Cases\n\n Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc.\n 2022 WL 2355541 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022) ............................................................................6\n\n Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine,\n 998 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................4, 5\n\n Ambient Healthcare, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co.\n 2012 WL 12864330 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2012) ..........................................................................4\n\n Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. CoreRx, Inc.,\n 2022 WL 2306860 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2022) ............................................................................5\n\n Baksh v. Captain,\n 2000 WL 33177209 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2000) .........................................................................6\n\n Century Sur. Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp.\n 2018 WL 4804656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) ..........................................................................7\n\n Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.,\n 713 F.3d 71 (11th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................3\n\n Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United States,\n 279 F. Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) ............................................................................................6\n\n Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc.,\n 253 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................11\n\n Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG,\n 358 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (N.D. Ala. 2018) ...........................................................................7, 8, 12\n\n Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.\n 203 F.2d 105, (2d Cir. 1953)......................................................................................................6\n\n IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co.\n 2026 WL 860531 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026) ..............................................................................6\n\n ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG,\n 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012).........................................................................................................6\n\n Johnson Chem. Co. v. Home Care Prods., Inc.,\n 823 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1987).........................................................................................................6\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Kelly v. Philip Morris Int\u2019l Inc.\n 2024 WL 5057622 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2024) ............................................................................4\n\n LFR Collections LLC v. Taylor,\n 2011 WL 4736360 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2011) ...........................................................................12\n\n Manuel v. Convergys Corp.,\n 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................3\n\n Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Lab\u2019ys,\n 146 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ....................................................................................10\n\n Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,\n 506 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1975) .....................................................................................................6\n\n PJI Rest. LLC v. Papa Joes of Islamorada, LLC,\n 2025 WL 2735423 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2025) .............................................................................5\n\n SEC v. Cheetah X Inc.,\n 2026 WL 1067017 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2026) ..........................................................................12\n\n SEC v. Walker,\n 2021 WL 5088853 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021)..........................................................................11\n\n Tuuci Worldwide, LLC v. S. Frankford & Sons, Inc.,\n 2023 WL 5275187 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023)................................................................9, 10, 11\n\n Warner v. Tinder, Inc.,\n 675 F. App\u2019x 945 (11th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................4\n\n Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,\n 2013 WL 358385 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2013) .............................................................................10\n\n Statutes\n\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) ............................................................................................................... passim\n\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b) .......................................................................................................................10\n\n Other Authorities\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 ....................................................................................... passim\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in\n\n opposition to the motion to transfer this action to the Southern District of New York (ECF No. 9)\n\n (the \u201cMotion\u201d) filed by Defendants Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC\n\n (\u201cVirtu\u201d and together with Citadel, the \u201cDefendants\u201d).\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Defendants seek far more than a routine transfer of venue. They ask this Court to transfer\n\n this action to the Southern District of New York\u2014and specifically to Judge Valerie E. Caproni\u2014\n\n based on a narrow, plaintiff-specific order concerning lead plaintiff selection under the Private\n\n Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) in a separate action brought by a different plaintiff.\n\n That action, however, was voluntarily dismissed before Plaintiff commenced this action.\n\n Defendants nevertheless seek to transform that limited, pre-merits procedural ruling into a\n\n sweeping mandate requiring every other investor asserting similar claims against Defendants to\n\n proceed before Judge Caproni. Neither the first-filed rule nor 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) supports that\n\n extraordinary result.\n\n In Genius Group Limited v. Citadel Securities LLC, No. 1:25-cv-9546 (S.D.N.Y.) (the\n\n \u201cSDNY Action\u201d), Judge Caproni concluded that plaintiff Genius Group Limited (\u201cGenius\u201d) could\n\n not serve as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA, declined to reopen the PSLRA lead plaintiff\n\n appointment process after no other investor sought appointment during the statutory notice period,\n\n and left Genius to pursue only its individual claims. See SDNY Action, ECF No. 40 (the \u201cSDNY\n\n Order\u201d). Those were the only issues decided by the SDNY Order, which addressed only Genius\u2019\n\n ability to serve as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. It did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying\n\n market manipulation claims or purport to determine the rights of absent class members.\n\n Defendants\u2019 Motion repeatedly mischaracterizes the legal effect of that narrow ruling on\n\n Genius\u2019 ability to serve as lead plaintiff. The SDNY Order neither precluded another investor\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\n from commencing a separate securities class action nor extinguished the independent rights of\n\n absent class members to do so in a proper forum. After the SDNY Order was issued, Genius\n\n voluntarily dismissed the SDNY Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)\n\n before any adjudication on the merits. Plaintiff, a different investor and putative class member,\n\n thereafter commenced this separate securities class action on behalf of a broader proposed class of\n\n purchasers and sellers of Genius stock.\n\n Defendants\u2019 Motion fails for several independent reasons. First, the first-filed rule does\n\n not apply because there were never two simultaneously pending federal actions. Before Plaintiff\n\n commenced this action, the SDNY Action had already been voluntarily dismissed by Genius.\n\n Second, even assuming the first-filed rule could apply despite the absence of two simultaneously\n\n pending actions, Defendants cannot satisfy the rule\u2019s similarity requirement, and compelling\n\n circumstances independently counsel against transfer because Defendants\u2019 interpretation of the\n\n SDNY Order would effectively foreclose absent class members from pursuing their own securities\n\n class action. Finally, Defendants cannot satisfy their independent burden under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 1404(a). Plaintiff filed in a district with an obvious nexus to the parties and the alleged misconduct,\n\n and Defendants identify no witness-specific inconvenience or other exceptional circumstance\n\n sufficient to overcome Plaintiff\u2019s chosen forum.\n\n The Motion ultimately rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of both the SDNY Order\n\n and this action. The SDNY Order did not\u2014and could not\u2014bar absent class members from\n\n exercising their independent right to file a class action under the PSLRA. Although this action\n\n arises from the same alleged market manipulation, Plaintiff seeks to represent a materially broader\n\n proposed class that includes purchasers as well as sellers of Genius stock, presenting different\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\n standing and damages issues. Because neither the first-filed rule nor 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) permits\n\n the extraordinary relief Defendants seek, the Motion should be denied.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. THE FIRST-FILED RULE DOES NOT SUPPORT TRANSFER\n\n Defendants\u2019 principal argument fails at the threshold. The first-filed rule applies only\n\n where two actions involving substantially similar parties and issues are simultaneously pending in\n\n different federal courts. Here, that prerequisite is absent. Before Plaintiff commenced this action,\n\n Genius voluntarily dismissed the SDNY Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, there were never two simultaneously pending actions, and the first-\n\n filed rule does not apply.\n\n Nor does the SDNY Order compel a different result. That Order addressed only whether\n\n Genius could serve as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA and whether the lead plaintiff appointment\n\n process should be reopened after no other investor sought appointment during the statutory notice\n\n period. It did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying securities claims, determine the rights of\n\n absent class members, or prohibit another investor from commencing a separate securities class\n\n action.\n\n Even if the first-filed rule could apply despite the absence of two simultaneously pending\n\n actions, Defendants still cannot satisfy the rule\u2019s similarity requirement, and compelling\n\n circumstances independently counsel against transfer.\n\n A. The First-Filed Rule Does Not Apply Because There Were Never Two\n Simultaneously Pending Actions\n\n The Eleventh Circuit has consistently held that the first-filed rule applies only \u201c[w]here\n\n two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal courts[.]\u201d Manuel\n\n v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Collegiate\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir. 2013). Indeed,\n\n the Eleventh Circuit has observed that it is \u201cparticularly skeptical\u201d of applying the first-filed rule\n\n where \u201c[a]t no point was this case pending in two federal courts at the same time\u2014something that\n\n our case law appears to suggest is a requisite for application of the rule.\u201d Warner v. Tinder, Inc.,\n\n 675 F. App\u2019x 945, 947 n.2. (11th Cir. 2017). Unless both actions are pending simultaneously, the\n\n first-filed rule simply does not come into play.\n\n Courts in this District have applied the same principle. In Ambient Healthcare, Inc. v.\n\n Columbia Casualty Co., the court held that the first-filed rule did not apply where the earlier-filed\n\n action had been voluntarily dismissed before it was ever served or litigated because \u201ctwo actions\n\n are not currently pending in two separate federal courts,\u201d and \u201cthe policy considerations that\n\n support the \u2018first-filed\u2019 rule are not present.\u201d 2012 WL 12864330, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2012).\n\n More recently, in Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc., the court denied a motion to transfer\n\n under the first-filed rule where the earlier-filed action had been voluntarily dismissed before any\n\n substantive motions were filed or adjudicated, explaining that because \u201cthe [earlier-filed] Action\n\n is no longer pending, concerns of inconsistent rulings or duplication of judicial resources are\n\n eliminated.\u201d 2024 WL 5057622, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2024).\n\n Those principles compel the same result here. Before Plaintiff commenced this action,\n\n Genius voluntarily dismissed the SDNY Action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See SDNY\n\n Action, ECF No. 41. Because no defendant had served either an answer or a motion for summary\n\n judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) governed that dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Under\n\n Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Genius\u2019 notice of voluntary dismissal was self-executing, became effective\n\n immediately upon filing, rendered the SDNY Action \u201cno longer pending,\u201d and \u201cthe district court\n\n [was] immediately deprived of jurisdiction over the merits of the case.\u201d Absolute Activist Value\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Azurity Pharms., Inc.\n\n v. CoreRx, Inc., 2022 WL 2306860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2022) (applying Devine).\n\n Accordingly, because the SDNY Action ceased to be pending before Plaintiff commenced this\n\n action, there were never two simultaneously pending federal actions. The first-filed rule therefore\n\n has no application here.\n\n Unable to satisfy that threshold requirement, Defendants half-heartedly argue that the\n\n SDNY Action is \u201cstill pending\u201d because, after Genius filed its notice of voluntary dismissal, Judge\n\n Caproni \u201cordered the Clerk of Court not to close the case.\u201d Mot. at 11. But Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)\n\n dismissals do not depend on judicial approval or administrative docket entries. As Devine makes\n\n clear, \u201cno further court order is necessary to effectuate the dismissal.\u201d Devine, 998 F.3d at 1265.\n\n As another court in this District recently explained, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal \u201cis a matter of\n\n right running to the plaintiff and may not be extinguished or circumscribed by adversary or\n\n court.\u201d PJI Rest. LLC v. Papa Joes of Islamorada, LLC, 2025 WL 2735423, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July\n\n 30, 2025) (quoting Am. Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 1963) (emphasis\n\n added)). Defendants identify no authority suggesting that an administrative instruction to the Clerk\n\n can revive an action already dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or otherwise alter the legal\n\n consequences of that self-executing dismissal. Nor do they explain how their position can be\n\n reconciled with binding Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring two simultaneously pending actions\n\n before the first-filed rule applies. Defendants\u2019 argument therefore fails as a matter of law because\n\n no first-filed action was pending when Plaintiff commenced this action.\n\n The authorities Defendants cite are unavailing. In IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron\n\n Electronics Co., the first-filed action remained pending when the second action was filed, and was\n\n dismissed with prejudice on the merits only after defendants had moved to transfer under the first-\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\n filed rule in the second action. 2026 WL 860531, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026). Likewise, Abreu\n\n v. Pfizer, Inc. involved numerous overlapping class actions that were pending simultaneously in\n\n multiple jurisdictions. 2022 WL 2355541, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022). There, the first-filed\n\n action remained pending when the defendants moved to transfer under the first-filed rule and was\n\n dismissed with prejudice on the merits thereafter. Id. at * 3. The court therefore did not address\n\n the effect of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal entered before the second action commenced.\n\n Further, in opposing Plaintiff\u2019s motion for an extension of time to respond to this Motion\n\n (ECF No. 31 at 6), Defendants resort to inapposite citations from the Eisenhower and Johnson eras\n\n to suggest that Rule 41(a)(1)(i) does not mean what it says. Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am.\n\n Cyanamid Co. rejected a purported Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal only after several days of evidentiary\n\n hearings on a preliminary injunction, the creation of a 420-page record, and a district court ruling\n\n that the plaintiffs\u2019 likelihood of success on the merits was \u201cremote, if not completely nil.\u201d 203\n\n F.2d 105, 107\u201308 (2d Cir. 1953).1 See also Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United States, 279 F. Supp.\n\n 303, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (addressing Rule 41(a)(2), not Rule 41(a)(1)). Defendants also rely on\n\n Century Surety Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp., which involved an attempted Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal\n\n only after the plaintiff had moved for default judgment, submitted evidence on the merits, and\n\n\n 1\n The Fifth Circuit, when it covered this District, rejected Harvey. See Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.\n v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 506 F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1975). In any event, Harvey has been\n disapproved of, if not expressly overruled, by the Second Circuit. See Baksh v. Captain, 2000 WL\n 33177209, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2000) (citing Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc., 769 F.2d 109 (2d\n Cir. 1985)); see also ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98, 119-20 (2d Cir.\n 2012) (Staub, J., concurring in part) (\u201cThe majority emphasizes its \u2018skepticism\u2019 that our decision\n in Harvey . . . \u2018is still good law.\u2019 Indeed, Harvey has been rejected, disapproved of, or limited by\n nearly all the Courts of Appeals that have considered it\u2014including our own. The basis for this\n \u2018cool reception\u2019 is the Harvey Court\u2019s rewriting of the unambiguous provisions of Rule 41.\u201d\n (citations omitted)); Johnson Chem. Co. v. Home Care Prods., Inc., 823 F.2d 28, 30 (2d Cir. 1987)\n (Harvey \u201cstands as the only decision in which we have rejected a strict construction of Rule\n 41(a)(1)(i)\u201d and \u201cmust be limited to its \u2018extreme\u2019 facts\u201d (citation omitted)), abrogated on other\n grounds by Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990).\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\n obtained the court\u2019s substantive evaluation of the claim. 2018 WL 4804656, at *3\u20134 (E.D.N.Y.\n\n Sept. 30, 2018) (acknowledging \u201cthat the Second Circuit has admonished that \u2018Rule 41(a) provides\n\n an unfettered right to voluntarily dismiss\u2019\u201d) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Century\n\n court held that the case had reached an \u201cadvanced stage\u201d because the plaintiff had \u201csquarely raised\n\n the merits of the controversy for the Court\u2019s evaluation.\u201d Id. at *3 (internal quotation and citation\n\n omitted). None of those circumstances are present here. Genius filed its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice\n\n before any defendant served an answer or summary judgment motion and before the court\n\n undertook any substantive consideration of the merits. Accordingly, none of these decisions\n\n undermines the settled rule that a self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal renders an action\n\n \u201cno longer pending,\u201d thereby precluding application of the first-filed rule to a subsequently filed\n\n action. Because the SDNY Action ceased to be pending before Plaintiff commenced this action,\n\n Defendants cannot satisfy the threshold requirement for application of the first-filed rule, and the\n\n Court need not proceed any further.\n\n B. Even If the First-Filed Rule Applied, the Actions Are Not Sufficiently Similar\n to Warrant Transfer\n\n Even assuming the first-filed rule could apply despite the absence of two simultaneously\n\n pending actions, Defendants still cannot satisfy the rule\u2019s similarity requirement. \u201cA first-filed\n\n analysis looks to the character of the suits and the parties to the suits, not simply to the similarity\n\n of issues without regard to the identity of the parties asserting them and their asserted rights as\n\n presented in the initial lawsuit.\u201d Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG, 358 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1289 (N.D.\n\n Ala. 2018) (quoting Collegiate Licensing Co., 713 F.3d at 79).\n\n Here, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated purchasers and sellers of\n\n Genius stock. See Compl. \u00b6 82. By contrast, following the SDNY Order, the SDNY Action could\n\n proceed only as Genius\u2019 individual action. See SDNY Order at 14. Defendants nevertheless seek\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\n to treat these materially different actions as though they involved the same parties and the same\n\n asserted rights. They do not.\n\n The same reasoning that led the Halbert court to reject application of the first-filed rule\n\n applies here. There, despite substantial overlap in the underlying securities fraud allegations, the\n\n court held that the actions were not sufficiently similar because the plaintiffs lacked the requisite\n\n identity and asserted different rights. See Halbert, 358 F. Supp. 3d at 1289. Likewise, this Court\n\n should reject Defendants\u2019 attempt to improperly conflate the (now-dismissed) single-seller SDNY\n\n Action with the comprehensive class claims on behalf of purchasers and sellers presented here by\n\n a different plaintiff. Moreover, because the SDNY Action never reached the merits, let alone\n\n achieved class certification, neither Genius nor the SDNY court could bind Plaintiff or any other\n\n absent putative class member in this action. Id. (\u201cNeither a proposed class action nor a rejected\n\n class action may bind nonparties . . . .\u201d (quoting Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 315 (2011))).\n\n Nor did Judge Caproni\u2019s Order prohibit another investor from commencing a separate\n\n securities class action. Rather, the SDNY Order concluded only that Genius could not serve as\n\n lead plaintiff, declined to reopen the PSLRA lead plaintiff appointment process in the SDNY\n\n Action, and left Genius to pursue only its individual claims. See SDNY Order at 14. In doing so,\n\n however, the court did not adjudicate the merits of the putative class claims or the rights of absent\n\n class members. Consistent with that Order, Genius exercised its right to voluntarily dismiss its\n\n individual action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and Plaintiff commenced this separate securities class\n\n action in a district where venue is proper. Defendants nevertheless seek to transform the SDNY\n\n Order into a global injunction requiring every investor asserting similar claims against Defendants\n\n to proceed in the Southern District of New York before Judge Caproni. Nothing in the SDNY\n\n Order purported to adjudicate the rights of nonparties or otherwise preclude a later-filed securities\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\n class action by a different plaintiff\u2014nor could it. Were Defendants\u2019 position accepted, every\n\n absent class member would effectively be foreclosed from pursuing a securities class action arising\n\n from the alleged market manipulation, notwithstanding that the SDNY Order never reached the\n\n merits, certified a class, or purported to bind nonparties. That inequitable consequence itself\n\n constitutes a compelling circumstance counseling against application of the first-filed rule. Neither\n\n the PSLRA, ordinary principles of preclusion, nor the first-filed rule supports that extraordinary\n\n result.\n\n II. TRANSFER IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404\n\n Even apart from the first-filed rule, Defendants fail to satisfy their independent burden\n\n under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a). Section 1404(a) permits transfer \u201c[f]or the convenience of parties and\n\n witnesses, in the interest of justice\u201d to another district\u2014not to a specific judge, as Defendants\n\n request\u2014where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404. In determining whether\n\n transfer is warranted, courts weigh a variety of private and public interest factors, including: \u201c(1)\n\n the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of\n\n access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5)\n\n the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means\n\n of the parties; (7) a forum\u2019s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff\u2019s\n\n choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the\n\n circumstances.\u201d Tuuci Worldwide, LLC v. S. Frankford & Sons, Inc., 2023 WL 5275187, at *8\n\n (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023) (denying transfer motion). Defendants bear a heavy burden, and transfer\n\n is appropriate only \u201cwhere the balance of convenience of the parties strongly favors the\n\n defendant.\u201d Id. (emphasis added). Defendants cannot satisfy that burden here.\n\n Convenience of Witnesses and Parties; Plaintiff\u2019s Choice of Forum. These factors weigh\n\n strongly against transfer. \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s choice of forum should not be disturbed unless other\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\n considerations clearly outweigh it.\u201d Tuuci 2023 WL 5275187, at *13. A \u201cplaintiff\u2019s choice of\n\n forum must be afforded considerable deference, where . . . the plaintiff has elected to bring suit in\n\n the district in which he resides. Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Lab\u2019ys, 146 F. Supp. 2d\n\n 1355, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Plaintiff is a Florida resident. Compl. \u00b6 8. Citadel is headquartered\n\n in this District, Virtu maintains an office in this District and conducts substantial business in\n\n Florida, and all parties are represented by Florida counsel.2 Id. \u00b6\u00b6 8\u201314.\n\n Defendants\u2019 showing as to witness convenience is wholly conclusory. They assert\n\n generally that \u201clikely witnesses concerning Defendants\u2019 trading in Genius are principally\n\n concentrated in New York,\u201d Mot. at 16, but identify no individual witness, describe any witness\u2019s\n\n anticipated testimony, or explain why such testimony could not fairly be presented by deposition.\n\n See Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., 2013 WL 358385, at *4 n.2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29,\n\n 2013) (vague references to potential witnesses, without specific information about the accused\n\n products or an explanation of the relevant testimony to be provided, are insufficient to support\n\n transfer); Tuuci, 2023 WL 5275187, at *12 (same).3 Nor can Citadel seriously contend that\n\n litigating in its home District where it maintains headquarters is inconvenient. Cf. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 1441(b) (preventing removal of diversity action if any defendant is a citizen of the forum State).\n\n Locus of Operative Facts. Defendants contend that the operative facts occurred in New\n\n York because Genius stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and because some of their\n\n trading decisions were made in New York. This argument fails. The operative facts in this case\n\n\n\n 2\n For similar reasons, the \u201clocation of relevant documents\u201d factor favors this venue. In any event,\n this Court has held that this factor carries little weight in the era of electronic discovery. See Tuuci,\n 2023 WL 5275187, at *11 (quoting Kenneth F. Hackett & Assocs., Inc. v. GE Cap. Info. Tech.\n Sols., Inc., 2010 WL 3056600, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2010).\n 3\n For the same reasons, Defendants have failed to contend that any witnesses are outside the\n Court\u2019s subpoena power. See Tuuci, 2023 WL 5275187, at *12.\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\n are Defendants\u2019 alleged manipulative trading activities and the resulting harm to investors,\n\n including Plaintiff. Those activities were not confined to New York. Accordingly, this factor\n\n favors denying transfer, particularly given Citadel\u2019s headquarters in this District and Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n Florida residence. See Tuuci 2023 WL 5275187, at *11 (the locus of operative facts is often the\n\n headquarters of the infringing entity); Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1166 (S.D.\n\n Fla. 2017)(\u201cwhere there is no single locus of the operative facts, this factor is neutral and does not\n\n support a transfer.\u201d); SEC v. Walker, 2021 WL 5088853, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021).\n\n Trial Efficiency and Interests of Justice. Defendants contend that transfer is warranted\n\n because Judge Caproni is already \u201cfamiliar\u201d with the case. Mot. at 16. That contention overstates\n\n the extent of the SDNY proceedings. As discussed above, the SDNY Action never advanced\n\n beyond the lead plaintiff appointment stage. No merits rulings were issued, no discovery occurred,\n\n and no substantive motions\u2014including motions to dismiss\u2014were filed or decided. Judge\n\n Caproni\u2019s \u201cfamiliarity\u201d is therefore limited to the narrow, plaintiff-specific procedural issues\n\n addressed in the SDNY Order, which concerned Genius\u2019s adequacy as a lead plaintiff. Judge\n\n Caproni never considered the sufficiency of the allegations, the legal viability of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n Exchange Act claims, or the evidence supporting the alleged market manipulation. Under these\n\n circumstances, there are no meaningful efficiencies to be gained by transfer. This Court is equally\n\n capable of addressing the legal and factual issues presented, and no prior judicial investment in the\n\n merits would be lost by allowing this action to proceed here.\n\n The interests of justice likewise weigh against transfer. Granting Defendants\u2019 Motion\n\n would reward their attempt to transform the SDNY Order from a narrow, plaintiff-specific\n\n procedural ruling into a sweeping directive governing every subsequent securities class action\n\n arising from the alleged market manipulation, thereby restricting the rights of investors who were\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\n never parties to the SDNY Action to pursue their own claims in a proper forum. The PSLRA\n\n contemplates that defrauded investors will have a meaningful opportunity to seek redress through\n\n securities class actions. Transferring this case to the SDNY\u2014where Judge Caproni has already\n\n determined that the prior plaintiff could not adequately represent the class and declined to reopen\n\n the lead plaintiff process\u2014would frustrate that objective and undermine the statutory framework\n\n Congress established.\n\n Moreover, this action materially differs from the SDNY Action in ways that further counsel\n\n against transfer. The proposed class in this case includes both purchasers and sellers of Genius\n\n securities, expanding the scope of relief sought and altering the legal and factual issues presented.\n\n The interests of justice are therefore best served by allowing this action to proceed in the forum\n\n Plaintiff selected\u2014a forum with substantial connections to the parties and the alleged misconduct.\n\n Forum\u2019s Familiarity with the Governing Law. Defendants do not contend that this Court\n\n is any less capable than the Southern District of New York of applying the federal securities laws\n\n governing Plaintiff\u2019s claims. Accordingly, this factor does not support transfer. See SEC v.\n\n Cheetah X Inc., 2026 WL 1067017, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2026).\n\n In sum, the relevant Section 1404(a) factors weigh against transfer or, at a minimum, do\n\n not support it. Defendants therefore have not met their \u201cheavy\u201d burden of overcoming Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n chosen forum. LFR Collections LLC v. Taylor, 2011 WL 4736360, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2011);\n\n see also Halbert, 358 F. Supp. 3d 1289. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendants\u2019\n\n motion to transfer.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 17 of 17\n\n\n\n\n DATED: August 3, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jacob Abrams\n KASOWITZ LLP\n Jacob Abrams\n 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2550\n Miami, FL 33131\n Telephone: (305) 377-1666\n Facsimile: (305) 377-1664\n jabrams@kasowitz.com\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n Abe Alexander (pro hac vice)\n Vincent J. Pontrello (pro hac vice)\n 485 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Telephone: (646) 722-8500\n Facsimile: (610) 722-8501\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n vpontrello@gelaw.com\n\n CHRISTIAN ATTAR\n James W. Christian (pro hac vice\n forthcoming)\n 1177 W. Loop South, Suite 1700\n Houston, Texas 77027\n Telephone: (713) 659-7617\n Facsimile: (713) 659-4641\n jchristian@christianattarlaw.com\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Aron Reynolds\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-04T20:23:34.728195-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030166191","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T19:19:04.534531-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.479959-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"21:29:15","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":116,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 Defendant's MOTION to Remand /Transfer to the Southern District of New York filed by Aron Reynolds. Replies due by 8/10/2026. (Abrams, Jacob) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473051049/","id":473051049,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488506330/","id":488506330,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/34/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-03T11:08:18.638294-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T07:10:07.052858-07:00","sha1":"297de45e8958faa7ed4064cfb90b575546749463","page_count":4,"file_size":174868,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of\n all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n vs. Case No. 1:26-CV-24485-RKA\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT\n\n Defendants Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC respectfully move the Court\n\n to stay their August 12, 2026 deadline to respond to the Complaint (ECF No. 1) until after the\n\n Court issues a decision resolving their pending motion to transfer this action to the Southern\n\n District of New York (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff does not oppose this request.\n\n On July 20, 2026, Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Southern District of New\n\n York pursuant to the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a). Plaintiff\u2019s response to the transfer\n\n motion is due August 3, 2026, and Defendants\u2019 reply is due August 10, 2026.\n\n \u201cA request for an extension, made before the expiration of the deadline, should be granted\n\n where good cause is shown.\u201d Sensi v. Fla. Officers of Ct., 737 F. App\u2019x 433, 436 (11th Cir. 2018);\n\n see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Motions to extend deadlines \u201cshould be liberally granted\n\n absent a showing of bad faith . . . or undue prejudice.\u201d Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corr. & Rehab.\n\n Dep\u2019t, 878 F.3d 1008, 1012 (11th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted).\n\n Here, good cause exists to delay Defendants\u2019 deadline to respond to the Complaint until after the\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n transfer motion is resolved. It would waste judicial resources to require the Court to adjudicate\n\n Defendants\u2019 forthcoming motion to dismiss when the case may be transferred to a different\n\n jurisdiction. And the parties should not be required to brief substantive legal issues before they\n\n know which jurisdiction\u2019s law will apply. Indeed, in ruling on Plaintiff\u2019s request to extend its time\n\n to respond to the transfer motion, the Court explained that \u201cit makes sense to resolve threshold\n\n inquiries\u2014such as whether our Court is the proper venue for the case,\u201d at an early stage of the\n\n litigation, before lead plaintiff selection. ECF No. 33 at 2.\n\n Courts regularly adjourn the deadline for defendants to respond to a complaint when a\n\n motion to transfer is pending. E.g., Valentine v. Dep\u2019t of Homeland Sec., 2014 WL 4185188, at\n\n *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2014) (granting motion to extend response deadline \u201cpending the resolution\n\n of the motion to transfer\u201d); City & Cnty. of Butte-Silver Bow v. 3M Co., 2025 WL 1859237, at *1\n\n (D. Mont. June 27, 2025) (similar); Kim v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2013 WL 655198, at *1 n.1\n\n (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2013) (similar); see also Bonenfant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2007 WL\n\n 2409980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) (\u201cIt is common practice for courts to stay an action\n\n pending a transfer decision by the JPML.\u201d).\n\n The requested stay would not prejudice Plaintiff, who does not oppose the request and who\n\n would similarly benefit from knowing where the case will be litigated and which jurisdiction\u2019s law\n\n will apply before briefing a motion to dismiss.\n\n Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court stay the deadline to respond to the\n\n Complaint until the motion to transfer is resolved. Defendants request that the parties be required\n\n to submit a proposed schedule for next steps, including briefing a motion to dismiss, within seven\n\n (7) days of the Court\u2019s order resolving Defendants\u2019 transfer motion, if the case is not transferred.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)\n\n Undersigned counsel for Defendants certify that they made reasonable efforts to confer\n\n with counsel for Plaintiff regarding the relief sought in this Motion. Specifically, on July 29 and\n\n July 30, 2026, undersigned counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Plaintiff regarding\n\n adjourning Defendants\u2019 deadline to respond to the Complaint. Counsel for Plaintiff does not\n\n oppose the relief sought in this Motion.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2026 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Dated: August 3, 2026\n\n MARCUS RASHBAUM PINIERO & MEYERS LLP\n\n /s/ Daniel Rashbaum\n Daniel Rashbaum\n One Biscayne Tower\n 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2530\n Miami, FL 33131\n Tel: (305) 400-4260\n drashbaum@mrpfirm.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC and\n Virtu Americas LLC\n\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n GARRISON LLP\n\n Audra J. Soloway (pro hac vice)\n Alison R. Benedon (pro hac vice)\n Daniel S. Sinnreich (pro hac vice)\n Daniel Negless (pro hac vice)\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: (212) 373-3000\n asoloway@paulweiss.com\n abenedon@paulweiss.com\n dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n dnegless@paulweiss.com\n\n Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n\n Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice)\n Meredith Karp (pro hac vice)\n Jacob Lundqvist (pro hac vice)\n 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Tel: (212) 455-2000\n jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n meredith.karp@stblaw.com\n jacob.lundqvist@stblaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-03T11:10:38.039386-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030163239","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T11:08:18.604294-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T20:23:25.452939-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"13:46:18","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":113,"description":"Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint, Defendants' Deadline to Respond to the Complaint by Citadel Securities LLC, Virtu Americas LLC. Responses due by 8/17/2026. (Rashbaum, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472415882/","id":472415882,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487848769/","id":487848769,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/33/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-07-28T12:37:45.763988-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T01:44:26.109112-07:00","sha1":"211fb81c4cd44edefc2aa45bdd2968d5c1e5c070","page_count":3,"file_size":119708,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n CASE NO. 26-cv-24485-ALTMAN\n\n ARON REYNOLDS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n ___________________________________/\n\n ORDER\n\n Our Plaintiff, Aron Reynolds, filed this putative class action on June 29, 2026. See Complaint\n\n [ECF No. 1]. On July 20, 2026, our Defendants, Citadel Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC, filed\n\n a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of New York (the \u201cTransfer Motion\u201d) [ECF No.\n\n 9], arguing that \u201c[t]his case is a brazen attempt by Plaintiff\u2019s counsel to skirt a federal judge\u2019s decision\u201d\n\n denying their previous motion to \u201cappoint a lead plaintiff and to appoint Plaintiff\u2019s counsel here as\n\n \u2018Lead Counsel\u2019\u201d in a related Southern District of New York case. Transfer Motion at 5. In a seventeen-\n\n page Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Transfer Motion (the \u201cExtension Motion\u201d)\n\n [ECF No. 30], Reynolds insists that he\u2019s \u201ceager to respond\u201d to the Transfer Motion\u2014a motion he\n\n \u201cvigorously disputes\u201d\u2014but contends that only a court-appointed lead plaintiff is able to do so.\n\n Extension Motion at 2. He asks that we extend the \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s deadline to respond [to the Transfer\n\n Motion] until fourteen (14) days after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private\n\n Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995[.]\u201d Id. at 4. Alternatively, he requests that we extend the\n\n response deadline to September 18, 2028, allowing any \u201ccompeting lead plaintiff movants to confer,\n\n determine whether a coordinated response is appropriate, and prepare any such response.\u201d Id. at 6.\n\n For several reasons, we DENY the Extension Motion.\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n First, we think it makes sense to resolve threshold inquiries\u2014such as whether our Court is the\n\n proper venue for this case\u2014before exercising our discretion to appoint a lead plaintiff. As the\n\n Defendants observe, several other courts have reached similar conclusions and granted transfer\n\n motions prior to the appointment of a lead plaintiff. See Defendants\u2019 Response in Opposition to\n\n Extension Motion (the \u201cExtension Response\u201d) [ECF No. 31] at 6\u20137 (collecting cases); see also, e.g.,\n\n Garity v. Tetraphase Pharms. Inc., 2019 WL 2314691, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019) (\u201cBecause the Court\n\n grants Defendants\u2019 transfer motion, it will leave the determination as to the appointment of the lead\n\n plaintiff and lead counsel to the District Court of Massachusetts.\u201d); In re Target Corp. S\u2019holder Class\n\n Action Litig., 2025 WL 3187126, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025) (Dudek, J.) (granting motion to\n\n transfer prior to appointment of lead plaintiff); Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc., 2018 WL 6016283, at *1 (C.D.\n\n Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (\u201cThe Court concludes that the possibility that a lead plaintiff might prefer litigating\n\n in this District is no reason to delay deciding this motion. This Court has previously decided motions\n\n to transfer before motions for lead plaintiff, and we see no reason to take a different course here.\u201d).\n\n Reynolds, on the other hand, hasn\u2019t cited any authority for his proposition that only a court-appointed\n\n lead plaintiff can appropriately respond to a motion to transfer venue. See generally Extension Motion.\n\n Second, we\u2019re skeptical of Reynolds\u2019s claim that, because the Transfer Motion \u201cimplicates issues\n\n that will significantly shape the future course of this litigation,\u201d \u201cthe right to decide how best to\n\n respond to that motion should be in the hands of the [c]ourt-appointed lead plaintiff.\u201d Extension\n\n Motion at 5. It\u2019s a well-established principle of the attorney-client relationship that the client is\n\n responsible for major strategic decisions (such as whether to sue, who to sue, and when to settle) and\n\n that counsel is responsible for tactical ones (such as which specific arguments to advance). See Robert\n\n Leroy McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018) (explaining that major decisions are reserved for the\n\n client, but that counsel decides \u201cwhat arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and\n\n what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence\u201d); see also Sec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n v.\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n Lauer, 2015 WL 11004892, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2015) (Marra, J.) (\u201cA general principle of attorney-\n\n client relationships is that the client determines \u2018the ends\u2019 (such as who to sue or whether to settle),\n\n while attorneys decide \u2018the means\u2019 (such as what type of motions to bring).\u201d). The only major strategic\n\n decision to make at this juncture is whether to oppose transfer. And Reynolds, the presumptive lead\n\n plaintiff and individual responsible for this action, has already told us that he\u2019s opposed. See Extension\n\n Motion at 6 (\u201cWhile Plaintiff is eager to respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion, which it vigorously disputes\n\n on both legal and factual grounds, it is not the appropriate party to do\u2014at least not until the Court\n\n issues a lead plaintiff order saying so.\u201d). If a different lead plaintiff is proposed and appointed, and if\n\n that plaintiff (unlike Reynolds) prefers to litigate in the Southern District of New York, we\u2019re sure the\n\n Defendants would be amenable.\n\n Third, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel is plainly capable of opposing the Transfer Motion without input\n\n from a court-appointed lead plaintiff. Indeed, they spend several pages of the Extension Motion doing\n\n precisely that. See Extension Motion at 9\u201312 (arguing that the Transfer Motion \u201crests on disputed\n\n factual and legal premises\u201d (capitalization altered)).\n\n Because Reynolds hasn\u2019t established good cause for his requested extension, 1 we ORDER\n\n and ADJUDGE that the Extension Motion [ECF No. 30] is DENIED.\n\n DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 28, 2026.\n\n\n ______________________________\n ROY K. ALTMAN\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n cc: counsel of record\n\n\n\n\n 1\n We agree with the Defendants that Reynolds hasn\u2019t shown that competing lead-plaintiff candidates\n would be better positioned \u201cto respond to Defendants\u2019 motion, let alone capable of coordinating any\n response, while at the same time contesting each other\u2019s right to represent the putative class.\u201d\n Extension Response at 8.\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-28T16:11:14.419476-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030139341","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-28T12:37:45.737447-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T12:37:45.744549-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":"15:17:30","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472343699/","id":472343699,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487774921/","id":487774921,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/32/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-07-28T06:28:19.285186-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T22:53:04.458866-07:00","sha1":"e891e47b1abdc6962d68dc3b7bf719febd17e4f1","page_count":8,"file_size":205361,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.32.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.32.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individual and on Case No. 1:26-cv-24485-RKA\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION\n\n v.\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN\n EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS\u2019\n MOTION TO TRANSFER [ECF NO. 9]\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff Aron Reynolds (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) respectfully submits this reply memorandum of law\n\n in further support of his Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion to\n\n Transfer (ECF No. 30, the \u201cMotion for Extension\u201d) and in reply to Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of\n\n Law in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 31, the \u201cOpposition\u201d or \u201cOpp.\u201d). Defendants\u2019 Opposition\n\n does not rebut Plaintiff\u2019s showing of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A)\n\n or identify any prejudice that would result from the modest extension Plaintiff seeks. Accordingly,\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Extension should be granted.\n\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1\n\n This Reply concerns a narrow procedural question: whether Plaintiff has established good\n\n cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for a brief extension of time to respond to\n\n Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer until after the Court appoints the lead plaintiff pursuant to the\n\n PSLRA. Plaintiff has done so. Defendants\u2019 Opposition does not meaningfully address that\n\n question. Instead, it largely litigates the merits of the Motion to Transfer and confirms why the\n\n Court-appointed lead plaintiff should determine the appropriate response to a motion that may\n\n dictate the forum and future course of this Action.\n\n In doing so, Defendants repeatedly overread Judge Caproni\u2019s Order in the previously\n\n dismissed Southern District of New York action. Although that Order addressed only whether\n\n Genius could adequately serve as lead plaintiff and declined to reopen the lead plaintiff process in\n\n that case, Defendants urge this Court to treat it as effectively foreclosing a separate PSLRA action\n\n by another investor. Whether Defendants\u2019 characterization ultimately prevails is a question for\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms have the same meanings ascribed to them in\n Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Extension.\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\n the Motion to Transfer. It is not a reason to require Plaintiff to litigate those issues before the\n\n Court appoints the lead plaintiff the PSLRA contemplates will direct this Action.\n\n Nor have Defendants identified any prejudice that would result from the brief extension\n\n Plaintiff seeks. If the Court ultimately grants Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer, Judge Caproni will\n\n have the opportunity to address the very issues Defendants contend warrant transfer. There is\n\n therefore no reason to require Plaintiff to litigate those issues before the Court appoints the lead\n\n plaintiff.\n\n II. ARGUMENT\n\n A. Defendants Fail to Rebut Plaintiff\u2019s Showing of Good Cause under Rule 6(b)\n or Demonstrate Any Prejudice\n\n Defendants\u2019 Opposition does not undermine Plaintiff\u2019s showing of good cause under Rule\n\n 6(b). Instead, Defendants largely argue that Plaintiff is capable of responding to Defendants\u2019\n\n Motion to Transfer before the appointment of a lead plaintiff and therefore should do so. But that\n\n is not the issue presented by Plaintiff\u2019s Motion. The question is not whether Plaintiff can respond\n\n to the Motion to Transfer, but whether, consistent with the PSLRA, the Court should require\n\n Plaintiff to do so before appointing the lead plaintiff who will direct this Action. Plaintiff should\n\n not be required to respond to a motion that may substantially affect the future course of this Action\n\n before the Court appoints the lead plaintiff who will direct the litigation on behalf of the proposed\n\n class. The brief extension Plaintiff requests both honors the PSLRA\u2019s mandate charging the Court-\n\n appointed lead plaintiff with the authority to make such weighty decisions on the Class\u2019s behalf\n\n and works no prejudice on Defendants. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court\n\n exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b) to allow the Court-appointed lead plaintiff to determine the\n\n appropriate response to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\n None of Defendants\u2019 authorities involved the procedural posture presented here. In each\n\n of Garity, In re Target, and Steck, the motion to transfer was filed only after the PSLRA lead\n\n plaintiff application period had expired. Thus, unlike here, the transfer motion was litigated only\n\n after the investors seeking to direct the litigation on behalf of the proposed class had an opportunity\n\n to appear and be heard. See Garity v. Tetraphase Pharms. Inc., No. 1:18-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y.),\n\n ECF No. 17 (following withdrawal of one lead plaintiff movant, the sole remaining movant\n\n opposed transfer); In re Target Corp. Sec. Class Action Litig., No. 2:25-cv-00135 (M.D. Fla.),\n\n ECF Nos. 64\u201365 (two competing lead plaintiff movants separately opposed transfer); Steck v.\n\n Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 32\n\n (presumptive lead plaintiff opposed transfer). Pluralsight and Wasson are likewise\n\n distinguishable. In neither case did the plaintiff move for an extension of time to respond to the\n\n transfer motion pending completion of the PSLRA lead plaintiff process. See City of Birmingham\n\n Firemen\u2019s & Policemen\u2019s Supplemental Pension Sys. v. Pluralsight, Inc., 2019 WL 12496341\n\n (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019); Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc., 2018 WL 6016283 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018).\n\n Rather, each involved a more conventional \u00a7 1404(a) transfer dispute in which defendants sought\n\n transfer to the district where the defendant company was headquartered. See Pluralsight, 2019\n\n WL 12496341, at *1; Wasson, 2018 WL 6016283, at *4. Accordingly, neither court was asked to\n\n exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b) to defer briefing until after the Court appointed the lead\n\n plaintiff to direct the litigation.\n\n Finally, Defendants have not identified any prejudice that would result from the modest\n\n extension Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff moved for relief before the response deadline expired, and the\n\n requested extension would simply allow the Court-appointed lead plaintiff to determine the\n\n appropriate litigation strategy with respect to a transfer motion that may determine the forum and\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\n future course of this Action. Nor would the requested extension frustrate the interests Defendants\n\n contend support transfer. To the contrary, if Defendants are correct that this Action belongs in the\n\n Southern District of New York, then Judge Caproni will ultimately preside over the case and can\n\n address any issues concerning the prior proceedings at that time. The requested extension therefore\n\n does not risk inconsistent rulings or otherwise prejudice Defendants.\n\n B. Defendants\u2019 Opposition Reinforces the Need for a Brief Extension\n\n Rather than addressing whether Plaintiff established good cause under Rule 6(b),\n\n Defendants devote most of their Opposition to litigating the merits of their Motion to Transfer.\n\n They contend that the first-to-file rule applies notwithstanding the voluntary dismissal of the\n\n SDNY Action, that Judge Caproni\u2019s Order precludes this Action from proceeding under the\n\n PSLRA, and that Plaintiff\u2019s counsel engaged in forum shopping and gamesmanship by\n\n commencing this Action. Plaintiff disputes each of those arguments, but whether they ultimately\n\n prevail is a question for the Motion to Transfer. For present purposes, however, Defendants\u2019\n\n Opposition confirms that the Motion to Transfer raises substantial legal and procedural issues that\n\n should be addressed by the Court-appointed lead plaintiff.\n\n Defendants\u2019 discussion of the first-to-file rule illustrates why a brief extension is warranted.\n\n Defendants contend that the doctrine applies notwithstanding the voluntary dismissal of the SDNY\n\n Action and that the Eleventh Circuit authorities cited by Plaintiff do not require simultaneous\n\n pendency. See Opp. at 4\u20135. Those competing interpretations underscore that the Motion to\n\n Transfer presents substantial legal questions regarding the scope of the first-to-file doctrine. The\n\n Eleventh Circuit has consistently described the first-to-file doctrine in terms of competing actions\n\n \u201cpending in two federal courts,\u201d and Plaintiff cited those decisions because they accurately\n\n articulate the governing framework in this Circuit. See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\n 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005). Defendants, by contrast, principally rely on district court decisions\n\n that Plaintiff distinguished because they arose in materially different procedural circumstances.\n\n See Mot. for Extension at p.8 n.2.\n\n Defendants also contend that the SDNY Action nevertheless \u201cremains pending\u201d because\n\n Judge Caproni directed the Clerk \u201cnot to close the case\u201d after Genius filed its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)\n\n notice of dismissal. See Opp. at 6. However, as explained in Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Extension,\n\n binding Eleventh Circuit authority provides that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal is self-\n\n executing, immediately terminates the action, and leaves it \u201cno longer pending.\u201d See Absolute\n\n Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2021). That issue, too,\n\n should be addressed by the Court-appointed lead plaintiff in responding to the Motion to Transfer.\n\n Defendants likewise overread Judge Caproni\u2019s Order. Contrary to Defendants\u2019 assertion\n\n that the Order \u201cdemonstrates her familiarity\u201d with issues that will arise at the motion to dismiss\n\n stage, Opp. at 7, the Order addressed only whether Genius could adequately serve as lead plaintiff\n\n and the unique defenses bearing on Genius\u2019s adequacy\u2014not the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s Exchange\n\n Act claims or the class wide issues that would be presented by a motion to dismiss. Nor does\n\n Defendants\u2019 assertion that Plaintiff fell within the putative class in the SDNY Action transform\n\n Judge Caproni\u2019s plaintiff-specific ruling into one barring a separate PSLRA action by another\n\n investor. See Opp. at 8. Finally, Plaintiff\u2019s inclusion of purchasers in the proposed class is not, as\n\n Defendants contend, an attempt to evade Judge Caproni\u2019s Order. See Opp. at 8\u20139. Rather, it is\n\n entirely consistent with that Order, which neither prohibited another investor from commencing a\n\n separate PSLRA action nor foreclosed a new PSLRA notice based on that action. Moreover, if\n\n this Court ultimately grants Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer, Judge Caproni will have the\n\n opportunity to address these issues in the ordinary course. There is therefore no reason to require\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff to litigate those issues before the Court appoints the lead plaintiff who will direct this\n\n Action.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court extend Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n deadline to respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Transfer until fourteen (14) days after the Court\n\n appoints a lead plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court\n\n extend Plaintiff\u2019s response deadline until fourteen (14) days after the August 28, 2026 deadline for\n\n lead plaintiff motions, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and\n\n proper.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2026 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\n DATED: July 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jacob Abrams\n KASOWITZ LLP\n Jacob Abrams\n 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2550\n Miami, FL 33131\n Telephone: (305) 377-1666\n Facsimile: (305) 377-1664\n jabrams@kasowitz.com\n\n GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.\n Abe Alexander (pro hac vice)\n Vincent J. Pontrello (pro hac vice)\n 485 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Telephone: (646) 722-8500\n Facsimile: (610) 722-8501\n aalexander@gelaw.com\n vpontrello@gelaw.com\n\n CHRISTIAN ATTAR\n James W. Christian (pro hac vice\n forthcoming)\n 1177 W. Loop South, Suite 1700\n Houston, Texas 77027\n Telephone: (713) 659-7617\n Facsimile: (713) 659-4641\n jchristian@christianattarlaw.com\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Aron Reynolds\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-28T16:11:06.923969-07:00","document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030135987","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-28T06:28:19.264505-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-28T06:28:19.269919-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":"09:23:20","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":108,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472226508/","id":472226508,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487654107/","id":487654107,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/31/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-07-27T09:12:41.461238-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-01T15:44:04.937038-07:00","sha1":"a8e93def8ad41b08b33109739fb3f5838f038901","page_count":14,"file_size":330608,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.31.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696/gov.uscourts.flsd.717696.31.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n\n\n ARON REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of\n all others similarly situated,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n vs. Case No. 1:26-CV-24485-RKA\n\n CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU\n AMERICAS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S\n MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1\n\n ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2\n I. THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTION TO TRANSFER WITHOUT\n ARTIFICIAL DELAY .........................................................................................................2\n\n A. The Motion Should Be Decided Prior to Lead Plaintiff Applications .....................2\n\n B. Plaintiff\u2019s Substantive Arguments in Opposition to Transfer Are\n Meritless ...................................................................................................................4\n 1. Transfer Is Appropriate Under Both the First-to-File Rule and 28\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) ..........................................................................................4\n\n 2. Judge Caproni Should Address Any Issues Concerning the Scope\n of Her Prior Order ........................................................................................7\n\n CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................9\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\n Cases\n\n Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc.,\n 2022 WL 2355541 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022) ....................................................................... 5, 6\n\n Brustein v. Lampert,\n 2005 WL 8154797 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005) ........................................................................... 2\n\n Century Sur. Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp.,\n 2018 WL 4804656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) ......................................................................... 6\n\n City of Birmingham Firemen\u2019s & Policemen\u2019s Supplemental Pension Sys. v. Pluralsight,\n Inc.,\n 2019 WL 12496341 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019) ......................................................................... 2\n\n Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.,\n 713 F.3d 71 (11th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 5\n\n Elliott v. Williams,\n 549 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ..................................................................................... 1\n\n Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United States,\n 279 F. Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) ........................................................................................... 6\n\n Garity v. Tetraphase Pharms. Inc.,\n 2019 WL 2314691 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019) .......................................................................... 3\n\n Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cynamid Co.,\n 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1953)...................................................................................................... 6\n\n IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co.,\n 2026 WL 860531 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026) ......................................................................... 4, 5\n\n JanuryIn re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig.,\n 2023 WL 6534502 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2023) ............................................................................ 2\n\n Manuel v. Convergys Corp.,\n 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 5\n\n Rojas v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,\n 2019 WL 6324616 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2019)........................................................................... 5\n\n Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.,\n 2015 WL 3767445 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2015) .......................................................................... 3\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n TargetIn re Target Corp. S\u2019holder Class Action Litig.,\n 2025 WL 3187126 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025) ......................................................................... 3\n\n Warner v. Tinder, Inc.,\n 675 F. App\u2019x 945 (11th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 5\n\n Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc.,\n 2018 WL 6016283 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) ............................................................................ 3\n\n Statutes\n\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3) .................................................................................................................. 2\n\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................ 7\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Defendants Citadel Securities LLC (\u201cCitadel Securities\u201d) and Virtu Americas LLC\n\n (\u201cVirtu\u201d) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff Aron Reynolds\u2019s\n\n motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer this action to the\n\n Southern District of New York.\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s latest filing continues their pattern of inconsistent and misleading\n\n litigation conduct. Plaintiff claims to need an extension because he lacks \u201cauthority\u201d to decide\n\n how to respond to Defendants\u2019 pending motion to transfer unless he is appointed lead plaintiff.\n\n Yet Plaintiff proceeds to argue in a 13-page purported \u201cmotion for an extension of time\u201d why\n\n Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer should not be granted. Plaintiff nonetheless avoids addressing\n\n Defendants\u2019 primary argument and the entire point of transfer: another court has already addressed\n\n the lead plaintiff appointment process and determined that the time for any such applications\n\n expired in January and cannot be resuscitated. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel attempted to dismiss that first-\n\n filed case and refile here to circumvent the adverse ruling. Delaying consideration of the transfer\n\n motion until a \u201clead plaintiff\u201d is appointed, in contravention of Judge Valerie E. Caproni\u2019s order,\n\n is precisely what the transfer motion seeks to avoid. To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with what\n\n Judge Caproni\u2019s order does or does not permit, judicial efficiency and comity counsel that she be\n\n the one to clarify her own order, which is the exact principle underpinning the first-to-file rule.\n\n In any event, Plaintiff has provided a substantive response to Defendants\u2019 arguments in\n\n favor of transfer, and this Court \u201ccan\u2014and should\u2014invoke the [first-to-file] rule\u201d even \u201csua\n\n sponte.\u201d Elliott v. Williams, 549 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (Altman, J.) (addressing\n\n the first-to-file rule where no party raised it). Plaintiff\u2019s request to defer briefing for months\n\n pending completion of the lead plaintiff appointment process is not supported by good cause, and\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n none of Plaintiff\u2019s arguments in opposition to transfer have merit. Instead, for all the reasons set\n\n forth in Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer (ECF 9), the motion to transfer should be granted.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTION TO TRANSFER WITHOUT\n ARTIFICIAL DELAY\n\n A. The Motion Should Be Decided Prior to Lead Plaintiff Applications\n\n Neither of Plaintiff\u2019s two extension requests is supported by good cause. Plaintiff first\n\n requests that the Court defer the motion to transfer until a lead plaintiff has been appointed in this\n\n action\u2014which is months away1\u2014contending that a court-appointed lead plaintiff is the only party\n\n with authority to decide how to respond to a transfer motion. See ECF 30 (\u201cPl.\u2019s Mot.\u201d) at 5-6.\n\n Plaintiff is wrong\u2014he filed this lawsuit and he should defend it. The authorities Plaintiff cites\n\n stand merely for the general proposition that a lead plaintiff, once appointed, is assigned the\n\n responsibility of managing the litigation and in no way suggest that no party may respond to\n\n motions until the end of the lead plaintiff process. In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading\n\n Litig., 2023 WL 6534502, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2023) (determining \u201cwhether options claims\n\n properly fell within the scope of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s authority to begin with\u201d); Brustein v. Lampert,\n\n 2005 WL 8154797, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2005) (noting that \u201cunrelated group members are less\n\n able to fulfil [lead plaintiff] responsibilities\u201d). Moreover, Defendants cited extensive precedent\n\n granting motions to transfer prior to lead plaintiff appointment, which Plaintiff fails to address\n\n here. See ECF 9 (\u201cDefs.\u2019 Mot.\u201d) at 17 (citing City of Birmingham Firemen\u2019s & Policemen\u2019s\n\n Supplemental Pension Sys. v. Pluralsight, Inc., 2019 WL 12496341, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24,\n\n 2019) (\u201cIt is sensible to allow the court that will be presiding over th[e] matter to reach its own\n\n\n 1\n The PSLRA default deadline for the Court to appoint a lead plaintiff is September 28, 2026. See\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3).\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n\n conclusion regarding which plaintiff and counsel are best positioned to represent the interests of\n\n the putative class.\u201d); Garity v. Tetraphase Pharms. Inc., 2019 WL 2314691, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May\n\n 30, 2019) (\u201cBecause the Court grants Defendants\u2019 transfer motion, it will leave the determination\n\n as to the appointment of the lead plaintiff and lead counsel to the [transferee forum].\u201d); In re Target\n\n Corp. S\u2019holder Class Action Litig., 2025 WL 3187126, at *3-5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025) (granting\n\n motion to transfer prior to lead plaintiff appointment)); see also Steck v. Santander Consumer USA\n\n Holdings Inc., 2015 WL 3767445, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2015) (same); Wasson v. LogMeIn,\n\n Inc., 2018 WL 6016283, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (\u201c[T]he Court concludes that the possibility\n\n that a lead plaintiff might prefer litigating in this District is no reason to delay deciding this motion.\n\n This Court has previously decided motions to transfer before motions for lead plaintiff, and we see\n\n no reason to take a different course here.\u201d).\n\n Delaying consideration of the transfer motion until after a lead plaintiff is appointed would\n\n also reward Plaintiff\u2019s counsel for the very gamesmanship the transfer motion seeks to redress.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel already sought appointment as lead counsel on behalf of a different lead\n\n plaintiff in a nearly identical putative class action (that included Plaintiff Reynolds) in the Southern\n\n District of New York. Judge Caproni denied that motion and, after additional briefing, refused to\n\n reopen the lead plaintiff process. Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1 (ECF 9-1). The court explained that\n\n \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s counsel picking exactly who gets to sue, via iterative Lead Plaintiff processes\u201d was\n\n \u201cproblematic\u201d and warned that it would set a \u201cdangerous precedent\u201d if Plaintiff\u2019s counsel could\n\n \u201cproceed fresh with its second favorite candidate\u201d after the court rejected its first lead plaintiff\n\n applicant. Id. Yet that is exactly what Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has done here.2 The Court should require\n\n\n\n 2\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel informed the court in the Genius Action that it had located additional\n \u201cinvestors\u201d who could potentially serve as lead plaintiff, but the court held that did \u201cnot change\n the outcome\u201d of its decision to deny counsel\u2019s request to reopen the lead plaintiff process because\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff and his counsel to respond to the transfer motion now and not after a renewed lead plaintiff\n\n process conducted in contravention of Judge Caproni\u2019s order. Indeed, the obvious party to address\n\n whether Plaintiff\u2019s counsel engaged in \u201cforum shopping\u201d and \u201cgamesmanship\u201d is Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n counsel, not a theoretical different plaintiff \u201cafter the lead plaintiff process.\u201d Pl.\u2019s Mot. at 10-11.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s alternative request to defer the response deadline until 21 days after the deadline\n\n to move for lead plaintiff appointment, i.e., September 18, 2026, is also meritless. Plaintiff\n\n provides no basis (and there is none) for the argument that competing lead plaintiff candidates\n\n would be in a better position to respond to Defendants\u2019 motion, let alone capable of \u201ccoordinat[ing]\n\n any response,\u201d while at the same time contesting each other\u2019s right to represent the putative class.\n\n B. Plaintiff\u2019s Substantive Arguments in Opposition to Transfer Are Meritless\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claimed lack of \u201cauthority\u201d to respond to Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer is also\n\n belied by his own motion, which devotes eight pages to addressing the merits. See Pl.\u2019s Mot. at\n\n 6-13. As set forth below, these arguments similarly fail.\n\n 1. Transfer Is Appropriate Under Both the First-to-File Rule and 28\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a)\n\n Plaintiff attempts to avoid application of the first-to-file rule by arguing that the rule applies\n\n only if two cases were, \u201cat least at some point,\u201d pending simultaneously. But that is not the rule.\n\n As set forth in Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer, the first-to-file rule has three elements: \u201c(1) the\n\n chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the\n\n issues\u201d\u2014none of which require there having been a temporal overlap at some point between the\n\n first- and second-filed actions. IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co., 2026 WL 860531, at *2\n\n (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026) (citation and quotations omitted); see Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 10. Courts have\n\n\n\n the case \u201csmacks of the sort of lawyer-driven litigation that the PSLRA aims to avoid.\u201d Defs.\u2019\n Mot. at Ex. 1 (ECF 9-1).\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n rejected exactly the kind of \u201crigid or inflexible application\u201d of the first-to-file rule as not being\n\n grounded in \u201cprinciples of comity and sound judicial administration\u201d and routinely held that \u201cthe\n\n dismissal of the first-filed action does not preclude a court from using its discretion to apply the\n\n first-filed rule.\u201d IoT, 2026 WL 860531, at *2-3 (collecting cases); Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc., 2022 WL\n\n 2355541, at *23 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL\n\n 3370932 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2022) (\u201cDespite the fact that both earlier-filed Southern District of\n\n New York cases have been dismissed, Defendant has still established the three elements necessary\n\n to invoke the first-filed rule\u2019s application.\u201d). To argue the contrary, Plaintiff cites only to cases\n\n where courts referenced \u201cpending\u201d actions in dicta. See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d\n\n 1132, 1135-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court\u2019s discretion to hear first-filed declaratory\n\n judgment action); Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78\n\n (11th Cir. 2013) (deciding the proper complaint for purposes of the first-filed analysis); Warner v.\n\n Tinder, Inc., 675 F. App\u2019x 945, 947 n.2 (11th Cir. 2017) (referencing it in a footnote while\n\n expressly noting \u201cwe do not decide the issue\u201d). None of Plaintiff\u2019s cases conditioned transfer on\n\n the existence of a pending case in the first-filed forum. Rather, the overwhelming precedent of\n\n this District rejects Plaintiff\u2019s argument because \u201cno binding authority hold[s] that dismissal of the\n\n earlier filed action precludes a finding that any of the three factors necessary for the application of\n\n the first-filed rule exist.\u201d Abreu, 2022 WL 2355541, at *7.\n\n Indeed, imposing such a requirement would directly undermine the first-to-file rule\u2019s\n\n purpose \u201cto conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings\u201d and \u201creward Plaintiff for the\n\n very type of forum shopping\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s counsel have engaged in here. Rojas v. Am. Honda Motor\n\n Co., 2019 WL 6324616, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2019) (ordering transfer where \u201c[i]t is Plaintiff\n\n and his attorneys who filed this very similar action in this district after [another] district court\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n dismissed a virtually identical [] claim\u201d). Plaintiff\u2019s counsel attempted to dismiss the first-filed\n\n Genius Action on June 29, 2026, only to turn around and file this action on the very same day. See\n\n Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 15 (ECF 9-15). As courts have warned, \u201c[s]electively dismissing certain cases\n\n to avoid the application of a doctrine of law must [] be discouraged.\u201d Abreu, 2022 WL 2355541,\n\n at *23; see id. at *5 (finding that \u201cjudicial economy, consistency, and comity weigh in favor of\n\n applying the first-to-file rule\u201d).\n\n In any event, although it is not a requirement for the first-filed rule to apply, the Genius\n\n Action remains pending in the Southern District of New York. The day after Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\n\n sought to dismiss the Genius Action, Judge Caproni issued an order stating that \u201c[t]he Clerk of\n\n Court is respectfully directed not to close this case until further notice.\u201d See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 22\n\n (ECF 9-22). That order and the Genius Action remain active. Plaintiff attempts to avoid that fact\n\n by arguing, contrary to the Court\u2019s decision, that dismissal was \u201cself-executing\u201d under Fed. R.\n\n Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Pl.s\u2019 Mot. at 7-8. But Plaintiff cannot unilaterally overrule a federal judge.\n\n \u201c[T]here may be a point in legal proceedings where the purpose of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) would be better\n\n served by abandoning a literal interpretation.\u201d Century Sur. Co. v. Vas & Sons Corp., 2018 WL\n\n 4804656, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v.\n\n American Cynamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1953). That point is reached where, as here,\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has engaged in blatant forum shopping to avoid an adverse decision from the\n\n Southern District of New York. See Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 303,\n\n 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (\u201cWhile obviously no plaintiff should be forced to litigate against his will,\n\n that does not mean that he is wholly free at his own volition to stop litigation in the court of his\n\n initial choice and begin again in another, regardless of the interests of other parties and the public\n\n interest.\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n The remaining factors under the first-to-file analysis are similarly satisfied. See Defs.\u2019\n\n Mot. at 11-13. The parties are sufficiently similar between this action and the Genius Action, as\n\n there is significant overlap between the two putative classes, the alleged Class Period is the same,\n\n and Plaintiff Reynolds is a member of both putative classes. Plaintiffs in both actions are\n\n represented by the same three law firms, and the actions assert identical Exchange Act claims\n\n based on the exact same alleged manipulative trading and spoofing events, seeking identical relief\n\n against the same Defendants. Plaintiff has not identified any \u201ccompelling circumstances\u201d that\n\n would warrant an exception from the first-to-file rule. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 14. The first-to-file rule\n\n therefore supports transfer.\n\n Even if the first-to-file rule did not apply, transfer is nonetheless appropriate under 28\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a). While Plaintiff argues that the Southern District of Florida is \u201ca forum with a\n\n substantial connection to the alleged misconduct,\u201d Plaintiff does not dispute that the Southern\n\n District of New York would be a proper venue, nor could he. Plaintiff also does not dispute that\n\n much of the relevant alleged conduct took place in New York. Moreover, no factors relevant to\n\n the \u00a7 1404(a) analysis weigh against transfer. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at 14-17. Transfer of this action to\n\n Judge Caproni in the Southern District of New York is therefore also warranted pursuant to\n\n \u00a7 1404(a).\n\n 2. Judge Caproni Should Address Any Issues Concerning the Scope of\n Her Prior Order\n\n In the Court\u2019s decision denying Genius\u2019s motion for lead plaintiff appointment and\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s motion to be appointed lead counsel, Judge Caproni analyzed several\n\n arguments raised by Defendants in opposition to Genius\u2019s lead plaintiff application, including\n\n statute of limitations and reliance defenses. Judge Caproni\u2019s opinion demonstrates her familiarity\n\n with those issues that will again be at issue at the motion to dismiss stage, in particular because\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff and his counsel have filed a substantially identical complaint to the one filed in the Genius\n\n Action. Plaintiff is wrong to characterize Judge Caproni\u2019s order as \u201cconfined to whether Genius\n\n could adequately serve as lead plaintiff in the SDNY Action.\u201d Pl.\u2019s Mot. at 9, 12. Judge Caproni\n\n ruled not only that Genius and Plaintiff\u2019s counsel could not proceed as lead plaintiff and lead\n\n counsel, but, after requesting additional briefing, explicitly, also decided that the lead plaintiff\n\n appointment process could not be reopened at all. See Defs.\u2019 Mot. at Ex. 1 (ECF 9-1) (\u201cAll putative\n\n Class members were given statutorily compliant notice of the opportunity to move for appointment\n\n as Lead Plaintiff. . . . so there is not a crop of potential plaintiffs that the Court expects would come\n\n out of the woodwork now on their own volition.\u201d). Judge Caproni\u2019s order further issued clear\n\n directives on how the Genius Action could proceed and set a schedule to move quickly into briefing\n\n on the merits. See id. (\u201cGenius can\u2014and has indicated that its three law firms will\u2014pursue this\n\n lawsuit.\u201d).\n\n Plaintiff attempts to brush aside this decision by arguing that Judge Caproni\u2019s decision was\n\n \u201cnarrow\u201d and did not reach the merits. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants are trying to\n\n \u201ctransform\u201d Judge Caproni\u2019s order into a \u201cglobal injunction.\u201d These characterizations lack merit.\n\n Judge Caproni clearly held, with respect to a substantially identical putative class that included\n\n Plaintiff Reynolds, that \u201c[a]ll putative Class members were given statutorily compliant notice of\n\n the opportunity to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff\u201d and that the appointment process\n\n should not be reopened. See id.\n\n Plaintiff erroneously claims that this new case materially changes the action and should\n\n have allowed him to ignore Judge Caproni\u2019s order just because it \u201cexpands the pleaded class to\n\n include purchasers as well as sellers\u201d of Genius shares. Pl.\u2019s Mot. at 11-12. The effort to \u201cexpand\u201d\n\n the putative class appears to be a lawyer-driven attempt to avoid the application of Judge Caproni\u2019s\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n ruling in the Genius Action. Plaintiff Reynolds was undoubtedly a class member in the Genius\n\n Action and could have moved for lead plaintiff and filed an amended complaint there, but he did\n\n not. In any event, this argument has no bearing on Plaintiff\u2019s extension request, nor is it an\n\n impediment to transfer.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Defendants\u2019 motion to transfer, the\n\n Court should deny Plaintiff\u2019s request for an extension of time and grant Defendants\u2019 motion to\n\n transfer this action to Judge Caproni in the Southern District of New York.\n\n Dated: July 27, 2026\n MARCUS RASHBAUM PINIERO & MEYERS LLP\n\n /s/ Daniel Rashbaum\n Daniel Rashbaum\n One Biscayne Tower\n 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2530\n Miami, FL 33131\n Tel: (305) 400-4260\n drashbaum@mrpfirm.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC and\n Virtu Americas LLC\n\n SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP\n\n Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice)\n Meredith Karp (pro hac vice)\n Jacob Lundqvist (pro hac vice)\n 425 Lexington Avenue\n New York, NY 10017\n Tel: (212) 455-2000\n jyoungwood@stblaw.com\n meredith.karp@stblaw.com\n jacob.lundqvist@stblaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Citadel Securities LLC\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 1:26-cv-24485-RKA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2026 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n GARRISON LLP\n\n Andrew G. Gordon (pro hac vice)\n Audra J. Soloway (pro hac vice)\n Alison R. Benedon (pro hac vice)\n Daniel S. Sinnreich (pro hac vice)\n Daniel Negless (pro hac vice)\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: (212) 373-3000\n agordon@paulweiss.com\n asoloway@paulweiss.com\n abenedon@paulweiss.com\n dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n dnegless@paulweiss.com\n\n Attorneys for Virtu Americas LLC\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T16:35:41.466994-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030130796","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-27T09:12:41.435326-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T09:12:41.443131-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-27","time_filed":"11:38:28","entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":105,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471953855/","id":471953855,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73548007/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487371592/","id":487371592,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73548007/28/reynolds-v-citadel-securities-llc/","date_created":"2026-07-23T14:36:26.964743-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T14:36:26.972804-07:00","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":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"051030122161","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons (Affidavit) Returned Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-23T14:36:26.945331-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T14:36:26.950378-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-23","time_filed":"17:13:50","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":96,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=73548007&page_size=40"}